Originally Posted by socal1111

[Our goals as players, should not only be learning from the winners before us, but to also create “new ways” of doing what’s already been done.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

uhhh bj... 10% and 80% is 90%.... Who's the other 10%?

Originally Posted by JKDS

ultimatepoker bot V6s

Originally Posted by bjsaust

10% are good, 80% follow the herd and arnt, the other 10% are off inventing their own special flat wheels because the round ones are old hat.

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

Please impart me with your wisdom. Tell me about some of your unorthodox strategies.

-grnydrowave2

Originally Posted by grnydrowave2

You, sir, are a visionary. Much like LeFou:

http://blog.flopturnriver.com/post/L...t-does-it-mean

Originally Posted by asdpikas

[EDIT:
Regarding your first paragraph:]

Rrrrrright....... NOT!

1/100 of the population has 99/100 of the wealth. Not because of brighter ideas. Because of oppression, control, and all the capitalist system mechanics that keep the lower classes at bay.
Tell me that Bush has bright ideas! LOL
I will assume your country is the USA, where the rights of the workers to organize in unions are suppressed all over. The country that condones torture and says fuck the Geneva Convention. The country that invades other countries by brute force without provocation.
In that country, and unfortunately, in most countries, inherited power and force is what keeps that top 1/100 where it is. NOT BRIGHT NEW IDEAS

Anarchist saying:
If shit was worth something, the poor would be born without an asshole

They say "the cream rises to the top", I say "shit floats"

Originally Posted by sarbox68

Damn bro... I think you're looking for the anti-capitalist rant forum two blogs over.....

Originally Posted by celtic123

That whole "the powerful are powerful because they have bright ideas" is just ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Originally Posted by sil693

celtic123 has to be social1111

how are beginners (like myself) supposed to develop new and innovative poker staratergies when we are learning the simple basics.

Walk before you run. . . . . ??

Thread fails IMO.

Originally Posted by jyms

Tiger Woods may have CHANGED his golf swing, but he god damn well did not reinvent it. He changed it to a provenly better swing, and had a conventional wisdom instructor help him fix what was wrong with it.

Originally Posted by socal1111

Again, you say REINVENT! Not one time, did I say "reinvent" in my thread.

Originally Posted by socal1111

If we want to see different results, shouldn’t we think differently?

99% of our nation’s wealth is earned by 1% of the population! Why? A large part of that 1% visualizes, thinks, and acts differently than the rest. They’re willing to take risks that most are afraid of taking, and they’re not afraid of failing in the process! They’re not affected by those who tell them that their ideas won’t work, and shouldn’t be attempted.

This type of mindset can be brought to the poker table, as well. Our goals as players, should not only be learning from the winners before us, but to also create “new ways” of doing what’s already been done. We shouldn’t settle for the type of thinking that says,

“If it’s worked for 80 years, why try to alter it now?”

“If it was a good idea, someone else would’ve already tried it?”

We should use those winning concepts, of course, but also find different, more creative ways at looking at situations and decisions. We should want to be the type of players that are willing to “buck the system” in order to separate ourselves from the pack. The game, today, is filled with ABC, by-the-book type of players, who have learned to play in the same way as thousands of others.

In response to threads by players trying to improve, so many replies give close to the same advice—good advice, but still the same. That’s a problem, IMO, because I feel many players that are currently learning the game are turning into robots, making X play, because 10 people on X forum, or in X book said it was the correct play. Is there a different play that would create a better result? I don’t think that question is currently being asked often enough, but is a question, I believe, that would help separate ourselves from the 99%.

Players are learning quicker than they ever have, mainly due to all of the available information in books, and online. This is why I think it’s crucial to begin focusing on our own, new ways of looking at situations. Standard thinking is fine, and maybe even be the best way at certain times, but does it have to be the only way? Is there a different, better way? Can we question the popular logic and belief systems that are currently in place, creating our own winning formula, yet still hold onto the basic fundamentals?

Originally Posted by jyms

Sounds to me like "reinvent"

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

No human being has ever had a truely original idea. Take the strategies that work, make the connections and develop an improved strategy.

Originally Posted by sarbox68

I'm pretty damn sure I invented the spork at my auntie's house a few years back.... but then you might consider that just an "improvement"...

Originally Posted by socal1111

99% of our nation’s wealth is earned by 1% of the population! Why? A large part of that 1% visualizes, thinks, and acts differently than the rest. They’re willing to take risks that most are afraid of taking, and they’re not afraid of failing in the process! They’re not affected by those who tell them that their ideas won’t work, and shouldn’t be attempted.

Originally Posted by sarbox68

You know what I think the deal is? It’s like, you got all these pieces and parts. Like it’s one of those old school tubs of Tinkertoys. And the long straight stick bit is UTG pre-flop, and the short stick with the notch in it is, like, c-betting, and the wheelie thing with all those holes around the edge of it is a double barrel. And you dump all this sh!t on your rug and you’re like, damn, I’m going to build me something sweet. Now some of these pieces don’t go into other pieces, and some pieces don’t do anything at all like that crappy @ss green fan type piece that don’t do sh!t, like, wtf is up with that piece.

But anyway, so you take like a long stick piece and one of those joining pieces, that could be position or “attempt to steal,” and then mash it into a third piece and that’s, like, an amalgamation of basicness that gives you an approach. Now, if you put the wrong pieces together, even if they kind fit, you look at it and go that’s not sweet. So like if you figure out I got to be really tight UTG and I got to be aggressive and cbet but miss the what does a calling station look like or do piece then you go dude, I just donked off my stack and that is definitely not sweet.

And this gets more complicated as you build your thing and get more pieces in there. And you can be applying your creativity, thinking all out of the box and originizing, so when you finished you got something that is sweet and unique. BUT – it’s still made up of the same pieces that are tried and true… it’s just the way you put them together that is where you have flexibility, and also where you got opportunity for leaks.

So, study your parts – the fundamentals is the fundamentals and ain’t no reason to reinvent 150 options for that round wheelie piece when best and highest damn use is as a wheel which your dumbass could have figured out from the picture on the box if you’d paid attention, studied a little and had the humility to say “damn, people that been building sweet things for years think this piece is best used as a wheel – so even tho I think it would make a damn fine afro for my tinker stick man, maybe I’ll put it aside and use it for when I build his sweet ride.”

Originally Posted by JKDS

best post in the thread.

Originally Posted by socal1111

I never wanted to suggest that we can (if we get creative enough) make 4+4=1o...

Originally Posted by socal1111

Ok, this is what I conclude from all the negative replies:

"Poker is what it's always been, and will never change. There won't ever be any more new ideas or concepts to help improve one's approach."


I never wanted to suggest that we can (if we get creative enough) make 4+4=1o...

Just asking if there's more to be aksed.

Originally Posted by cowboyardee

Don't know whether this is worth reviving (sorry), but I'll bite. Here goes...

What do you mean? Really?

If you presented us with a new thought (and it worked) I think we would all be very receptive> example: see Shania Theory -- I don't remember that being around when I first started playing (though most players had an intuitive imprecise notion of it). Or read most of ISFs theory threads -- he is certainly putting his own (rather deep) thought into the way he plays the game, and he also certainly has more laurels to rest upon than most of us. I agree that continually working on a game that's proven to win is admirable and important. But I'm pretty sure his insights, new or not, stem from a thorough understanding of the game and a real work ethic rather than from some sort of creative drive.

Your posts come off as criticism of current poker theory without providing any guidance towards possible alternatives. Poker is a game of somewhat finite options -- sure you can fuck around with how much you bet/how long you take before betting/what you type into the text box/finding the perfect degree of drunkeness to play/etc, but it's not like people don't do that already. As such, people are right to question the creative new approach you advocate. Cuz dude, it's nebulous as shit.