A Thought I Just Had (psych/theory)

[AlfilRey]

The thought is a pretty simple notion, and I´m guessing anyone with a mathematical/logical mind has thought about it at some stage or another.

I´m not very well informed on the matter, but I heard recently that the human brain can trigger the thinking, rational side, or the emotional side depending on the situation. Perhaps this has something to do with why people struggle with the O.P´s point.

If someone checkraises you repeatedly, or if you can´t flop a single pair with AK against the same crazy fish who doesn´t fold a hand it changes nothing.

However, poker is a collection of situations. Some are pleasant, others will make you ecstatic. Then there´s a tonne which make you want to throw up.

I think the reason why ppl struggle to adopt the point of view that Jman talks about is because after a while of coping with a string of ugly situations, their brains switch from the objective rational thought process, to the emotional side...

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
This is basically waht gigabet said in his sucess/failure post. might want to reread it.

[/ QUOTE ]

jman studied in the analytic and continental traditions of philsophy, not that weird Eastern [censored], [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Personally I think jman should reread his own posts, lol. Like fallacy of running bad and the others that are actually pretty spot on in terms how one's thinking towards poker needs to be solid.

Yugoslav

[wpr101]

[ QUOTE ]

To explain further, I'm not saying that you shouldn't call for 1/3 of your stack preflop with 55 praying to flop a set. We all know that.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you have the skills of David Williams you can do this profitably.

[blainestar]

[ QUOTE ]
This is basically waht gigabet said in his sucess/failure post. might want to reread it.

[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying that every time we miss a card or hit, or they c/r, we shouldnt care at all. It's all the same thing; Just something that happens that we have to respond to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically think that way since I play in games where I have 100+BI bankroll. Its the only way for me to acvheve that state.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is basically waht gigabet said in his sucess/failure post. might want to reread it.

[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, I think I'm saying something different, but this is a great post nonetheless:

Almost There with Success and Failure

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
jman i feel like i know what you're trying to say, but i'm not so sure. lemme know if you agree with this?

if you're saying what i think you are, you're basically just saying that everything evens out in the end...so hoping for a certain card to fall/complaining about a bad beat is a waste of time/energy? or in other words, wrt to the, 'Don't hope your opponent bets the turn so you can checkraise.' statement - you're saying as long as you are making the play you think has the highest EV, if it doesn't work out one time it's really nothing to be mad about again because in the long run it will work out and show a profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you have it pretty much.

For me, ideally, it's approaching poker as a complex mind game that you want to win. You win by making the best decision as often as possible. That's the only measure of your success.

The main thing that got me thinking about this was noticing the thing that most players do, where they check the river with a marginal hand and say to themselves, "Check behind. Check behind." Then the villain bets and they think "[censored]. Ass. [censored]. Weiner."

All that happened is that they now have one more opportunity to make a good decision in the hand. There shouldn't be a good reason to be mad at the opponent betting. It's just another point in the game.

A chess player doesn't get mad when his opponent makes a move and then hits the little clock thing just because he has to move again. That's how the game works. It's just his turn again.

[Phresh]

lmao weiner

[Eagles]

Jman,

I understand what you are saying about making the right decisions but I'm having some trouble with your analogy because the reason why we say as you so eloquently put it

Check behind. Check behind." Then the villain bets and they think "[censored]. Ass. [censored]. Weiner."

When this happens obviously we can still make the right decision and lose the least possible but at the same time the minute villain bets it's like you have lost.

Perhaps thinking about it from a sports perspective it would be like watching a basketball game and at the buzzer one team puts up a shot it goes in and your team loses. Perhaps villain betting the river is the equivalent of that shot going in which makes us upset.

I understand there is a difference because in the basketball game once the shot goes that is the end of the game and another mistake could not be made but perhaps we get upset and still make the right decision.

[NLSoldier]

jman,

the way i apply this thought is minimizing the table every time i get all in preflop. it works wonders as far as not going on tilt when you ahve 99 vs AA or w/e and the board comes xx9xA.