psychology of poker

[daveT]

You are reading reviews where people are nit-picking. That example is beyond my comprehension. It is not comparable to the sentence the critic is trying to debunk.

Against rocks you must adjust accordingly. Stealing antes is going to be your focus, but as Schoonmaker is saying, you must be patient, disciplined and selective of your spots. There is nothing wrong with what Schoonmaker has written. If I use context the way this reviewer does, I can make TOP look like a roll of toilet paper.

At the beginning, Schoonmaker says that he learned to play poker to observe players. He said that he was a winning small stakes live player. It is doubtful that the average Vegas 2/4 game looks like the VFW picnic you describe.

If you learn to take the sentence you do not seem to like, and take the time to understand it, you will see the wisdom of it. Although you may read Stox and see a bunch of loose plays and call downs, they are all based in patience, discipline and *selective aggression.

In final, I think that this book would be good for you. It seems like you need to learn how to balance different concepts and learn how to apply them .You are taking great examples and smearing them based on what, I assume, are losing player's opinions.

[ohio]

[ QUOTE ]
If you learn to take the sentence you do not seem to like, and take the time to understand it, you will see the wisdom of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

apparently i understand the sentence better than you do. it says you should gauge how loose or how tight a player by the looseness/tightness of the other players at that table. that is absurd and pointing that out is hardly nit-picking. if you think/play that way, you'll lose lots of money at poker.

[ QUOTE ]
It is doubtful that the average Vegas 2/4 game looks like the VFW picnic you describe.

[/ QUOTE ]

i never said it the average game was like the described game. the described game is an extreme example used to illustrate the dangers of thinking about poker in the way schoonmaker suggests. if you understand the dangers of playing in the described game then you stand a better chance of understanding the dangers of schoonmaker's bad advice.

[ QUOTE ]
In final, I think that this book would be good for you. It seems like you need to learn how to balance different concepts and learn how to apply them .You are taking great examples and smearing them based on what, I assume, are losing player's opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks, but i'll go with the general consensus and skip this book.

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
thanks, but i'll go with the general consensus and skip this book.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's too bad. I thought it was the best source of informaiton on why people play the way they do despite the fact that both you know and they know that they lose money over the long run when they play that way. It's one thing to know that a guy is loose/passive, or loose/aggressive, or tight/passive, or tight/aggressivebut, but it's another (and better) thing to understand why he plays that way and how you can spot it, and profit from it.

All the "strategy" complaints are silly. It's not a strategy book. Any strategy information is only used to explain a point in the text. Basically, the book contends that tight/aggressive play with the intent to make money by maximizing EV is the best style of play. LDO. But people still play those other styles in live games (badly) all the time. And TA does not equal weak-tight.

As I said earlier, I play live mostly. And just about everything he says still has relevance in the live games that I play.

Is it common sense stuff? Maybe. But I learned a lot. I think it's a great read for an intermediate player trying to understand via the quizes what motivates him to play poker, and what motivates many of the other people that he's in the game with.

[daveT]

Red Diamond has a legitimate complaint. When we plunk down $30 for a 2+2 book, we have a certain expectation in quality. We expect something ground-breaking, new, and thought-provoking. This is where POP falls flat on it's face. It is for this reason that winners of poker moneys don't like this book.

[daveT]

Ohio, this is the second time that you have tried to debunk me with incomplete arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you learn to take the sentence you do not seem to like, and take the time to understand it, you will see the wisdom of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

apparently i understand the sentence better than you do. it says you should gauge how loose or how tight a player by the looseness/tightness of the other players at that table. that is absurd and pointing that out is hardly nit-picking. if you think/play that way, you'll lose lots of money at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that you don't believe every one on this forum for more than 2 years knows less than you. I also play poker for a living, and I can assure you that I would have to do some very bad things with my bankroll for you last sentence to be true.

The thinking is not absurd. I cited why it is not absurd. You have to get it out of your head that a LAG will go to a tight table and destroy them. This is a terrible myth, that no matter how much it is debunked on this forum, in books, and with actual stats, many players will never be able to wrap their brains around.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is doubtful that the average Vegas 2/4 game looks like the VFW picnic you describe.

[/ QUOTE ]

i never said it the average game was like the described game. the described game is an extreme example used to illustrate the dangers of thinking about poker in the way schoonmaker suggests. if you understand the dangers of playing in the described game then you stand a better chance of understanding the dangers of schoonmaker's bad advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I defer you to my previous points.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In final, I think that this book would be good for you. It seems like you need to learn how to balance different concepts and learn how to apply them .You are taking great examples and smearing them based on what, I assume, are losing player's opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks, but i'll go with the general consensus and skip this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not fault you in your choice. I do not know the exact target of this book. But it is clearly a beginner's book (hint, hint).

I do not understand why you feel the need to sling mud and argue with me. I am taking the time to tell you things that many players will never understand, yet, you, a new poster, living in a state where gambling is heavily frowned upon, and playing poker is illegal, feel the need to argue with people that have more experience and knowledge than you.

What is dangerous is not realizing that poker, even at small stakes, is a subtle game that takes a lot of time to master. It is also dangerous to look at something, read misguided opinions, and state that you are correct because someone wrote something that made sense to you. The reality is that this game makes absolutely no sense to a beginner, even though you think it does at this point. Every new thing I learn, I am faced with another mystery. There is no point where I will tell you I know it all. Please hold the same respect for other posters.