my 2+2 article: mid-stakes reaction?

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
silent: True fish can't tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I get this. If a given player is bad to begin but plays worse as the session goes on doesn't that mean he is tilting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. True fish definitely do tilt by playing even worse than normal. In fact almost all true fish do tilt all the time.

[jackflashdrive]

Jackson and aislephive: A 'true fish' (i.e., someone completely naive about poker) would not be able to *play* worse over time. He might be doing well in the begining and then begin losing money with acccelerating speed. This is only natural as other players realize that their assumptions are off and begin to adjust and take his money (which probably makes him angry, since he has no insight into this dynamic). (He might even begin playing differently -- in addition to being angry -- but he can't be off his game because he has no game).

A 'true fish' might be nothing more than an abstract theoretical construct. Surely every poker player brings *some* knowledge to the table that he could conceivably disregard when on tilt. But this theoretical fish is useful none the less to illustrate my point (and I should add that I've met a number of players that make me question the assumption that everyone brings some knowledge to the table).

Edit: I will add that in my experience the primary manifestation of whale tilt is an escalation in the stakes of a game that they are already losing. I think if you look at my article, the definition of tilt that I came up with probably encompasses this behavior.

[aislephive]

The definition of tilt, as I understand it, is any time you let emotions get in the way of poker and play worse than normal. This can happen to anybody no matter how good or bad, fish or pro. Tilt isn't only subject to winning players. Quite a few players are losers because they tilt.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
The definition of tilt, as I understand it, is any time you let emotions get in the way of poker and play worse than normal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird.

[jackflashdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
The definition of tilt, as I understand it, is any time you let emotions get in the way of poker and play worse than normal. This can happen to anybody no matter how good or bad, fish or pro. Tilt isn't only subject to winning players. Quite a few players are losers because they tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I address this to some degree in the magazine article. From the article:


****

"Tilt defined

As I have argued, a bad definition of tilt would assume that a person on tilt is necessarily emotional. By contrast, a useful and encompassing definition of tilt will stick as closely as possible to the observable behavior of someone on tilt, without making unnecessary assumptions about the underlying process. I offer the following:

Tilt is when a gambler who wants to make the most money he can over the course of a gambling situation employs a wagering strategy other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation."


****


I agree of course that many players are losers because they tilt. But I believe these sorts of players are more likely to be found on tables in which tilt control is one of things that tends to separate the profitable from the unprofitable (where at lower stakes fundamental play more often separates profitable from unprofitable).

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The definition of tilt, as I understand it, is any time you let emotions get in the way of poker and play worse than normal. This can happen to anybody no matter how good or bad, fish or pro. Tilt isn't only subject to winning players. Quite a few players are losers because they tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I address this to some degree in the magazine article. From the article:


****

"Tilt defined

As I have argued, a bad definition of tilt would assume that a person on tilt is necessarily emotional. By contrast, a useful and encompassing definition of tilt will stick as closely as possible to the observable behavior of someone on tilt, without making unnecessary assumptions about the underlying process. I offer the following:

Tilt is when a gambler who wants to make the most money he can over the course of a gambling situation employs a wagering strategy other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation."


****


I agree of course that many players are losers because they tilt. But I believe these sorts of players are more likely to be found on tables in which tilt control is one of things that tends to separate the profitable from the unprofitable (where at lower stakes fundamental play more often separates profitable from unprofitable).

[/ QUOTE ]

So what, you're saying true fish don't make what they believe to be the best play generally? I don't agree with that at all. Most fish are playing how they think the game should be played. A relatively small portion of fish are purposely throwing money away with no regard to playing well.

Most fish do not know they're fish, they think they're awesome poker players. While they may play like [censored], you better believe how they play is in their opinion, good. If what you said were true, then all true fish (whatever that means) would know that they are fish.

[bet2win]

Most midstakes+ fish have fundamentals in their game they just have a few large gaps

They definately do tilt when they lose big pots and get sucked out on.

It's why you often see some fish say at 600NL with $2k then after a couple of beats he will just unload the rest of his stack by making mega bad plays (shoving allin pre with random hands)

[jackflashdrive]

aislephive: Two questions: (1) What did I say that leads you to think that I believe fish don't think they are trying to play the best they can? (2) What did I say to imply that "all true fish (whatever that means) would know that they are fish."

Bet2win: I understand your point to be that at MSNL there are fish who both tilt and have big gaps in their game plan. I agree with this, but I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Tilt is *more important* at MSNL because there are *fewer* fish with obviously exploitable leaks in their game and so tilt becomes something that *helps* separate winners and losers (moreso than at lower levels where people would still be making many money losing plays *irrespective* of tilt).

[aislephive]

If the player is trying to win and deviates from a strategy or a play that they believe is optimal, that according to you, is tilt. Correct?

Now you say fish cannot technically tilt, because they don't have a solid game to deviate from to begin with.

Let's look at your definition of tilt:

"Tilt is when a gambler who wants to make the most money he can over the course of a gambling situation employs a wagering strategy other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation."

The key is in bold. It is only relative to that players ability. If somebody believed folding AA preflop was the most optimal strategy, but for some reason decided to play AA one sunday morning, that according your definition, is tilt. It doesn't matter at all that his normal strategy of folding AA preflop is retarded. In his opinion, illogical as it may be, folding AA preflop is the right move.

Even according to your own definition, true fish do tilt. That is, unless you believe that true fish are only players who do not care about winning or losing and do not try to play to the best of their ability. I would say that is a very wrong definition of "true fish", however, and I'm sure you think so as well.

Logically, a true fish (let's use our silly definition from above and say true fish are only those who don't actively pursue the best game they can play) would know that they are a fish (a bad player) because they purposely play sub-optimally. They may not realize this until you tell them, but nonetheless they would almost certainly believe this to be true.

That should answer those questions you asked, and then some.

[smurfitup]

Very interesting article. I remember I discussed this very concept with a psychology professor of mine a couple years ago. However, I find it unlikely that real cases of tilt can exist without any emotional component. The examples you give might contribute to a form of subtle tilt (e.g. calling an all-in with a flush draw if you're only getting 1.7:1), but the impulsive and self-destructive actions that characterize most tilters must have a basis in something beyond how we simply perceive our wins and losses at the poker table. I'd imagine significant tilting might occur when the the predictions of prospect theory work in combination with the emotional effects that these perceived losses have on us. But attributing a gambler's self-destructive actions to errors in the way his brain processes a loss or gain seems simplistic.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that prospect theory can explain minor differences in a person's play after a win or a loss, but the sense of outrage/entitlement that a person feels probably plays a much stronger role in inducing poor and self-destructive play.