psychology of poker

[deacsoft]

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?

[daveT]

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.

[deacsoft]

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.

[ohio]

[ 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.

[deacsoft]

[ 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.

[daveT]

[ 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.

[Doc T River]

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?

[ohio]

[ 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.

[daveT]

[ 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.

[ohio]

[ 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.