improving at poker v. improving at chess

[siegfriedandroy]

lately i've been learning chess, and also have been thinking about the best and most efficient techniques for improving at poker (i play shorthanded limit). while i think chess is by far more difficult at become 'proficient' at (interpret 'proficient' how you will), i also believe the process for improving at chess is fairly straightforward. there are tons of quality books, and through extensive study, dedication, etc, anyone with reasonable intelligence can definitely improve (although it does take much effort).

with poker, the path to genuine improvement does not seem anywhere near as clear cut. there are a couple of okay books out there, but imo there is likely a ton of pertinent and critical info that simply is not sufficiently addresed anywhere in the relatively sparse (compared to chess) poker literature that exists. i am speaking primarily of limit, since that is my primary game, but i suspect the same is true of no limit, based on what i have read so far (HOH and SS - haven't yet read theory and practice). i enjoyed thfap and sshe (and patterned my game after these). but playing strictly according to these texts will not likely make you a winning player imo, especially if you play short. neither deals in depth with blind play, which is obviously the most important aspect of the shorthanded game. postflop, these books will provide a good foundation, but will not make you anywhere near expert. hopefully the new shorthanded/hi limit books will be very good.

anyway, just trying to formulate a good plan for taking my game to the next step, and frustrated b/c the road to improvement seems so nebulous, especially compared to my chess studies. i have read tons of hand posts here, made some of my own, but don't really see all that much value in them. while there are surely some extremely good posters, there are also many mediocre ones, and imo it's often seemingly impossible to discern the difference. i guess there is some merit in reading gazillions of hand posts, just to get you thinking a bit about the different arguments and theory on important situations. but overall, it seems inefficient to me. i have not had coaching yet, but definitely intend to in the near future. guess that is my plan for now. coaching, plus intensive study of the new sh book. anyway, that's enough for now. just thought i'd post my thoughts.