Understanding of the game

[thekernel]

With the current climate of poker, how profitable do you think a player without a good understanding of poker can be?

For example, can he be a winning 2/4 player? 3/6 player?

If so, how successful? What are people's thoughts on the limit to a good player's potential earning power if he lacks a good understanding of poker? Or is a player who lacks a good understanding of poker by definition a bad player?

[thekernel]

Another thing I am interested in is how one gains a greater understanding of poker. Clearly on 2+2 most people have read all the books, they have several thousand posts and have played hundreds of thousands of hands. What separates these players' understanding of the game?

I think a large part of improving one's understanding of the game is to constantly evaluate situations (no matter how basic) and to try to understand optimal play in terms of hand histories. So...

1) How do great players approach posting in hand threads?
2) What thought process do great players undertake when discussing optimal strategy of play in a hand?

[Keepitsimple]

NL holdem is a very big game. Nobody understands it and can play non exploitable yet. However many know a lot of "tactical" moves to make money.

[MATT111]

It seems I view it alot different than most here.
For me "understanding of the game" means being able to think about it in an abstract sense. Understanding odds, implied odds, impact of blinds, position, betting structures, optimal play, whatever...
Knowing what to do in internet MSNL is a different case. You can do very well w/o having a very good understanding of those things.

[LearnedfromTV]

I think understanding of the game necessarily implies the ability to succeed in different game conditions and in multiple games. The general poker fundamentals - knowing your hand, your opponent's range, your equity versus that range, how your equity will develop through the hand depending on additional cards, what actions will both maximize your profit and manipulate your opponent's perception of your range, and how all of these flow from the betting and ante/blind structure. These are universal; we could play poker with random variables as easily as with cards; people who understand this, who understand Chen/Ankenmann's book, etc have "understanding of the game."

I don't think there are very many people in the world with this kind of understanding. I do think something like 15-25% of 2p2ers have a passable understanding of these ideas and understand why thinking about poker that way is worthwhile. But very few *really* get it. I definitely don't, but I think I fall in that 15-25%, as do something like half of the regular MSNL posters.

I actually think the best limit players are further along on than the best NL players, because that game is being played much closer to game-theoretically optimal at the highest level. I don't mean that aba, durrr, strasser, etc. don't have "understanding," only that solid HSNL winners can be sloppier about it than solid LHE winners.

[Hattifnatt]

good post LearnedfromTV,

a little OT: someone told me that he improved his game and how to think etc. much from reading Mathematics of Poker. I have the book but havent read it yet. It is someone on here that have read the whole thing and did improve lots from it (or thought it was a waste of time)?

[LearnedfromTV]

I thought this thread would be a lot longer by now.

Had a couple more thoughts

- Having understanding means both having a theoretical framework and understanding how to fill in the details for specific games and opponents. Theoretical framework being the Mathematics of Poker stuff, game-specific details ranging from card-based probabilities (odds of being dealt certain hands, how often draws come in, etc.) to action-based probabilities (equity versus range, etc.).

-Most of the better one-game specialists, such as winning msnlers, have a basic theoretical framework, but only use it to understand the details of their game, rather than all games, which means they can adjust well to changes in game conditions in their game, but don't understand other games in the same way.

-The first 2p2 poster who comes to mind is VanVeen.

[HEK]

[ QUOTE ]
-The first 2p2 poster who comes to mind is VanVeen.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah this guy is just amazing in his posts

[poker12]

I was amazed when a friend of mine contacted some good posters from midstakes & high stakes about midstakes coaching....... to only find out they played lower limits then him.

[cianosheehan]

After trying to teach a few friends how to play winning poker, I've come to realise how many elements are involved in being a consistent winner, and how so many people will just fail at this. It's made me appreciate more what it takes to be any kind of winner...and this does take considerable understanding of the game. There are varying levels of understanding of course