skill v natural ability

subzero1

How much natural ability do you need to be successful at this game.Can you read every book going watch every video.Learn every possible stratagy for every possible situation and still be no good.The reason i ask is because i must had done all the above.I no about premium hands position etc etc and still i lose i even lose at micro stakes.As i only play mainly micro stakes these days i can handle the losses but it can get a little tiring having to reload again and again.A while ago i had quite a run where i built up my stake to over £200 i thought it was skill but it was the most unbelievable run of good fortune and inevitably i ended up over time giving it all back.So i now reckon my bad play is the fact i have absolutely no natural ability whats so ever and after playing the game for 4 years now i realise i never will have.

TeddyBloat

Given that poker is in theory solvable [albeit using more computer power than we have] I'd say it is a game of skill. Maybe some people have a more natural intuition regarding spotting people's betting pattern s or visualising or estimating ranges and optimal frequencies, maybe some people are risk averse, or intuitively have a feel for risk paradoxes like the ellsberg, montty hall, or alais  problems. But I don't believe that there's anything innate other than the natural advantages that some people have as discussed above. 

There are parallels to chess, but whereas I don't think you'll ever see a grandmaster lacking  certain innate traits such as incredible memory, focus and rationality, I dont think poker is anywhere near as complex as chess and the luck element also means that although some may have a natural advantage there aren't barriers to decent success like there are to someone deciding to become a professional athlete or chess player late in life

Cheers, TEDDY

JockBMW

The beauty about this game is that the basics, ABC poker can turn you into a profitable player.  Yes natural ability is useful in most sports, but I would say in Poker it is better to be able to grasp the fundemantals of the game and anyone can do that.

Yes there will always be players , the likes of Tom Dwan, who are just insanely good at the game right from the off.  However you dont have to beone of them to be profitable at this game 

rancid

90% Educated learning
10% Natural ability


I could turn anyone into a winning player at nl4 in 1 week.

Slipwater

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

Given that poker is in theory solvable [albeit using more computer power than we have] I'd say it is a game of skill.Posted by TeddyBloat

I agree poker is mostly a game of skill, Teddy, but I'm not sure what you mean by it being solvable. A large part of the game is about the cards in your opponent's hands and/or their ability to represent a hand that isn't. That being the case, I don't know how you can mathematically 'solve' it.

JockBMW

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

90% Educated learning 10% Natural ability I could turn anyone into a winning player at nl4 in 1 week.
Posted by rancid

Have you seen me Play ;o)

RyanC7

1% skill, 90% luck, 8% instinct, 1% rigged

LARSON7

Hey Subzero,

Definatly check out Craigcu's diary, which shows his ups and downs playing low stake cash,4nl and 10nl.

Also, it's good you have read a lot/ studied up on poker, but sometimes it's hard gaining information from a book when a lot of it in a real game will depend on your opponents and reads.

Another good thing to do is use the poker clinic, at the end of a session load up your biggest winning hands and losing hands and loads of players will give you feedback on your hands/ positives or any mistakes made.

A brilliant way to help anyone improve!

Playing low stakes, start from scratch, play an ABC style of poker to start with and see how it goes. Biggest thing while playing low stakes, be really aggressive with your strong hands. If you get any resistance, re-evaluate, often when people show aggression at the lower stakes they have it. Don't be scared to fold Top pair good kicker, and even hands like 2 pair on scarey boards.

Slykllist

It's an interesting question, as Teddy points out above, in theory the game is solveable (mathematically speaking), which means that there must be a 100% optimal way to play which if adopted and adhered to should always result in a profitable outcome over time.  Again in theory if 2 players were to play against each other and play 100% optimum poker, over time they would both break even (minus the rake that the house takes).

The interesting thing about poker is that of all of the players that understand this and that have studied as you have all of the books, videos and forums etc.... Pretty much none of them play 'optimally' we all adopt our own playing styles based around our understandings of the fundamental principles of the game.  Therefore the skill of the game or the 'edge' you can gain over your opponents is not necessarily purely in a deeper understanding of the principles or the maths of the game, but in your ability to understand how your opponents are playing the game and making adjustments in your play to exploit their weaknesses.

This is where the very best players find their advantage and it's a real skill that definitely comes more easily to some than it does to others, but is certainly something that can be learned and improved upon by studying the game.  I remember when I was first learning, I was watching a lot of poker on TV and I remember an interview with Phil Ivey where he was talking about gaining an edge over his opponents and improving his game.  He said that in every single hand, even when he had folded and was not involved in the pot he would study the actions of every player at the table and would try to work out what hands they were playing, what their betting patterns meant, any habitual leaks or tells etc...  It's something that's always stuck with me and something I've always tried to do myself and is a really great discipline to practice both to improve your hand reading ability and also to keep yourself fully focussed on the game.

rancid

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

It's an interesting question, as Teddy points out above, in theory the game is solveable (mathematically speaking), which means that there must be a 100% optimal way to play which if adopted and adhered to should always result in a profitable outcome over time.  Again in theory if 2 players were to play against each other and play 100% optimum poker, over time they would both break even (minus the rake that the house takes). The interesting thing about poker is that of all of the players that understand this and that have studied as you have all of the books, videos and forums etc.... Pretty much none of them play 'optimally' we all adopt our own playing styles based around our understandings of the fundamental principles of the game.  Therefore the skill of the game or the 'edge' you can gain over your opponents is not necessarily purely in a deeper understanding of the principles or the maths of the game, but in your ability to understand how your opponents are playing the game and making adjustments in your play to exploit their weaknesses. This is where the very best players find their advantage and it's a real skill that definitely comes more easily to some than it does to others, but is certainly something that can be learned and improved upon by studying the game.  I remember when I was first learning, I was watching a lot of poker on TV and I remember an interview with Phil Ivey where he was talking about gaining an edge over his opponents and improving his game.  He said that in every single hand, even when he had folded and was not involved in the pot he would study the actions of every player at the table and would try to work out what hands they were playing, what their betting patterns meant, any habitual leaks or tells etc...  It's something that's always stuck with me and something I've always tried to do myself and is a really great discipline to practice both to improve your hand reading ability and also to keep yourself fully focussed on the game.
Posted by Slykllist

If we mention optimum/GTO and then we mention exploitative play - the two are not the same

Both are a skill to be developed, while GTO is heavily embedded in maths while expolit is soley game flow.

The greatest skill is to marry them together and you essentially have your prefect poker player

While a compupter in years to come may solve NL hold em, it could not solve expolitative game play.

So if in years to come when hold em is solved, who would be more profitable....

PC playing GTO

or


Human playing GTO & exploitative poker


...

Slipwater

Yeah, I don't think you can 'solve' something that involves human thought processes and/or responses to situations.

K8LOU

First of all let me point out that it is refreshing to see someone admitting they are making mistakes, I beleive you are already on your way to becoming a winning player as you understand you have leaks, I would never say if you read all the books and study the game constantly that is enough to become profitable, 1 thing I would point out is you need to develop your own style, your own feel for the game so you can find your edges over your oppenents, you wont get this in a book or a training video. If i was you I would focus on putting more hours into actually playing poker as this will always be your best tool for learning ! anyways gl with it all

Slykllist

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability : If we mention optimum/GTO and then we mention exploitative play - the two are not the same Both are a skill to be developed, while GTO is heavily embedded in maths while expolit is soley game flow. The greatest skill is to marry them together and you essentially have your prefect poker player While a compupter in years to come may solve NL hold em, it could not solve expolitative game play. So if in years to come when hold em is solved, who would be more profitable.... PC playing GTO or Human playing GTO & exploitative poker ...
Posted by rancid

You seem to be re-iterating the point I was making?

Slykllist

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability : If we mention optimum/GTO and then we mention exploitative play - the two are not the same Both are a skill to be developed, while GTO is heavily embedded in maths while expolit is soley game flow. The greatest skill is to marry them together and you essentially have your prefect poker player While a compupter in years to come may solve NL hold em, it could not solve expolitative game play. So if in years to come when hold em is solved, who would be more profitable.... PC playing GTO or Human playing GTO & exploitative poker ...
Posted by rancid

Very interesting question, in theory the perfect GTO would be unexploitable, that said I'd have my money on the human!

rancid

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability : Very interesting question, in theory the perfect GTO would be unexploitable, that said I'd have my money on the human!
Posted by Slykllist

If they played each other the PC would win hands down

I am saying if they were to go and play for a year versus humans who would be more profitable

rancid

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability : You seem to be re-iterating the point I was making?
Posted by Slykllist

Well kinda, there is obvious skill in both GTO poker and exploitative poker.

Combine the skills together and boooooooooom!

Slykllist

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

Yeah, I don't think you can 'solve' something that involves human thought processes and/or responses to situations.
Posted by Slipwater

There is not a single situation in poker that's outcome is not mathematically calculable, therefore the game is 'theoretically' solveable, this is an inarguable fact.

Slipwater

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability : There is not a single situation in poker that's outcome is not mathematically calculable, therefore the game is 'theoretically' solveable, this is an inarguable fact.
Posted by Slykllist

I agree that poker is maths, but human response to any given situation cannot be solved. If you put all your chips in the middle, I either call or fold. No computer in the world can know what I am going to do.

Slykllist

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability : I agree that poker is maths, but human response to any given situation cannot be solved. If you put all your chips in the middle, I either call or fold. No computer in the world can know what I am going to do.
Posted by Slipwater

I completely agree, it also has absolutely no bearing on the point in question.

rancid

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability : I agree that poker is maths, but human response to any given situation cannot be solved. If you put all your chips in the middle, I either call or fold. No computer in the world can know what I am going to do.
Posted by Slipwater

The computer will not care what you do because you will make more mistakes than a computer playing GTO - just like you would versus a competant GTO human...

unless you play perfect poker!

F_Ivanovic

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability:

In Response to Re: skill v natural ability : There is not a single situation in poker that's outcome is not mathematically calculable, therefore the game is 'theoretically' solveable, this is an inarguable fact.
Posted by Slykllist

Suppose we are facing a player who is a huge calling station. We hold a really strong hand OTR... how much do we bet? Now an overbet AI may well be the correct play here, but how is a computer going to mathematically calculate that - without knowing any info about the player?