Jump to content

poker ability


Recommended Posts

My question is what do you consider to be a tougher person to play against:(A) A person who is book smart. Person who reads books, plays by the books, and things of that nature. or(B) A person who just picks up the game and seems to be more of a natural at it. Plays on instinct, doesn't do all the prescribed moves.Another part to this is which one do you consider yourself and which one would you rather be if you had to choose between the two. I know a lot of people consider themselves both but if you had to pick one of the choices what would you choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think B is tougher to play against. If you recognize that someone plays directly by the books it's easy to take advantage of it. At least in low limit.I'm neither. I'm trying to be both but have a lot of work to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Speedz, assuming they're a good player I think the 2nd is certainly more difficult to play against. If you know someone plays exactly by the book you can exploit that. Personally, I feel that I'm some combination of the two. I've gotten something out of books, but most of my postflop play tends to be my own. Not entirely sure why that is, but that's the way I seem to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean: is it easier to play against somebody who's predictable or tricky? Obviously it'd be easier to pay against a predictable player.But a good book would tell you to play unpredictably, vary your play and understand your table imagine. So you can play by the book and be unpredictable.Also if a person is a "natural" or has "instinct" this is because he/she already understands what someday else has written in a book. Like Speedz said, you need to do both to be really great, study books and play a lot of hands. I like to play against people who do neither :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd much rather play against the "booksmart" player.First, such players really are predictable, especially if you can suss out which particular books they have read. Yes, those books tell their readers to mix up their play to be unpredictable. In general, though, the readers don't do this, and so tend to be very predictable.Secondly, booksmart players often subscribe to the fallacy that there is one correct way to play a particular hand. When you don't play your hand "correctly" and you beat the booksmart player, they often are prone to tilt, making them easier to beat.Thirdly, booksmart players often don't think about the real game very much. The game in their mind is the game they read about in the book. The real game is diffferent from the game in the book, and this means that the booksmart player is making mistakes that can be exploited.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd much rather play against the "booksmart" player.First, such players really are predictable, especially if you can suss out which particular books they have read.  Yes, those books tell their readers to mix up their play to be unpredictable.  In general, though, the readers don't do this, and so tend to be very predictable.Secondly, booksmart players  often subscribe to the fallacy that there is one correct way to play  a particular hand.  When you don't play your hand "correctly"  and you beat the booksmart player, they often are prone to tilt, making them easier to beat.Thirdly, booksmart players  often don't think about the real game very much.  The game in their mind is the game they read about in the book.  The real game is diffferent from the game in the book, and this means that the booksmart player is making mistakes that can be exploited.
Dumb, dumb, stupid, dumb, ignoramus, dumb.I'm a total booksmart player. A real one. I know all the math, I use the math, I understand all the theory. I'm no superstar, but I've developed a winning style of play based purely upon experience and the sklansky/malmuth/miller books. I've taken those ideas and their advice, integrated it with basic hand-reading ability, and basic math, and come up with a "correct" way to play every hand. There IS a correct way to play every hand, whether you think so or not. To argue against this is ignorant. Based on the reads you make, the math you do, and the cards you see and hold, there is always a perfect play (or multiple equally perfect plays).Dumb, dumb, stupid, dumb, ignoramus, dumb.Ice
Link to post
Share on other sites

The options are loaded to favor the 'natural', obviously - probably because the OP considers himself to be one. "Book smart" players arent necessarily predictable. There's plenty written on deception. It's like people who say that they "usually" make plays based on their EV (i've heard this). Usually? What are you doing hte other times? A bluff isn't NOT a move to maximize one's expected value. Realizing the efficacy of it is a perfectly relevant skill that is covered in many books.You could easily weight the question the other way.A guy who can read people like a book, but doesn't know jack shit about how to play versusA guy who can't read people well, but has the mechanics down to a science

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumb, dumb, stupid, dumb, ignoramus, dumb.I'm a total booksmart player. A real one. I know all the math, I use the math, I understand all the theory. I'm no superstar, but I've developed a winning style of play based purely upon experience and the sklansky/malmuth/miller books. I've taken those ideas and their advice, integrated it with basic hand-reading ability, and basic math, and come up with a "correct" way to play every hand. There IS a correct way to play every hand, whether you think so or not. To argue against this is ignorant. Based on the reads you make, the math you do, and the cards you see and hold, there is always a perfect play (or multiple equally perfect plays).Dumb, dumb, stupid, dumb, ignoramus, dumb.Ice
Ok, I am with iceman on this. Booksmart is an edge, ... a big edge. Practical experience sharpens that edge. I played a long time, thinking I was pretty hot stuff, until I decided to really improve after a good satelitte at a major tournament.So I hit the books and started thinking about poker.A few years later, after doing a lot of reading and study, I shook my head and wonder *how* I could have been so deluded to think I was a good player.Learning, thinking, and doing poker is the path to improvement, IMHO.Back when I was playing chess and studying to improve my game, the subtlties that separated the A-class players (average suburb chess club champs) from the Experts or masters was like the Grand Canyon, except the A-class players thought it was a short jump.I remember a quote in one of T.J. Cloutier's books describing the "local champions" coming in to the WSOP, and stating that it was a very big step up, comparing it to the difference between high school footbal (or was that college ball?) and pro football.This farm boy is not going to argue with T.J. Cloutier.There are a lot of skills needed to get better. In fact, a very, very old poker player I used to run into in Vegas (almost blind, name of Jackson, the dealer said he used to be a great player) used to say that in order to improve in poker you had to learn some playing skills in order to gain the perspective to not play that way any more.I saw this in chess a lot so I have kept this gem polished in case that old poker player was right.So the booksmart player has a lot of skills to build on and some skills he will have to lose to get better is my guess.I actually prefer to play the mediocre instinctive players, if only because so far I find they oscillate between extremes of looseness and tightness.That said, I actually enjoy playing anyone. How else can you improve unless pitting yourself against a broad spectrum of players and trying to learn some element of their particular poker skill set?To improve, you need a base. That base can be the instinctive base or the booksmart base. I think the booksmart is a broader base and that it can be obtained a lot faster than the instinctive base, but that is only my opinion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is a lot more interesting than you'd first expect. Here's why.Lately ive played with a few "respected" payers in the poker world (i.e. Mason Mallmuth, Roy Cooke, and a few other high limit cash game players). At first impression I thought I would have to play very well when I was in a pot with these players. My first impression was far from accurate. Believe it or not, Mason Mallmuth is a BAD PLAYER! So is Roy Cooke. Both players made multiple mistakes and some of the mistakes were big mistakes...like full big bet mistakes.I was on Mason's right all night in a 30/60 game and he is a poor hand reader and really an all around bad player (dont get me wrong, he probably beats the 30 game at bellagio). Every time I see him post at 2+2 he makes smart and accurate posts and every book that he helped write is full of great information but somehow he doesnt apply it in the game. Some players KNOW how to play really well but dont. Mason for instance and Roy Cooke as well. Other players, like the high limit player i mentioned, are too emotional and tilt easily. These are all "book smart" players that are supposed to know beter, right?.A person that acts on instinct is good but is missing logic and probably passes on a few small edges because he is unknowledgable in certain math and thoery parts of the game. He is able to read hands well which is probably enough to beat the game but he still isnt "getting the best of it".The thoery that a book smart player is better because instinct is learnable is entertaining but probably wrong. Good players apply what they know (ALL OF WHAT THEY KNOW) in each situation and make THE CORRECT DECISION every time. Just because you know how to come across the correct decision doesnt mean you do it.I'd play them both. 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumb' date=' dumb, stupid, dumb, ignoramus, dumb.I'm a total booksmart player. A real one. I know all the math, I use the math, I understand all the theory. I'm no superstar, but I've developed a winning style of play based purely upon experience and the sklansky/malmuth/miller books. I've taken those ideas and their advice, integrated it with basic hand-reading ability, and basic math, and come up with a "correct" way to play every hand. There IS a correct way to play every hand, whether you think so or not. To argue against this is ignorant. Based on the reads you make, the math you do, and the cards you see and hold, there is always a perfect play (or multiple equally perfect plays).Dumb, dumb, stupid, dumb, ignoramus, dumb.Ice[/quote']Ok, I am with iceman on this. Booksmart is an edge, ... a big edge. Practical experience sharpens that edge. I played a long time, thinking I was pretty hot stuff, until I decided to really improve after a good satelitte at a major tournament.So I hit the books and started thinking about poker.A few years later, after doing a lot of reading and study, I shook my head and wonder *how* I could have been so deluded to think I was a good player.Learning, thinking, and doing poker is the path to improvement, IMHO.Back when I was playing chess and studying to improve my game, the subtlties that separated the A-class players (average suburb chess club champs) from the Experts or masters was like the Grand Canyon, except the A-class players thought it was a short jump.I remember a quote in one of T.J. Cloutier's books describing the "local champions" coming in to the WSOP, and stating that it was a very big step up, comparing it to the difference between high school footbal (or was that college ball?) and pro football.This farm boy is not going to argue with T.J. Cloutier.There are a lot of skills needed to get better. In fact, a very, very old poker player I used to run into in Vegas (almost blind, name of Jackson, the dealer said he used to be a great player) used to say that in order to improve in poker you had to learn some playing skills in order to gain the perspective to not play that way any more.I saw this in chess a lot so I have kept this gem polished in case that old poker player was right.So the booksmart player has a lot of skills to build on and some skills he will have to lose to get better is my guess.I actually prefer to play the mediocre instinctive players, if only because so far I find they oscillate between extremes of looseness and tightness.That said, I actually enjoy playing anyone. How else can you improve unless pitting yourself against a broad spectrum of players and trying to learn some element of their particular poker skill set?To improve, you need a base. That base can be the instinctive base or the booksmart base. I think the booksmart is a broader base and that it can be obtained a lot faster than the instinctive base, but that is only my opinion.
I think this is a really, really great post. I think for myself that books helped me become an ok player much faster than if I'd played on my own. In fact, I don't know if i'd ever have beena good player without them. But you have to branch out from that base. For a whle, I thought alot about this.. I thought alot about some oe the hyper aggressive players in my games, and how some of them ( I percieved)to be winners.. and they certainly didn't play ABC...So I started playing like a maniac for a while. Raising, andre raising with all kinds of different hands.. it was an amazing experience. I had to play marginal hands, in all kinds of situations, and it forced me to be constantly making reads, and laydowns.. it was very hard. Ultimatly, It was a losing experement. And I had to gear down again... to tight up, butstill stay aggressive. IN the end, it has made me a much, much better player. I think alot of players i see, that don't read books, that play lots of hands, and lots of hands aggressively, if they ever do tighten down a bit, read a bit, will be much, much better players in the long run than book players. Most people who ridgid playing standards, are alike an open book.. while they can beat the loose games, if they stay tight, and don't go on tilt ( and most book players start to tilt badly when their class 1 and 2 hands get beat) will have problems moving up in limits..
Link to post
Share on other sites

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however...."Reading a book, studying it, and attempting following its prescriptions does not necessarily make one a good poker player. In the first place, the book can contain mistakes. (Just ask Mason Malmuth about any book not published by 2+2....) Secondly, the reader of the book can and quite often does make mistakes in understanding the book and putting its precepts into play.David Sklansky's hold'em hand-ranking schema has probably done more to inhibit serious poker players' development than any other factor in poker. Why? Because by its nature, and by the way Sklansky and Malmuth write about how to use it, it encourages a cookbook approach to pre-flop hold'em play. When you play according to a cookbook, you become easy to read, and you are not adaptable to changing game conditions. Moreover, the S&M cookbook approach does not encourage actually thinking about the game. The reason to throw offsuit KJ away under the gun in a full game is not that it's a Group 5 hand and you can't open with Group 5 unless you're in middle position or later. Rather, you don't open UTG with KJo because the jack is a weak kicker in that spot, and the essence of hold'em is that it's a game of high cards and high kickers. But Sklansky and Malmuth don't actually tell you this.There is a difference between how the books say one should play and how most book players actually play. Where S&M advise us to "usually raise", the typical book player will always raise. What subtleties there are in the S&M cookbook are usually erased by the typical book player's implementation. This makes the typical book player very easy to put on a hand.The greatest book about poker ever written begins with the line "Poker is a game of people." The game is about people, not about rigid and inflexible "correct play".When I started playing public cardroom poker, I devoured every book I could get my hands on. It made a difference in my play, kept me from losing too much as I learned the game. At the same time, though, reading books limited me: it kept me from looking for the subtleties of the game that aren't in any books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumb' date=' dumb' date=' stupid, dumb, ignoramus, dumb.I'm a total booksmart player. A real one. I know all the math, I use the math, I understand all the theory. I'm no superstar, but I've developed a winning style of play based purely upon experience and the sklansky/malmuth/miller books. I've taken those ideas and their advice, integrated it with basic hand-reading ability, and basic math, and come up with a "correct" way to play every hand. There IS a correct way to play every hand, whether you think so or not. To argue against this is ignorant. Based on the reads you make, the math you do, and the cards you see and hold, there is always a perfect play (or multiple equally perfect plays).Dumb, dumb, stupid, dumb, ignoramus, dumb.Ice[/quote'']Ok, I am with iceman on this. Booksmart is an edge, ... a big edge. Practical experience sharpens that edge. I played a long time, thinking I was pretty hot stuff, until I decided to really improve after a good satelitte at a major tournament.So I hit the books and started thinking about poker.A few years later, after doing a lot of reading and study, I shook my head and wonder *how* I could have been so deluded to think I was a good player.Learning, thinking, and doing poker is the path to improvement, IMHO.Back when I was playing chess and studying to improve my game, the subtlties that separated the A-class players (average suburb chess club champs) from the Experts or masters was like the Grand Canyon, except the A-class players thought it was a short jump.I remember a quote in one of T.J. Cloutier's books describing the "local champions" coming in to the WSOP, and stating that it was a very big step up, comparing it to the difference between high school footbal (or was that college ball?) and pro football.This farm boy is not going to argue with T.J. Cloutier.There are a lot of skills needed to get better. In fact, a very, very old poker player I used to run into in Vegas (almost blind, name of Jackson, the dealer said he used to be a great player) used to say that in order to improve in poker you had to learn some playing skills in order to gain the perspective to not play that way any more.I saw this in chess a lot so I have kept this gem polished in case that old poker player was right.So the booksmart player has a lot of skills to build on and some skills he will have to lose to get better is my guess.I actually prefer to play the mediocre instinctive players, if only because so far I find they oscillate between extremes of looseness and tightness.That said, I actually enjoy playing anyone. How else can you improve unless pitting yourself against a broad spectrum of players and trying to learn some element of their particular poker skill set?To improve, you need a base. That base can be the instinctive base or the booksmart base. I think the booksmart is a broader base and that it can be obtained a lot faster than the instinctive base, but that is only my opinion.
I think this is a really, really great post. I think for myself that books helped me become an ok player much faster than if I'd played on my own. In fact, I don't know if i'd ever have beena good player without them. But you have to branch out from that base. For a whle, I thought alot about this.. I thought alot about some oe the hyper aggressive players in my games, and how some of them ( I percieved)to be winners.. and they certainly didn't play ABC...So I started playing like a maniac for a while. Raising, andre raising with all kinds of different hands.. it was an amazing experience. I had to play marginal hands, in all kinds of situations, and it forced me to be constantly making reads, and laydowns.. it was very hard. Ultimatly, It was a losing experement. And I had to gear down again... to tight up, butstill stay aggressive. IN the end, it has made me a much, much better player. I think alot of players i see, that don't read books, that play lots of hands, and lots of hands aggressively, if they ever do tighten down a bit, read a bit, will be much, much better players in the long run than book players. Most people who ridgid playing standards, are alike an open book.. while they can beat the loose games, if they stay tight, and don't go on tilt ( and most book players start to tilt badly when their class 1 and 2 hands get beat) will have problems moving up in limits..
I read DN's new article in card player right after I wrote this.. believe it or not,I didn't plagize him LOL. Nutbaring is very useful..
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...