psychology of poker
 

i've been playing cardroom poker for a year now and am interested in how psychology might enter into the game. would alan schoomaker's psychology of poker be a worthwhile read?

Re: psychology of poker
 

Some people like it, some do not. I remember when if first came out the general consensus was that it was a worthwhile read. I don't think it will kill you to read it, but I don't think it has any truly useful insight, either. But I digress.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
general consensus was that it was a worthless read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: psychology of poker
 

I think you should go for Ace On The River instead

Re: psychology of poker
 

If I'm a bit tilted, I'll read some of Dr. Schoonmaker's books. Calms me down and I'm on my way.

That said, it's worth reading, but it's not worth $30 either.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
general consensus was that it was a worthless read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: psychology of poker
 

thanks all. i was checking out other 'net sites and also found generally disapproving comments there. it sounds like there are serious flaws witht the books strategy advice.

Re: psychology of poker
 

As to its value, well it was published by 2+2- that should be a clue. Its major flaw has been that it has been heavily mined by others so that you may already be familiar with much of the contents from osmosis. I'd say the main value is earning to recognize your opponents' styles and more importantly your own. You are supposed to take a hard look at your own style of play and continue from there, making a conscious decision whether you want to play a fun or a winning game.

Re: psychology of poker
 

I thought it was a great book.

It makes a lot more sense if you play live since it was written for and about live play. For examples, the loose-passives described in his book are a fixture at B&Ms, but not so much on-line.

I think a new edition that examines the same issues but includes why people play the way they do on line in addition to why and how people play live might be a good update. I think there are similarities, but they are not the same.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
general consensus was that it was a worthless read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where were you guys when I wrote stinging reviews of this book and read about how much of an idiot I am?

I admit that I wrote the review in the psych forum a few years back. They did NOT appreciate my thoughts.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
general consensus was that it was a worthless read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where were you guys when I wrote stinging reviews of this book and read about how much of an idiot I am?

I admit that I wrote the review in the psych forum a few years back. They did NOT appreciate my thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hehe ... well here in the books forum, I've always flamed this book (that and the suzuki ... from an otherwise excellent 2+2 library)

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say the main value is earning to recognize your opponents' styles and more importantly your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

the way the book categorizes your opponents' styles is a major problem according to some critics. if nearly all your opponents are seeing 90% of the flops and one opponent "only" sees 80% then that one opponent is a "tight" player according to this book.

the same flawed reasoning also applies when the book teaches you how to recognize your own playing style.

Re: psychology of poker
 

If you want a sample of Dr. Al's writing, there is plenty of free stuff in CP.

Re: psychology of poker
 

I think this is a book that every poker player should read early. There are plenty of books to help you with strategy but this book can fill some other voids. If you're at all familiar with psychology you might have heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The pinnacle of the hierarchy is self-actualization. This book can bring you closer to self-actualization in a poker sense. It's important to understand the things Dr. Schoonmaker describes in this book. The fact that so many people give it such a bad rep on this forum leads me to believe the quality of regular posters we have is continuing to decline. How can so many read a book about poker psychology and then trash it when they know little to nothing about psychology?

Re: psychology of poker
 

I think that many posters have a pop psych. I study Jungian psychology, and whatever model works for people is what works for them. If they cannot agree with his thinking, then that is on them.

My reviews were not pleasant, but I exaggerate when I say they were stinging. I basically said that much of it was common sense and a safe read. As in, you could not possibly disagree with it. I think that something that will not make you think is less valuable than something that you may disagree with when you are talking about soft science.

When you read a real psych book, you will disagree with it at one point, or accept the harsh reality it is trying to present. This is why there are several camps of psychology.

I do not like POP because it does not present anything that cannot be found with simple common sense, cannot be argued with, and does not challenge the reader to think.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can so many read a book about poker psychology and then trash it when they know little to nothing about psychology?

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps people are trashing its non-psychological advice. when the book might lead you to conclude a player who sees 80% of the flops is a "tight" player, then that is just wrong. and theres plenty of other bad strategy suggestions as well.

Re: psychology of poker
 

You make some very valid points. I wish others were as descriptive when stating their opinions. I think that we can all agree that this book, like most others, will be valued differently by readers. That is a fact that I believe should be stated when recommending it or not. Posts that say something like "worthless" and not much else give the person posting the question very little to work with and are, of course, completely incorrect. It may have been worthless to them, but the person looking for opinions may find it to be the most valuable book they've read. What's common sense to one may be rocket science to another.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can so many read a book about poker psychology and then trash it when they know little to nothing about psychology?

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps people are trashing its non-psychological advice. when the book might lead you to conclude a player who sees 80% of the flops is a "tight" player, then that is just wrong. and theres plenty of other bad strategy suggestions as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case it should be clearly stated in their post.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that we can all agree that this book, like most others, will be valued differently by readers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Trial by fire. If you like it, great. If not, return it. I do not think that this book should be weighted on any of the strategy advice it is giving (I doubt it says an 80% vpip is tight), but how useful the concepts are to you. This book is very helpful to some, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I can't comment on the strat advice because it has been a long time since I looked at it. I don't think it had any, and I doubt Mason and co. would allow blatant inaccuracies go to print, especially since this book is geared toward a limit player, their expertise.

As an example of what may be obvious to me, but not so much to someone else:

POP talks about the Stone Cold Killer, and how this sort of player could improve not only his game, but how to maintain a pleasant atmosphere. Many tight players have no chance of winning even a 2/4 game because he gets no action. There are plenty of people on the B&M forum that would have a large return on investment with this concept alone. To me, since I am such a nice person (?), how to play tight and not be a jerk is plainly obvious, so it holds no benefit to me. I also understand that being civil, not complaining, and holding an actual conversation with the scuzz balls at the table can be profitable. I don't really see people as scuzz balls. If you agreed with that sentence, then you are probably the target audience for this book.

Re: psychology of poker
 

Could it be that POP was written during a different time, does not translate to present day well, and people who don't like the book are judging it based on current conditions as opposed to looking at it from a historical perspective?

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't comment on the strat advice because it has been a long time since I looked at it. I don't think it had any, and I doubt Mason and co. would allow blatant inaccuracies go to print, especially since this book is geared toward a limit player, their expertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

if the book doesnt contain strategy advice then why is sklansky listed as its strategy consultant? schoonmaker, at times anyway, seems to think the book contains strategy advice:

[ QUOTE ]
Your local [tennis] pro will watch the way you play, then tell you how to improve both your strokes and your strategy. This book will do exactly the same thing for your poker. (P. 2.)

[/ QUOTE ]

to his credit, schoonmaker doesnt claim to be a strategy expert.


[ QUOTE ]
(I doubt it says an 80% vpip is tight)

[/ QUOTE ]

you are right that it doesnt specifically say a player seeing 80% of the flops is tight. but thats the conclusion readers should reach if the rest of the table is seeing 90% of the flops...assuming you take schoonmaker's advice:

[ QUOTE ]
The average player varies from game to game, and the definition of the more extreme types should be adjusted accordingly. For example, if about half of the players in a game call on third street (in stud) or before the flop in hold 'em or Omaha), then the average player (on looseness) is someone who calls about half the time. If more or less players call, then the average and all other ratings must be adjusted upward or downward. (Pp. 78-79.)

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
*Compare people to your usual game, not to some idea of how they "should" play.* If, for example, about half of the players see the flop in your hold 'em game, someone who sees about half the flops would be rated "5" [average] on the loose/tight dimension. You might think that only three people should see the flop, but you have to adjust to the players in your own game, not in some ideal one. (P. 82.)

[/ QUOTE ]

if schoonmaker had actually followed his advice to its logical conclusion, i hope he, malmuth, and sklansky all would have realized it was blatantly wrong. looseness and tightness shouldnt be measured relative to the rest of the table.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
if schoonmaker had actually followed his advice to its logical conclusion, i hope he, malmuth, and sklansky all would have realized it was blatantly wrong. looseness and tightness shouldnt be measured relative to the rest of the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to TOP and SSHE, the amount of hands, and how you play them are based on several factors, including: The Size of the Ante.

If you are playing a large Ante game, then it is mathematically better for you to play more hands, as you are getting better immediate odds, implied odds, and better late street odds to draw.

I know you are going to argue that Hold'em has no ante except in tournament play. However, if you are playing in a game with 90% of the people seeing the flop, then your effective ante is going to be 9 SBs. You are now receiving 10-1 break even odds on your hand. If you are in the small blind, then you are receiving 19-1 break even odds in your hand.

Compare to a game with two players limping. You are now receiving 3-1 immediate odds.

With that conclusion, you are supposed to play looser.

However, the above has no relevance to what you are questioning, but I am assuming that is where you are stuck.

What Dr. Al is observing is that some players play TIGHTER THAN AVERAGE. If you sit at a table with every one seeing 70% of the flop. Then a tight player would only be seeing half the flops. I think that POP only wants to explain why this player is not willing to play looser, why this player is not playing more aggressive, why this player is not playing tighter, etc. This player probably thinks he is playing correctly because he read somewhere that he is supposed to play tight, although he is playing incorrectly. The meat of the book is trying to describe why this player is playing tighter than the rest. I am not sure how deep it goes, but I remember that Dr Al gives advice on how this player can improve, and why this player plays an inhibited game.

The book is broken down into four groups. TAG, LAG, TAP, LAP. He talks about what each player does, why they do it, and then makes suggestions to how each can help there own game.

I know I already stated that I don't like this book, but any perceived strategy advice is not the blame. I still don't understand how the two excerpts you gave are talking about strategy.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know I already stated that I don't like this book, but any perceived strategy advice is not the blame. I still don't understand how the two excerpts you gave are talking about strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

you might want to check out this thread. it discusses the opposite situation: when you are in a game full of rocks and you play only slightly looser.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's consider an extreme scenario, just to make the flaws of this approach very obvious. Suppose you are in your usual game at the local VFW, where all your opponents are granite rocks. Outside of the big blind, nobody calls more than five percent of the time. Bets or raises are rarer than a kind word about "them damn draft dodgers."


As the only exception, you see the flop with your big blind and ten percent of your other hands. You also bet or raise about ten percent of the time.


According to Schoonmaker, you're a maniac. You'll lose lots of money "because poker rewards patience, discipline, and *selective* aggression, while you are impatient, undisciplined, and *promiscuously* aggressive." (P. 137.)


You're probably addicted to the action (p. 141), but if you can change, you should calm down, tighten up, and reduce your aggression. "Nothing will improve your game faster than tightening up." (P. 146.) Being selectively aggressive, though, "is almost as important as tightening up." (P. 146.)

[/ QUOTE ]

as you can see, schoonmaker is giving strategy advice: calm down, tighten up, reduce your aggression. the problem is its exactly the wrong advice. just because you're looser and more aggressive than the rest of the table, that doesnt necessarily make you a loose-aggressive "maniac".

in this case, you're still an overly tight-passive player. instead of tightening up, you need to loosen up. instead of reducing your aggression, you need to increase it.

Re: psychology of poker
 

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.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
The book is broken down into four groups. TAG, LAG, TAP, LAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, its:

TAP - Tight Aggressive Player
LAP - Loose Aggressive Player
TPP - Tight Passive Player
LPP - Loose Passive Player

The people who are panning the book are reading it like I read Math textbooks in college (and most 2+2 strategy books are like math textbooks). This one is more like a Sociology textbook - it's general value is greater than the sum of every individual piece of information.

This book is for people who have a decent grasp of the technical strategy fundamentals and need to improve their ability to determine why their opponents make the incorrect plays they do - to eventually do a better job of reading bad players' hands.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
general consensus was that it was a worthless read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I just completed reading it this weekend. It is not my hobby to insult 2+2 or its writers, but I will not hold back the warning to my friends to not waste their time or winnings on this book.

I don't know, I assume i expected something along the lines of levels of order thinking, or combating psychological wars in tuff poker games. Perhaps a few indepth chapters on the whole, 'He's thinking what I'm thinking what he's thinking...' sort of thing. Or at least something new...

Unfortunatly it was rather a simplistic "Rate what kind of of the 4 possible players you are." And then, a repeat of what is good/bad about that style.

ARggg, this is really rather basic. Even if there was a part II book to this primer book, I don't think I could pick it up now.

Re: psychology of poker
 

I think it's a bit unfair for you to say, "I will not hold back the warning to my friends to not waste their time or winnings on this book" given the circumstances you listed.

Your post reads like you had an assumed idea of what the book should be about before you read it. Then you read it and found out that it was not about what you thought it should be. Then you didn't like it.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ 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.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ 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.

Re: psychology of poker
 

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.

Re: psychology of poker
 

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.

Re: psychology of poker
 

To answer your question, this book is worth reading. You might get a lot from it, a little , maybe you personally will get nothing. You might see something that helps your game or helps you think or may not see how any of it applies.

But, it is worth reading. Asking advice is dicey from a large group of people you don't know. And it can be hard in some instances to advise someone you don't know.

Find someone's opinion you trust and value and ask that person. OR, find a publisher and or author you like and if it will apply to your game or poker in general, read it.

Ie. If it is published by 2+2 and not game specific to a game I don't play, I buy it. Or if it's by another author I have learned to respect, ie. Roy Cook, Bobby C. etc. I get it. Right now, awaiting 2+2's next release and Tommy's book.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]

Your post reads like you had an assumed idea of what the book should be about before you read it. Then you read it and found out that it was not about what you thought it should be. Then you didn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sums up half of the criticism that is posted daily on this forum.

Re: psychology of poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your post reads like you had an assumed idea of what the book should be about before you read it. Then you read it and found out that it was not about what you thought it should be. Then you didn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sums up half of the criticism that is posted daily on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true. And that's just a shame.
[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]