Challenge the nonsense.

DOHHHHHHH

I'd guess the guy is trying to address the importance of understanding and dealing with the luck element in poker.  

To win long term we often have to lose shot term.  Even when playing perfectly. 

Everyone will, regardless of ability.

If you can't deal with that, you will never become a long term winner. 

Negative implications of failing to do so such as tilt and bad bankroll management are too powerful to overcome. 

".....To be a winner at poker you must be very good at losing...."

He's looking at the relationship between a players ability to handle defeat in the short term and the likelihood of him achieving the longer term goal of becoming a winner.

So I very much doubt he's implying that people who pay for poker (lose) day in day out are good losers, because as long as poker success is measured by money won/lost (always), these guys will never become winners. 

Of course you can argue that success can/(should?) be measured by more than just £$€, but that's a whole new thread. 

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense.:

But why do so many people seem to have so much pent up stress/anger? And why do they feel they can take it out on people they don't even know? Life is full of challenges. Being happy shouldn't be of them.
Posted by FCHD

That is a great post, especially.....

Life is full of challenges. Being happy shouldn't be of them.

If poker makes you unhappy, you are doing something wrong.

Tikay10

In Response to Challenge the nonsense.:

We have all seen & read, way too many times, that ridiculous expression.... "show me a good loser, & I'll show you a loser". It is, of course, utter nonsense. Yesterday, elsewhere, I saw a Post by a pal of mine called Stu Barnett, who many of you may have met at UKPC last week, where he had a deep run or two.   He adapted that cliche into a much better version. ".....To be a winner at poker you must be very good at losing...."
Posted by Tikay10

Stu contacted me yesterday, after I told him I had borrowed his turn of phrase.

In fact, he tells me, it came from a new Poker Book, which is very different to most books on poker. Never mind A-K UTG, it does not bother with that stuff. This is about YOU, ME, US, how we play the game.

The book is entitled "ELEMENTS OF POKER", & is penned by Tommy Angelo.

Youi can read numerous reviews of it on 2+2, or simply google the name.

Here is one review....

http://www.thinkingpoker.net/poker-book-reviews/elements-of-poker/

Tikay10

Or, you could visit Tommy Angelo's own website, where he describes the book's contents, & there are a few "soundbites" (written) too......


http://tommyangelo.com/table-of-contents/

Tikay10

Warning - if you are a dedicated follower of poker fashion, & can't see beyond the fashionable terms & opinions we all copy, don't bother reading the book, or the review, its not for you.

And if you think poker "tilt" is acceptable, don't bother with the book. When did "tilt" ever have a beneficial effect on our game?

Of course we get a bit ruffled when we have a bad run, thats natural. It's how we handle it that matters, as we can't change the past.
 
It may be an age thing, but being proud of tilt is, well, I'll be polite, not a good thing.
 
The table was slow to load & I missed the first hand of the Roiller, it tilts me to death.

Give me a break...... 

On the other hand, if you don't mind challenging conventional wisdom, thinking outside the box, & different to the other 5 players on the table, this book is a great place to start making your poker more enjoyable, & maybe even more profitable. Or less lossable.

Over & out.   

MrWh1te

ok tikay I have just got the book.

I will read it, if it is as good as you say, I will buy a hard copy

thank you

Tikay10

OK, let us know what you think of it, & if it helps you challenge conventional wisdom, or helps your poker in any way.

MrWh1te

Will do.

I have never read a book before, not even Harrington/sklansky and as a low stakes winning player I probably should.

I read a LOT of online stuff though, just figure the game is getting harder and harder as people hit a higher 'base level' that I need to work a lot harder now

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense.:

Will do. I have never read a book before, not even Harrington/sklansky and as a low stakes winning player I probably should. I read a LOT of online stuff though, just figure the game is getting harder and harder as people hit a higher 'base level' that I need to work a lot harder now
Posted by MrWh1te

Yes - & that's why I think players need to be prepared to open their minds to new approaches, instead of all following the regular stuff.

Slipwater

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense.:

Will do. I have never read a book before, not even Harrington/sklansky and as a low stakes winning player I probably should. I read a LOT of online stuff though, just figure the game is getting harder and harder as people hit a higher 'base level' that I need to work a lot harder now
Posted by MrWh1te

Sigh.

It's a sad, illiterate world these days

MrWh1te

hahahha

typo, I meant never read a poker book.


I'm a teacher

robertod

The great Chip Reece summed it up best. " Any idiot can win, only winners can lose".

Sir-Gary

Well an interesting topic with a few interpretations of what it means. Let's be clear about this to win at poker you must lose, note I did not say be prepared to lose but I said to actually lose. To explain if you never fold a winning hand then you must not fold hardly ever as you cannot know whether your hand is best, so therefore your opponents will value bet you to death and you will lose. If you go all in with AA against QQ sometimes you will get outdrawn, this happening occasionally is normal, but not to play your AA is clearly a mistake as you are a favourite, so therefore being bad beat means you are playing correctly as you got it in with the best hand.

All this means there should be no need to get annoyed when you lose as this is normal, but it does not mean you cannot try to win, or to enjoy winning.

Haemophile

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense.:

Well an interesting topic with a few interpretations of what it means. Let's be clear about this to win at poker you must lose, note I did not say be prepared to lose but I said to actually lose. To explain if you never fold a winning hand then you must not fold hardly ever as you cannot know whether your hand is best, so therefore your opponents will value bet you to death and you will lose. If you go all in with AA against QQ sometimes you will get outdrawn, this happening occasionally is normal, but not to play your AA is clearly a mistake as you are a favourite, so therefore being bad beat means you are playing correctly as you got it in with the best hand. All this means there should be no need to get annoyed when you lose as this is normal, but it does not mean you cannot try to win, or to enjoy winning.
Posted by Sir-Gary

 yeah that wouldnt bother me its when my AA gets called by say 83o and i lose that is really annoying because they shouldnt be in the hand in the first place

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense.:

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense. :  yeah that wouldnt bother me its when my AA gets called by say 83o and i lose that is really annoying because they shouldnt be in the hand in the first place
Posted by Haemophile

Surely you WANT 8-3 in the hand v your A-A?

You will win, what, 7 times in 10? Repeat that 10,000 times, you win 7,000 times.

Surely, in return for a 3 in 10 outdraw, we can cope with winning 7 times in 10?

We'd be loaded!

MacMonster

You are right Tikay, you want them in every time.

On a cash table it would be great and you would be loaded. Howevever if you are a tournament player it means you can go out of 30% of tournys against a guy playing 8 3. The 70% of time you win the hand you do not necessarily cash in the tourny though so you may not be loaded, infact it could tip your results the other way. It is very frustrating when you lose like this but you are right, you want them in the hand every time.

Just observing, not disagreeing

MrWh1te

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense.:

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense. :  yeah that wouldnt bother me its when my AA gets called by say 83o and i lose that is really annoying because they shouldnt be in the hand in the first place
Posted by Haemophile

Says who?

I do see this as a major flaw in a lot of players game, its like this sense of entitlement that you deserve to win and more importantly, that other players will do what you want them to.

They pay their money, they can be in ANY hand they chose to be.

DOHHHHHHH

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense.:

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense. : Says who? I do see this as a major flaw in a lot of players game, its like this sense of entitlement that you deserve to win and more importantly, that other players will do what you want them to. They pay their money, they can be in ANY hand they chose to be.
Posted by MrWh1te

+1

More than 1 way to win a poker hand, having the winner at showdown is just 1 of them. 

"Put a guy like me in a game like that, the cards don't even matter!"

Tikay10

I wonders what hands we DO want calling with when we have Aces?

If we get called by K-K and they hit their set, we are still unhappy!

Surely we are not saying we don't want a caller, are we?

Lambert180

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense.:

I wonders what hands we DO want calling with when we have Aces? If we get called by K-K and they hit their set, we are still unhappy! Surely we are not saying we don't want a caller, are we?
Posted by Tikay10

A7o would be nice

Seriously tho, very interesting thread

F_Ivanovic

In Response to Re: Challenge the nonsense.:

You are right Tikay, you want them in every time. On a cash table it would be great and you would be loaded. Howevever if you are a tournament player it means you can go out of 30% of tournys against a guy playing 8 3. The 70% of time you win the hand you do not necessarily cash in the tourny though so you may not be loaded, infact it could tip your results the other way. It is very frustrating when you lose like this but you are right, you want them in the hand every time. Just observing, not disagreeing
Posted by MacMonster

All depends on BRM in both tournies and cash games. If you have only 10BI's in the level of cash you are playing, you could potentially lose all of them! In a tournament it's about getting a stack size where you have to put your stack at risk as few times as possible. You're going to need to win a few all ins to win a tournament (or FT a tournament), but if you play well and get a stack w/o risking it in one hand, then say you only end up risking it three times to make a final table and suppose you're a big favourite in one and flipping in the other 2 - that's roughly a 1 in 5 you'll make the final table. But if you are always waiting for big hands to double up - and need to win 8 of these to make the final table (suppose you're 70% on avg to win) then you will only be 8% (or 1 in 12) to make the final table.