Poker is like making love some some you can last for hours and make it to the final table or you muck out on your first hand, no book can help you only experience and play time.
I've was always good at ball games. I started playing golf in the early 70's and over the years I improved to the point where I was (and still am) a single figure handicapper. My son started playing at the age of 12 and I sent him for lessons from day one. He now plays off -2 (that's 2 better than scratch) and I can't live with his game. Poker is no different in my mind. If you have an aptitude for it then you will improve with experience. Reading books by exceptionally talented players will only enhance any natural ability you possess and you will be better for it. Thank goodness Doctors read books and undergo training, sometimes natural ability just isn't enough. Posted by elsadog
Good post, Elsadog !
I can see the obvious benefits of teaching your son golf from the start. But would it have worked as well for you ? Having reached the great level of a single figure handicapper through natural talent, would lessons have helped you ?
From personal experience and the examples of many semi pro players, tuition can have a negative effect, certainly in the short term. Coaches will invariably want to rebuild your swing, and it can result in years in the wilderness. There are examples in the pro game of players who have improved after radical changes, but there are also many instances of people who have lost their game altogether, or reverted to their old natural swing and been successful.
And Mike, dont worry ! oynutter is right that some players may be poisoned by studying, but I dont believe that you got to Vegas by being a sheep. Wolves hunt by instinct, and never lose that. Just remember you are a wolf and keep chasing the sheep !
When I went on my walk last year I didn't play any poker for 8 weeks. But I took 'Winning Poker Tournments One Hand at a Time' Vols I and II in my rucksack and read them both several times on my journey so that I wouldn't get too rusty. When I started playing again my results went through the roof.
My current Sharkscope graph is pictured below (I've filtered out my £220 SSDS seat which I won in the LS freeroll). The blue arrow points to the exact moment I resumed playing after returning the walk. After looking at that graph try telling me that reading those books didn't improve my game!
In Response to Re: Studying poker actually makes you worse.....discuss : Good post, Elsadog ! I can see the obvious benefits of teaching your son golf from the start. But would it have worked as well for you ? Having reached the great level of a single figure handicapper through natural talent, would lessons have helped you ? From personal experience and the examples of many semi pro players, tuition can have a negative effect, certainly in the short term. Coaches will invariably want to rebuild your swing, and it can result in years in the wilderness. There are examples in the pro game of players who have improved after radical changes, but there are also many instances of people who have lost their game altogether, or reverted to their old natural swing and been successful. And Mike, dont worry ! oynutter is right that some players may be poisoned by studying, but I dont believe that you got to Vegas by being a sheep. Wolves hunt by instinct, and never lose that. Just remember you are a wolf and keep chasing the sheep ! Posted by penguin7
Yeah I suppose we are all different and what works for some doesn't for others.
On the note about re-building golf swings I can only offer Nick Faldo - and there I rest my case )
I think one of the more dangerous attributes of a winning poker player is ego
The more you play, the more you know and understand, the more success you have, it becomes easy to deride and under estimate your opponents. If you think you have the edge it becomes pretty hard to play ABC poker because you know alot of the angles and moves.
But yeah, i think knowledge and experience can run interference on your game.
In Response to Re: Studying poker actually makes you worse.....discuss : Yeah I suppose we are all different and what works for some doesn't for others. On the note about re-building golf swings I can only offer Nick Faldo - and there I rest my case ) Posted by elsadog
Yes, Trevino and Nicklaus both had an unconventional loop in their swings while at their most successful, but my favourite example must be Jim Furyk who also has won loads including a major despite having a swing once described as a one armed golfer trying to kill an octopus in a phone box !
But I am sure they all benefited from coaching at some point in their careers
In Response to Re: Studying poker actually makes you worse.....discuss : Yes, Trevino and Nicklaus both had an unconventional loop in their swings while at their most successful, but my favourite example must be Jim Furyk who also has won loads including a major despite having a swing once described as a one armed golfer trying to kill an octopus in a phone box ! But I am sure they all benefited from coaching at some point in their careers Posted by penguin7
Faldo rebuilt his swing and couldn't hit a bulls a*** with a frying pan for a couple of years, then it all paid off and he took the golf world by storm. I take your point about quirky swings and Alex Higgins was the same in snooker. I used to play regularly with the guy who played with Higgins when they were young. He had all the same traits as Higgins and could make a cue ball defy normal physics and that's probably why he was a champion billiards player. Higgins copied this guys style and it was obvious when they played together. I never saw Higgins beat him btw.
The point is these guys are the exception not the norm. For mere mortals coaching/learning improves. Although Higgins was undoubtedly a genius at snooker he was coached, albeit in an unusual style but coached nonetheless.
ps. On a side note I used to play with the guy who coached David Taylor. He had one eye and regularly played with an overcoat on and a bottle of Mackeson in each pocket. Maybe that's why David Taylor never excelled. )
I just think that reading about the tactics of another player in an effort to improve your game, is ultimately bad for the development of your own instinctive game, in other words. I believe that all of your tactics, and every move you make should be as a result of what you have learnt yourself--- If you read a book, it can change your game, therefore, it's no longer your own game, developed by your instincts---- with 20 seconds to act, your game must be instinct, which can't come from a book, winning players are hard to read and have an unorthodox style ( cash grinders can be an exception ), they are playing on their wits, they don't play a game developed by reading a book. Imo, taking notice of anyone else's thoughts on how to play the game, will hinder your development.
Thanks for the comments everyone.......I have decided to go back to playing instictively........last straw just happened in Vegas Qtr....10 left, 4 places......Button had min raised my bb a number of times when I had ABSOLUTE junk....I pick up K8o and tell myself that "the book say this is an above average hand" and so I get involved....the flop comes J high ...I min bet he call.....turn brings K.....I bet expecting raise which comes.....go allin.....he has set of J......I am saying this because if I had played my instinctive way, I wouldn't have been in the hand to hit my K on turn.......I am sure it will take a while to undo all the "learning"......and I will get dog's abuse from some......especially when I suck out......but for ME......maybe not for everone.......but definitely for me.....it's the right thing to do.
Now this is getting scary, dohhh another of your posts that I wholeheartedly agree with...plus this earlier one....Studying poker definitely does not make you worse. It just changes your mind-set/approach to the game, which will make you 'feel' worse when you aren't successful.
I don't think I've ever read anything so ridiculous on here as this....."I believe that studying can make you worse, often you need to think less about the game not more and trust your experience and instinct."
Experience and instinct alone are fine if you're a Jedi but for us mere mortals and most of the top winning players/coaches learning from books alongside other training methods are/were the key to success. Sure there are geniuses that prove the exception but Jeez I've just watched a live seminar during which the presenter said he read more than 50 poker books many of them more than 10 times, and guess what, he's a winning player, a successful coach and the author of several highly regarded poker books. I agree playing is an absolute must but there are a ton of things that will improve your game away from the tables, reading poker books is only part of the learning process.
Another staggering comment IMO....“I just think that reading about the tactics of another player in an effort to improve your game, is ultimately bad for the development of your own instinctive game, in other words. I believe that all of your tactics, and every move you make should be as a result of what you have learnt yourself”
Learning from players that are better than us shortens the learning process, plus its a dam site cheaper than playing LOLufold, lJamesl, Sparce et all all day long to see where we are going wrong.
In short Maggiesdad learning will not make you worse, done correctly it can only improve your game, what it won't guarantee however are results because a couple of lost flips will affect short term results, playing 10,000 hands and losing two all in flips above expectation takes a +2bb/100 player to break even, it really is that close. Maybe that's why it's the fish that are so results orientated over very small sample sizes.
A bankroll is for winning players, a budget is what learning/losing players require.
Not inferring you are a losing player maggiesdad just pointing this out here, BRM gets mentioned on nearly every show but no one states you must be a winning player for it to be relevant.
I think everybody has their own style and reading books can be dangerous as you try to adapt your natural game to incorporate bits you have taken from reading a book.
Although I think the better players would benefit from more studying of the game as they will have enough natural ability and skill to take on the parts which will benefit their game.
Understanding what you are doing is the most importanat thing, not thinking "ah, in the book it said I should bet x amount in this situation" you need to know why you are making a certaine move and not just because you read it somewhere..
So to sum up, studying = good for the better players studying = dangerous/bad for the less gifted players
One more thing..... A bankroll is for winning players, a budget is what learning/losing players require. Not inferring you are a losing player maggiesdad just pointing this out here, BRM gets mentioned on nearly every show but no one states you must be a winning player for it to be relevant. Got that one off my chest. Posted by stien
Hi Stien.......thank you for your responses. No offence taken. I think that I have clarified my own thinking as stated in my other post. I now think I know why instinctive is best for me. I am a reasonably intelligent fella, nothing fantastic but I can walk and chew gum at the same time. However, maybe my poker intelligence is never going to be good enough to take on board the fair and reasonable advice that books/forum's/video's provide.
I think everybody has their own style and reading books can be dangerous as you try to adapt your natural game to incorporate bits you have taken from reading a book. Although I think the better players would benefit from more studying of the game as they will have enough natural ability and skill to take on the parts which will benefit their game. Understanding what you are doing is the most importanat thing, not thinking "ah, in the book it said I should bet x amount in this situation" you need to know why you are making a certaine move and not just because you read it somewhere.. So to sum up, studying = good for the better players studying = dangerous/bad for the less gifted players Posted by cookie83
Don't confuse instinct with sub-conscious learned behaviour. Do you really think people can be born to instinctively play poker correctly?
You have learned the correct thing to do through experience. i.e you have tried a way of playing and gained the positive reinforcement of it winning you money, which caused you to repeat it. loosing plays visa versa.
If you don't read strategy, you won't try any alternative methods as often, and therefore cannot gain the positive reinforcement which would cause you to 'learn' and adopt the methods which are better. Thus improvement of your game would be slowed or halted.
Reading strategy does not necessarily mean you have to adopt that strategy, but it does increase your knowledge about how people play the game, which is equally important to a successful player.
if your just playing for fun and your not bothered about loosing some money winning some money then dont study poker. If you are playing to make a real hardcore profit or playing as a job i would study poker due to then you would make more money in the long run. Posted by JIMMYMAD
Agree 100% I tried reading a couple of books coz i felt that was the thing to do just coz i was playing more every week. However, it felt like studying (hard work ) and i started to lose the enjoyment factor. Packed up the reading and just play for the fun but i also agree with the other post, simply by playing i learn something nearly every game. Should also point out that just visiting the forum a couple of times a week is an education. and listening to the presenters and guests shouldn't be undervalued. Thought provoking question ! Hope you have fun at the tables whatever
HI Mike, very interesting thread. IMO the problem with reading books can sometimes be the conflicting advice given by players with different styles. For example, Harringtons books are , to a degree, all about survival wheras Eric Lindgre is about playing with a very aggressive style. I dont think tha treading books makes you a worse player, what someone reading a book needs to do is to use advice that suits your own playing style. It is very difficult to change the way you instintively play and have immediate effect. And i fully agree with your statement regarding bankroll and being able to comfortably afford to lose a couple of buy ins.
What a brilliant thread, I really enjoyed reading everybodies comments. I have heard other players say the same "Reading books have made my poker worse". I do not believe this, you can only gain knowledge by reading books, playing the game for years and having a bit of luck. I personally was more fortunate as a beginner(beginners luck they say). But having played a lot of poker and read a lot of books , my game has improved tremendously, what lets me down is not having enough patience and discipline and my game starts to go to pot when I get bored.
Comments
I can see the obvious benefits of teaching your son golf from the start. But would it have worked as well for you ? Having reached the great level of a single figure handicapper through natural talent, would lessons have helped you ?
From personal experience and the examples of many semi pro players, tuition can have a negative effect, certainly in the short term. Coaches will invariably want to rebuild your swing, and it can result in years in the wilderness. There are examples in the pro game of players who have improved after radical changes, but there are also many instances of people who have lost their game altogether, or reverted to their old natural swing and been successful.
And Mike, dont worry ! oynutter is right that some players may be poisoned by studying, but I dont believe that you got to Vegas by being a sheep. Wolves hunt by instinct, and never lose that. Just remember you are a wolf and keep chasing the sheep !
My current Sharkscope graph is pictured below (I've filtered out my £220 SSDS seat which I won in the LS freeroll). The blue arrow points to the exact moment I resumed playing after returning the walk. After looking at that graph try telling me that reading those books didn't improve my game!
(click to enlarge)
The more you play, the more you know and understand, the more success you have, it becomes easy to deride and under estimate your opponents. If you think you have the edge it becomes pretty hard to play ABC poker because you know alot of the angles and moves.
But yeah, i think knowledge and experience can run interference on your game.
But I am sure they all benefited from coaching at some point in their careers
In Response to Re: Studying poker actually makes you worse.....discuss:
Now this is getting scary, dohhh another of your posts that I wholeheartedly agree with...plus this earlier one....Studying poker definitely does not make you worse. It just changes your mind-set/approach to the game, which will make you 'feel' worse when you aren't successful.I don't think I've ever read anything so ridiculous on here as this....."I believe that studying can make you worse, often you need to think less about the game not more and trust your experience and instinct."
Experience and instinct alone are fine if you're a Jedi but for us mere mortals and most of the top winning players/coaches learning from books alongside other training methods are/were the key to success. Sure there are geniuses that prove the exception but Jeez I've just watched a live seminar during which the presenter said he read more than 50 poker books many of them more than 10 times, and guess what, he's a winning player, a successful coach and the author of several highly regarded poker books. I agree playing is an absolute must but there are a ton of things that will improve your game away from the tables, reading poker books is only part of the learning process.
Another staggering comment IMO....“I just think that reading about the tactics of another player in an effort to improve your game, is ultimately bad for the development of your own instinctive game, in other words. I believe that all of your tactics, and every move you make should be as a result of what you have learnt yourself”
Learning from players that are better than us shortens the learning process, plus its a dam site cheaper than playing LOLufold, lJamesl, Sparce et all all day long to see where we are going wrong.
In short Maggiesdad learning will not make you worse, done correctly it can only improve your game, what it won't guarantee however are results because a couple of lost flips will affect short term results, playing 10,000 hands and losing two all in flips above expectation takes a +2bb/100 player to break even, it really is that close. Maybe that's why it's the fish that are so results orientated over very small sample sizes.
One more thing.....
A bankroll is for winning players, a budget is what learning/losing players require.
Not inferring you are a losing player maggiesdad just pointing this out here, BRM gets mentioned on nearly every show but no one states you must be a winning player for it to be relevant.
Got that one off my chest.
I think everybody has their own style and reading books can be dangerous as you try to adapt your natural game to incorporate bits you have taken from reading a book.
Although I think the better players would benefit from more studying of the game as they will have enough natural ability and skill to take on the parts which will benefit their game.
Understanding what you are doing is the most importanat thing, not thinking "ah, in the book it said I should bet x amount in this situation" you need to know why you are making a certaine move and not just because you read it somewhere..
So to sum up, studying = good for the better players
studying = dangerous/bad for the less gifted players
You have learned the correct thing to do through experience. i.e you have tried a way of playing and gained the positive reinforcement of it winning you money, which caused you to repeat it. loosing plays visa versa.
If you don't read strategy, you won't try any alternative methods as often, and therefore cannot gain the positive reinforcement which would cause you to 'learn' and adopt the methods which are better. Thus improvement of your game would be slowed or halted.
Reading strategy does not necessarily mean you have to adopt that strategy, but it does increase your knowledge about how people play the game, which is equally important to a successful player.
or some i'm told
Should also point out that just visiting the forum a couple of times a week is an education.
and listening to the presenters and guests shouldn't be undervalued.
Thought provoking question !
Hope you have fun at the tables whatever
HI Mike, very interesting thread. IMO the problem with reading books can sometimes be the conflicting advice given by players with different styles. For example, Harringtons books are , to a degree, all about survival wheras Eric Lindgre is about playing with a very aggressive style. I dont think tha treading books makes you a worse player, what someone reading a book needs to do is to use advice that suits your own playing style. It is very difficult to change the way you instintively play and have immediate effect.
And i fully agree with your statement regarding bankroll and being able to comfortably afford to lose a couple of buy ins.
I have heard other players say the same "Reading books have made my poker worse".
I do not believe this, you can only gain knowledge by reading books, playing the game for years and having a bit of luck.
I personally was more fortunate as a beginner(beginners luck they say).
But having played a lot of poker and read a lot of books , my game has improved tremendously, what lets me down is not having enough patience and discipline and my game starts to go to pot when I get bored.