psychology of poker

[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.

[daveT]

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.

[ohio]

[ 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.

[pa3lsvt]

[ 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.