psychology or math?

[bourbenz 0]

Which do you think is a more important aspect of poker, the psychology or the math?please explain

[nealdo17 0]

I think math at a lower level is more important and the fundamental to poker. Once you reach a higher level, psychology plays a huge role. I personally believe psychology becomes more important in the final stages of tournament play as well. I guess in summation, you have to have the math to get started and be consistent, but to become great you have to bring th epsychology along. Math is more important because you can play and be profitable at math alone. My opinion

[Polle67 0]

"Poker is alot like sex, everone thinks they are the best, but most don't have a clue what they are doing!" Great reply !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TruePoker 1]

Got to be psychology. I am pretty good at math but it's simple mathematics, very simple. I think even the worst players would be able to do the math.I would say discipline is most recquired at lower levels and then Psychology and actions are most recquired at higher levels. I am not a high level player but I would expect that to be the case.

[justblaze 0]

Got to be psychology. I am pretty good at math but it's simple mathematics, very simple. I think even the worst players would be able to do the math.I would say discipline is most recquired at lower levels and then Psychology and actions are most recquired at higher levels. I am not a high level player but I would expect that to be the case.

its not that simple. Math is far more important in terms of being a 'good' player, but psychology is far more important in terms of becoming a 'great' player. you cant expect to win without the math, and you cant expect to dominate without the psych.

[TruePoker 1]

Totally agree with Just Blaze, however I think the math is still pretty simple and can be picked up within a month easily.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Totally agree with Just Blaze, however I think the math is still pretty simple and can be picked up within a month easily.

The question is which is more important, not which is harder to learn.Justblaze hit the nail on the head. If you want to be a winning player, you must learn the math (especially at limit). If you want to dominate, you must learn the psychology.

[justblaze 0]

Totally agree with Just Blaze, however I think the math is still pretty simple and can be picked up within a month easily.

the basic math, yes. But theres a lot of math involved that people never learn. Stuff like implied odds, reverse implied odds, effective odds, calculating hidden outs, optimal bluffing percentages, value-bet EV, Opponent holding ranges, these are mathematical concepts which elude your average player, but which i would classify as 'math concepts' which are essential tools for any good player.

[711Buddha 0]

You need to understand the math to know how to apply the psychology. Its possible to be a winning player on math alone if the competition is weak enough.

[No_Neck 0]

Everything that Justblaze is talking about is well documented in Small Stakes Hold'em. I got it on friday read it and applied sunday and it works.Turned 90 into 170 in three hours at the 2/4 table

[sirch1 0]

Got to be psychology. I am pretty good at math but it's simple mathematics, very simple. I think even the worst players would be able to do the math.I would say discipline is most recquired at lower levels and then Psychology and actions are most recquired at higher levels. I am not a high level player but I would expect that to be the case.

its not that simple. Math is far more important in terms of being a 'good' player, but psychology is far more important in terms of becoming a 'great' player. you cant expect to win without the math, and you cant expect to dominate without the psych.

I agree with this. I think you can be a winnning player if you know the math and know when is the best time to get your money in statistically but if you want to make to the next tier you need the psychology part down. You never see champion pros who don't make outstanding reads it just doesn't happen if your a champ thats what you do.

[Vanillathunder 0]

A good mix, just like everyone else said.It gets very "mathy" in MTT's in certain situation, especially figuring out if calls are worth your while early on. Later on, the psychology part becomes PARAMOUNT when you get later on. When blinds get large, your reads become important because people bet value and not necessarily the best hand, you *have* to pick up on that.Cash games are much different, especially no limit. It's not alot to bet $100 in tourney chips on a bluff or to call a marginal (but very good) hand where you think you're ahead. It's MUCH different when it's real money. Not a lot of us are pro or can afford to blow a few grand a night playing and as much as we'd like to deny the emotional attachment to money sometimes it creeps in when you say to yourself "I'm putting $100 on a not-so-sure-thing, should I *really* do this?"When you can conquer that and/or be able to read that weakness in others you'll be a very skilled player.I always look at it like this...Step 1, learn the math.Play a lot of REALLY low limit.Step 2, learn the psychology.Bump up the stakes, play for mid-level (for you) stakes.Step 3 , Learn how to mix the two.When you're making a steady profit, move up the stakes.

[ghoti7four 0]

The more complex your thinking becomes the more difficult it is to distinguish between what is pure math or pure psychology. When you begin to assign number values to things like: possible range of hands for my opponent, you have combined statsitics with intuition (or experience... which proves statistics). Psychology and math are two different ways to describe 1. experience and 2. expectation. A really solid player IMO begins to blur the lines between these two. That is why some people have a problem with Sklansky or Brunson (or whoever you think represents either side)... they each see the nuances of poker as a purely mathematical or psychological proposition. They are usually both right in any situation insofar as you agree with their terms, but they are both far too polarized in the way the talk about poker.

[Guest]

luck

[justblaze 0]

luck

the swan song of a losing player...

[bourbenz 0]

Totally agree with Just Blaze, however I think the math is still pretty simple and can be picked up within a month easily.

the basic math, yes. But theres a lot of math involved that people never learn. Stuff like implied odds, reverse implied odds, effective odds, calculating hidden outs, optimal bluffing percentages, value-bet EV, Opponent holding ranges, these are mathematical concepts which elude your average player, but which i would classify as 'math concepts' which are essential tools for any good player.

this was what I was getting at! I would say on average 75 percent or better don't use this level of math!I guarantee there are a lot of pros who don't, I would think that understanding the math and being able to apply it quickly and effectively would give someone an extreme edge over a player who relies on psychology but doesn't use the math as much.

[bourbenz 0]

The more complex your thinking becomes the more difficult it is to distinguish between what is pure math or pure psychology. When you begin to assign number values to things like: possible range of hands for my opponent, you have combined statsitics with intuition (or experience... which proves statistics). Psychology and math are two different ways to describe 1. experience and 2. expectation. A really solid player IMO begins to blur the lines between these two. That is why some people have a problem with Sklansky or Brunson (or whoever you think represents either side)... they each see the nuances of poker as a purely mathematical or psychological proposition. They are usually both right in any situation insofar as you agree with their terms, but they are both far too polarized in the way the talk about poker.

great point of view I've never really thought of it that way!