Practice vs. Studying

In Jack Sawyer's OP, he quoted Patrik Antonius as saying:

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Antonius:

"No one has ever taught me a single thing about poker. I have never read a book of poker, not a single page. I never got a lesson from anyone. So its very good way to figure out yourself how to play, cuz then you have to use your own ... imagination and think all the situations through and what would be the best options and you'd have to learn from your mistakes ... when you do mistakes you try to remember those to not make the same mistakes again.
Basically, I enjoy playing high stakes poker or any kind of poker where I play with people I have played a lot before, cause I have long history with them and I have my piece of mind there."

But his wiki page says he was mentored. Whatever, he's obviously my new hero.

I responded with this: this quote from High Stakes Poker was wild. It blew my mind. I'm doing all this work and here, Antonius, didn't do a damn thing (of course he practiced). It's rather interesting. Does this mean PokerStove, HEM, and studying is overrated as compared to practice, practice, practice? Who knows? But maybe I'll start something in the BC and see what everyone else thinks. Nice post.

I then went on to comment about the slammin' hottie as Jack Sawyer's icon. But seriously, what does everybody think about this? Do we kill ourselves with studying, ranges, books, and PokerStove when practicing is the real key? I'm not taking any sides (yet)...just wanted to start a good (non-technical) discussion.

Well, Antonius may be fully correct in that he didn't or doesn't study in the sense you are speaking of. BUT... the question is more I think of whether you have the imagination and serious curiosity to determine the things you need to work on, the imagination to figure out all of the situations, etc... If you do, then go for it without studying. If you don't (I don't have a clue) you need to at least study for guidance on where to look, what to look for, then figure it out from there.

Originally Posted by Monty3038

Well, Antonius may be fully correct in that he didn't or doesn't study in the sense you are speaking of. BUT... the question is more I think of whether you have the imagination and serious curiosity to determine the things you need to work on, the imagination to figure out all of the situations, etc... If you do, then go for it without studying. If you don't (I don't have a clue) you need to at least study for guidance on where to look, what to look for, then figure it out from there.

Actually... let me put it another way.

I can DO Calculus... but would I have figured out that I NEEDED to do calculus on my own?

He said he didnt read books. He never said he didnt study. He probably spent hours thinking over hands and situations away from the table. Thinking and working out how best to exploit certain opponents and how best to play certain situations. Theres tonnes of stuff you can "study" without reading. I think his point is that some people read a book or starting hand chart, and then just assume that is the right way to play any table against any opponents with any history. When actually, if you are spoon fed a little less you will have to think about it and realise that the answer to most questions is going to be "it depends". Every piece of information you can get about this game will help you, but it will help you a lot more if you think about why the author is saying what he is, and how you can adapt what hes saying to make it work for the games and opponents you play.

I've certainly read some parts of some poker books, and I've spent a fair amount of time on FTR, 2+2, and some of the other poker discussion boards.

But I have to say that the way I learned to make money at poker was by playing it. I started playing internet NLHE, quickly learned about bankroll management (the hard way), eventually figured out the basics of very nitty play at the lowest limits (2NL and 5NL), and was able to grind out a tiny profit over a couple of months, and then decided to try live poker.

My first few trips to the casino, I played live no limit, found that the low buy-ins at many California casinos ($40 maximum with a 1/2 blind structure!) turned NLHE into a high variance lottery ticket, and finally reached my tolerance limit when I drew pocket aces in a $100 1/2 no limit game at Hustler, was able to shove all-in due to heavy betting by the other players in front of me, got 4 callers, and lost to some guy who called with Q6 offsuit and flopped Q66.

At that point, I decided that if the variance was going to be this extreme in live poker, I needed to try limit-- high variance, but less riding on each hand. And I basically developed a set of limit skills, at first playing 3/6 and 4/8, that work really, really well at California tables. Eventually, I started playing higher limits and figured out how to open up my range in position and make some more advanced plays that work when you have fold equity but don't work in "no fold 'em hold 'em".

I can't claim, like Antonius did, that I am entirely self-taught. But I have to say that what I do is probably about 85 percent experience and 15 percent book- and website-learning. And I am a consistent winner at live limit poker.

I think both is important. Studying is key, but if you never practice what you learn, what's the point? I think there really needs to be a good balance between the two if you're ever going to improve.

Originally Posted by LawDude

My first few trips to the casino, I played live no limit, found that the low buy-ins at many California casinos ($40 maximum with a 1/2 blind structure!) turned NLHE into a high variance lottery ticket, and finally reached my tolerance limit when I drew pocket aces in a $100 1/2 no limit game at Hustler, was able to shove all-in due to heavy betting by the other players in front of me, got 4 callers, and lost to some guy who called with Q6 offsuit and flopped Q66.

I bet you could kill those games buying in for 20-50bbs and shoving preflop with AJ+, TT+ (and maybe opening up a bit more if youre getting called by real shit).

Limit has far bigger swings that no limit by the way.

Things I've learned:

1. I used to basically only study which is not nearly as good as finding a good ratio for yourself of studyinglaying.
2. A high stakes player once told me he never read a poker book. This was obv. before the e-books/more applicable books but still made me think and I wound up with:
3. Learning from someone directly who has been where you were and has known to beat those games is a good way to start winning (more).

Originally Posted by Pelion

Originally Posted by LawDude

My first few trips to the casino, I played live no limit, found that the low buy-ins at many California casinos ($40 maximum with a 1/2 blind structure!) turned NLHE into a high variance lottery ticket, and finally reached my tolerance limit when I drew pocket aces in a $100 1/2 no limit game at Hustler, was able to shove all-in due to heavy betting by the other players in front of me, got 4 callers, and lost to some guy who called with Q6 offsuit and flopped Q66.

I bet you could kill those games buying in for 20-50bbs and shoving preflop with AJ+, TT+ (and maybe opening up a bit more if youre getting called by real shit).

Limit has far bigger swings that no limit by the way.

It does, but for smaller amounts of money. It's a different kind of variance. In any event, limit gives me fewer ulcers, and as I am decent enough at it to make consistent profits, I haven't seen a reason to go back to no limit.

isn't antonious busto? or am i thinking of someone else...

LOL I wish I am as busto as he is

Some people will naturally be good at working this stuff out too, others of us could do with a little help along .

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

LOL I wish I am as busto as he is

lol

I vote jack for being best at keeping his avatar up to date with premium chicks. The rest of you have some hot ones too, but they never change.

And to think that cartoon thing you had before was worth looking at, speaking of which......

I 100% understand atonious and what he said its exactly what i did my first 2 years i would call just to see what happens and raise just to see whats happens n now i know i developed my game.
Never read a book either thow i wanted to but i dont feel any need although i bought 6 lol

I DEFFFFFFF think people on this site are a lil to crazy about OMG WHATS HIS RANGE HOLY SHIT WHATS HIS RANGE!!!!! and omg pokerstove it! and y did u 3 bet! and check this bet that 3 bet this dont 3 bet this. dont reaise this preflop do raise this preflop THAT DOESENT APPLY TO EVERYBODY it fucked my game up for so long taking what everybody said to heart. PLAY YOUR STYLEEE DEVELOP YOUR OWN GAME. still again dont get me wrong soak and take it what everbody says but make sure the overall way u play allows it. I spend quite a bit of time in lala land thinking randomly like really deeply about poker. u gotta develope your own game. phil ivey says it too. he says forget the books when your at the table although still absorb it and add it to your knowledge of poker.

PRACTICE is the extremely easy choice obivously a lil studying to but ACTUALLY PLAY!!! and record in your head the spots u lost money and then fix it!

like i seriously wonder like how the fuck is X guy replying to everything and chit chatting it up about everything all the time... Im always at the tables.

Don't ever turn down a resource if it can help you. If you're trying to convince yourself you don't need to study...GOD HELP YOU!

Originally Posted by T-Rex

I DEFFFFFFF think people on this site are a lil to crazy about OMG WHATS HIS RANGE HOLY SHIT WHATS HIS RANGE!!!!!

BZZZT WRONG
SORRY, TRY AGAIN

Originally Posted by T-Rex

a lot of weird stuff

Sounds like the problem you, and presumably others, had/have is that you're trying to take the answers here and learn by rote, instead of learning poker (i.e., WHY a certain move is advocated).

Originally Posted by Pelion

He said he didnt read books. He never said he didnt study. He probably spent hours thinking over hands and situations away from the table. T

. Theres tonnes of stuff you can "study" without reading. .

qfmft it makes me sad that people don't get it

It really depends on your learning style. I have the ability to integrate a lot of information while I'm playing and synthesize it into a profitable strategy without actively thinking about it, so I definitely favor playing over studying. But I know I need to balance it somehow because I can develop bad habits easily the way I learn, so I read and post as much as I can.

It's very easy to develop bad habits if you focus on one too much over the other imo. The great thing about playing though is that you can develop ideas and test them at the same time whereas when you're studying you can only develop ideas and test them later by playing.

Originally Posted by ArcadianRock

Don't ever turn down a resource if it can help you. If you're trying to convince yourself you don't need to study...GOD HELP YOU!

this quote is incredible wow just some peopel i LOL pretty hard...oh and god that guys funny too haha

Originally Posted by Parasurama

It really depends on your learning style. I have the ability to integrate a lot of information while I'm playing and synthesize it into a profitable strategy without actively thinking about it, so I definitely favor playing over studying. But I know I need to balance it somehow because I can develop bad habits easily the way I learn, so I read and post as much as I can.

It's very easy to develop bad habits if you focus on one too much over the other imo. The great thing about playing though is that you can develop ideas and test them at the same time whereas when you're studying you can only develop ideas and test them later by playing.

totally, for example I noticed that people tend to c/f flops in limped pots they missed so I started minbetting limped pots

I thought it was for sure profitable, but I found that some people will always call a minbet while some people will fold to them
so now I just fire pot and take it down maybe 70% of the time vs. one person

Originally Posted by T-Rex

I 100% understand atonious and what he said its exactly what i did my first 2 years i would call just to see what happens and raise just to see whats happens n now i know i developed my game.
Never read a book either thow i wanted to but i dont feel any need although i bought 6 lol

I DEFFFFFFF think people on this site are a lil to crazy about OMG WHATS HIS RANGE HOLY SHIT WHATS HIS RANGE!!!!! and omg pokerstove it! and y did u 3 bet! and check this bet that 3 bet this dont 3 bet this. dont reaise this preflop do raise this preflop THAT DOESENT APPLY TO EVERYBODY it fucked my game up for so long taking what everybody said to heart. PLAY YOUR STYLEEE DEVELOP YOUR OWN GAME. still again dont get me wrong soak and take it what everbody says but make sure the overall way u play allows it. I spend quite a bit of time in lala land thinking randomly like really deeply about poker. u gotta develope your own game. phil ivey says it too. he says forget the books when your at the table although still absorb it and add it to your knowledge of poker.

PRACTICE is the extremely easy choice obivously a lil studying to but ACTUALLY PLAY!!! and record in your head the spots u lost money and then fix it!

like i seriously wonder like how the fuck is X guy replying to everything and chit chatting it up about everything all the time... Im always at the tables.

I'm kind of upset I started this discussion after this catastrophe of a post.

Originally Posted by T-Rex

this quote is incredible wow just some peopel i LOL pretty hard...oh and god that guys funny too haha

And then I'm not exactly sure what this means. I think he called God a comedian or something.

ANYWHO, I guess I'll chime in now. I definitely think creating a base to build on is totally necessary in poker. It is almost impossible to sit down and learn without getting an idea of strategies, tactics, and maneuvers to get you around the game. Shit, I never even thought of 3betting light until I started reading about such a thing on this site.

Hand histories must be looked over. The idea of ranges must be practiced. Understanding how to exploit your opponent's leaks must be learned. But you must put these ideas into play! It does no good to keep studying without putting the hours in. Practice is definitely more important than the studying aspect of poker. I'd say it's about 70:30 or 65:35 (practice over studying).

But then you have a certain poster that obviously has the wrong idea about studying. T-Rex, you're going to get crushed by that ego of yours. Study. You won't be able to get past 10NL without doing so. You're not going to pick up the game by playing without learning to master your craft. I would have never began to 3bet players on the CO or button that always try and steal blinds without reading up and understanding the reasoning behind it. I may have come up with it myself by endlessly playing and having my blinds stolen...but studying has helped me save money and gave me that technique to work with.

Charlie Parker, a musician, said it best (one of my favorite quotes): “First you master the instrument, then you master the repertory, then you forget all that shit and just play.”

At the table, don't kill yourself over what the "right/wrong" move is. I don't think there is a right/wrong move. There are a lot of other things to think about and more than one way to play a hand (depending on your style).

However, you MUST master your craft before sitting at the table. By doing so, the game will become second nature and good moves will become obvious.

Hi bob
I don't bellive this guy at all!
i'm studying from various sites, in many ways: videos from you tube - startegies and learning rules from sites like pokernews, and more.
And then comes this guy and says it's all from practice?
I don't agree with him at all!

lol, BobG690

This 'concept' is from a video I watched of DogIsHead. He's a pretty ballin' HU/6m high stakes player and used to be a coach on DeucesCracked. I haven't watched it in a few months, but I'll try to paraphrase what he was getting at.

Basically in poker you have two ways of improving. You have "Theory" and you have "Experience". It's hard to say which is better. There are plenty of people that can analyze hands and disect situations well, but have a hard time winning in the games they play. There are other people who can beat the games they play in heartily, but can't explain the theory and reasoning why they are doing things as well as others.

Experience relies on the fact that every human is a self-correcting system. Basically it says that if you are doing poor that with more hands, and more experience, over a sizable portion of time, the individual will learn from his mistakes and converge closer to perfect play. "Infinite experience will push a poker player toward perfect play".

Theory, on the other hand, tries to approach perfect play from the very start. It essentially tries to show a shortcut to perfect play.

He uses the analogy that a poker player is a ship builder, and his poker game is the ship. Theory would play the roll of the blueprint of the ideal poker ship. So with enough theory, one should be able to build a perfect ship, without having to spend a infinite amount of time being a ship building before achieving the perfect ship.

This is getting kind of confusing in writing. However, it basically boils down to the fact that theory and experience compliment each other. You can become a good player by playing a lot of hands; however, depending on how efficiently you learn from your mistakes, it may take a long time. Likewise, you can become a good player by knowing enough theory.

It would be retarded to not learn and do both. You obviously want to put in hands. And it's obvious that you will get better the more experience you achieve. However, it is also apparent that you shouldn't just blindly play for the 1million hands it might take you to begin to understand the game. Instead, you should study and learn, and essentially understand theory, so that you know why you are making these plays. And by doing so, you will improve at a faster rate than if you just played, and you won't make as many mistakes in the process.

Also, I'm with everyone that said that just because Antonious said he didn't read books, etc, doesn't mean he wasn't "studying". Some of the most important things I've learned about poker have come from thinking about the game while sitting in the hot-tub, or driving on the highway. Some of the best study I have done comes from sitting down and analyzing complicated situations I face. And I wouldn't have been able to understand what I needed to without the theory that I have learned from other sources.

I think where that falls down with poker, is that sometimes you can make the right decision and still lose, and sometimes its even worse where you make a decision when villain has a range and you put them on a hand, and then reinforce that decision when proved right.

e.g. e.g 80/50 raises UTG, you 3bet KK, 80/50 shoves, you call. Villain shows AA and you proceed to stop calling his shoves with KK.

True Pelion... And if you lack the correct understanding of theory and are solely relying on experience to pave your way to playing perfect poker, you may make stumbles such as the one you described. Where you believe you have made the correct assumption/adjustment, however it's incorrect, and it will even take either some deep thinking about the game to understand why it's incorrect, or many more hands and mistakes, if you decide to continue to neglect theory.

Patrik Antonius (born December 13, 1980 in Helsinki, Finland) is a Finnish professional poker player, former tennis player and coach, and model from Vantaa, Finland. He currently resides in Monte Carlo. Antonius was mentored by Marcel Lüske as a member of Luske's “Circle of Outlaws”[2] and later advised by Jennifer Harman.

I think if you look at the what would be considered the top pro's you'll find one very common denominator, that being there are VERY SMART. Now I don't know about Antonius himself other than he did attend college for two years but it seems like everytime the pros are talked about you hear things like "MIT, YALE etc.

Yeah fuck it I don't think you need to study it's way over rated!

Originally Posted by HarleyGuy13

Patrik Antonius (born December 13, 1980 in Helsinki, Finland) is a Finnish professional poker player, former tennis player and coach, and model from Vantaa, Finland. He currently resides in Monte Carlo. Antonius was mentored by Marcel Lüske as a member of Luske's “Circle of Outlaws”[2] and later advised by Jennifer Harman.

I think if you look at the what would be considered the top pro's you'll find one very common denominator, that being there are VERY SMART. Now I don't know about Antonius himself other than he did attend college for two years but it seems like everytime the pros are talked about you hear things like "MIT, YALE etc.

Yeah fuck it I don't think you need to study it's way over rated!

Study and intelligence help you interpret data correctly.

Listen
the easiest way to describe this is with this analogy


U may do something, and do something over n over again, and just because your used to it and its easy to do, doesn't mean its the proper way to do it.

Just cuz u have been playing for 2 years doesnt mean you've been playing well for 2 years.

Learn the right way and play the right way.

i think one should intagrate between partice&studying it's the best solution!

if u dont practice u wont have anything to study . but imo u need both to coincide to get better at this game .

Originally Posted by iopq

...now I just fire pot and take it down maybe 70% of the time vs. one person

What's your c-bet %?

Gabe Caplans comment right after Antonius said that... something in the lines of: People are throwing poker books out of their windows as we speak...

Buddy Rich also said something like that numerous times, when it can only be true in his interpretation. He did some technical stuff that nobody else did at the time... he must have spent a shitload of time practicing and figuring this stuff out.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of study. The way they make you study in shool is probably the most ineffective way... so this is probably why some people don't like the word.

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

Originally Posted by iopq

...now I just fire pot and take it down maybe 70% of the time vs. one person

What's your c-bet %?

there is no cbetting in limped pots

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

Originally Posted by iopq

...now I just fire pot and take it down maybe 70% of the time vs. one person

What's your c-bet %?

there is no cbetting in limped pots

Answer the question, jerk!

That's my John McEnroe impression, lol. Nevermind.

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

Originally Posted by iopq

...now I just fire pot and take it down maybe 70% of the time vs. one person

What's your c-bet %?

there is no cbetting in limped pots

Answer the question, jerk!

That's my John McEnroe impression, lol. Nevermind.

if you cared you'd click my operation banner since I posted stats there

Originally Posted by BooG690

Does this mean PokerStove, HEM, and studying is overrated as compared to practice, practice, practice?

no, but it does point out that thinking about poker, hands, theories, situations and such independently is underrated

If you read books there is a risk of copying the same ideas at wrong times. Also, everyone has diferent character and the author's way to play the hands may not be suitable for your character. The books will only restrict your game and imagination. Of course not the very basic ones.

This is very similar to chess in terms of playing your character. There are in general two types of players in chess. One has a solid style, trying to accumulate small advantages and go on to win. The other type is agressive, likes wild attacks and takes risks in order to win. In the very early years when chess was not as popular as today, there was only one chess book in my country Turkey written by Cuban ex-world champion J.R. Capablanca. He learnt chess by watching his father's games when he was 4. And he managed to beat his father at the age of 4 (!!). He was a super talent and had a very solid style. He was a player of the first type. However, since his book was the only book in Turkey, all players started to copy him. But not every player has the same talent for the way he played. This is why we wasted a lot of talents that may have created a lot of wild attacks.

I am very new in poker and contrary to what I did in chess, I am planning not to read any books. I will just learn how calculate probabilities and pot odds; and the experiences that I gain myself will, I believe, be more valuable than reading a book.

fapfapfapfapfap

Furthermore, if everyone plays according to the "theory", then everyone will be read easily. Now, some will say mixing your game is also in theory. Then what is theory? Can it change from time to time?

Originally Posted by Extremophile

Furthermore, if everyone plays according to the "theory", then everyone will be read easily. Now, some will say mixing your game is also in theory. Then what is theory? Can it change from time to time?

Your other post is incredibly off base. Believe it or not, there is a perfect decision to be made everytime you get the chance to make a decision. Saying you don't do this because you're TAGG or don't do this because you are LAGG is incorrect. TAGG and LAGG is just an easily identifiable way to explain players, which usually only explains their preflop play. Regardless, some of the plays each individual is making is likely incorrect, and no-one will likely ever play 100% perfect poker, because there are factors that sometimes you just can't be 100% sure of that needs to be considered.

Theory does not tell you to play this hand in this spot. Theory explains what needs to be considered in order to make the correct decisions. Also playing "according to theory" wouldn't make you easily readable. Poker is really complex, and when playing a solid game you are likely playing quite tricky, in which case you will multiple hands in your range for any given spot. And since villains won't know your exact hand, they will have to focus on your range. Some of the hands will beat the villain, some won't. Hardly easily readable.

Originally Posted by Extremophile

Furthermore, if everyone plays according to the "theory", then everyone will be read easily. Now, some will say mixing your game is also in theory. Then what is theory? Can it change from time to time?

Actually theory says "bluff 50% of the time in this spot"

because if you have a higher bluffing frequency you can be exploited by calling slightly more, and if you have a lower bluffing frequency you can be exploited by folding a little more

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Your other post is incredibly off base. Believe it or not, there is a perfect decision to be made everytime you get the chance to make a decision.

I agree there is a perfect decision to be made at a given time. However it highly depends on how you define your opponent's play.

I made my comment after reading some comments above like "3 bet here, auto-fold here". Similarly, iopq says "Actually theory says "bluff 50% of the time in this spot"". Is this proven mathematically? Is it proven for every kind of opponent? If not, can it be used against us?

I guess I didn't express myself well. I certainly agree with math but any "theory" other than math MAY worsen your game. I guess preflop statistics, or theory is much more healtier than post-flop theory since there are thousands of possiblities after flop and there are thousands of diferent opponents so that any board can be played in thousands of different ways. So, I don't know how good it is to trust post-flop theories.

I think you are confusing theory with "theory" with your decisions. Theory contains many wide reaching thoughts on how to approach different situations, and must be considered in each situation in order to make a correct decision.

It's like saying that if villain's range is weak, you should bluff more. This is obviously true. The other spectrum holds true that if villain's range is strong, you should bluff less. If villain calls often you should bluff less, and valuebet more. This is all encompassed within the scope of theory. As well as many other important concepts such as fold equity, pot equity, ranges, etc.

Whether you learn all of this stuff by reading many books or learn it by spending ample hours thinking deeply about the game is of no importance. The important thing is that if you want to understand the game, and play solid poker, you will need to understand the theory. You will need to understand why a value bet is a value bet, and when you should make one. You will need to understand why, and when, you should bluff. It's the exact same as you needing to know how each chess piece moves before you can play chess effectively.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Whether you learn all of this stuff by reading many books or learn it by spending ample hours thinking deeply about the game is of no importance.

This comment was what I was looking for. In that sense I am OK with a little bit of grinding of my stack. If I see no improvement after a while and keep losing it, then I can think of trying to do some reading. Thank you for the discussion.

Well the thing is this. WHY in the world would you try to recreate the wheel when you can read the correct theories/concepts etc. Not only is it going to take longer, and cost you money in the learning process, but you are also to likely come up with incorrect theories and concepts, and make a lot of mistakes.

I don't know why anyone would want to make this an either / or type thing. If you are just playing poker for fun, like most people do, why read a book. Just play and have fun. But if you want to make serious strides in the game and play for big money, then I suggest you learn the things that your opponents will know.

And don't let the fact that so & so didn't do this or that and became successful fool you into thinking you can do the same thing. Do you know how many people are flipping burgers cos Bill Gates didn't finish college? Just cos this really smart guy did it doesn't mean it is for everyone. Read, play, grow.

I can't believe there is even an argument here

Originally Posted by Extremophile

If you read books there is a risk of copying the same ideas at wrong times. Also, everyone has diferent character and the author's way to play the hands may not be suitable for your character. The books will only restrict your game and imagination. Of course not the very basic ones.

This is very similar to chess in terms of playing your character. There are in general two types of players in chess. One has a solid style, trying to accumulate small advantages and go on to win. The other type is agressive, likes wild attacks and takes risks in order to win. In the very early years when chess was not as popular as today, there was only one chess book in my country Turkey written by Cuban ex-world champion J.R. Capablanca. He learnt chess by watching his father's games when he was 4. And he managed to beat his father at the age of 4 (!!). He was a super talent and had a very solid style. He was a player of the first type. However, since his book was the only book in Turkey, all players started to copy him. But not every player has the same talent for the way he played. This is why we wasted a lot of talents that may have created a lot of wild attacks.

I am very new in poker and contrary to what I did in chess, I am planning not to read any books. I will just learn how calculate probabilities and pot odds; and the experiences that I gain myself will, I believe, be more valuable than reading a book.

I was gonna ask you.. "Have you read any poker books?" but then I saw at the end of your post where you say you haven't and don't intend on doing so.
It's obvious you haven't read any books and are ASSUMING one will be playing according to how the book suggests. Any decent poker book is used as a tool to have the reader thinking in different ways and many of the books actually wirte about this very thing. They don't expect you to play the same was as the author but much can be gained when reviewing the author's interpretations.
Personally I've read in excess of 30 poker boos and will read more... I think they're great (well... some are.. lol.. I'll read any & all of them though, lol).
Saying Poker books are a useless tool would be like me commenting on whether or not art school would be good for an aspiring painter. I wouldnt' have a f'n clue.. I'm not a painter.

I don't know how you reached the conclusion that I claim the poker books are useless. I never said poker books are useless. I said some of them MIGHT affect your play in a bad way. I will just try to improve with pure experience and I agree losing a little money at lowest possible stakes while doing that. I checked the meanings of the terms XxstackxX wrote above and realized that I have been doing those without realizing them or lets say without naming them. It just a trial, which I wouldn't have been able to make if I had already read a poker book.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

This 'concept' is from a video I watched of DogIsHead. He's a pretty ballin' HU/6m high stakes player and used to be a coach on DeucesCracked. I haven't watched it in a few months, but I'll try to paraphrase what he was getting at.

Basically in poker you have two ways of improving. You have "Theory" and you have "Experience". It's hard to say which is better. There are plenty of people that can analyze hands and disect situations well, but have a hard time winning in the games they play. There are other people who can beat the games they play in heartily, but can't explain the theory and reasoning why they are doing things as well as others.

Experience relies on the fact that every human is a self-correcting system. Basically it says that if you are doing poor that with more hands, and more experience, over a sizable portion of time, the individual will learn from his mistakes and converge closer to perfect play. "Infinite experience will push a poker player toward perfect play".

Theory, on the other hand, tries to approach perfect play from the very start. It essentially tries to show a shortcut to perfect play.

He uses the analogy that a poker player is a ship builder, and his poker game is the ship. Theory would play the roll of the blueprint of the ideal poker ship. So with enough theory, one should be able to build a perfect ship, without having to spend a infinite amount of time being a ship building before achieving the perfect ship.

This is getting kind of confusing in writing. However, it basically boils down to the fact that theory and experience compliment each other. You can become a good player by playing a lot of hands; however, depending on how efficiently you learn from your mistakes, it may take a long time. Likewise, you can become a good player by knowing enough theory.

It would be retarded to not learn and do both. You obviously want to put in hands. And it's obvious that you will get better the more experience you achieve. However, it is also apparent that you shouldn't just blindly play for the 1million hands it might take you to begin to understand the game. Instead, you should study and learn, and essentially understand theory, so that you know why you are making these plays. And by doing so, you will improve at a faster rate than if you just played, and you won't make as many mistakes in the process.

Also, I'm with everyone that said that just because Antonious said he didn't read books, etc, doesn't mean he wasn't "studying". Some of the most important things I've learned about poker have come from thinking about the game while sitting in the hot-tub, or driving on the highway. Some of the best study I have done comes from sitting down and analyzing complicated situations I face. And I wouldn't have been able to understand what I needed to without the theory that I have learned from other sources.

Originally Posted by Extremophile

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Your other post is incredibly off base. Believe it or not, there is a perfect decision to be made everytime you get the chance to make a decision.

I agree there is a perfect decision to be made at a given time. However it highly depends on how you define your opponent's play.

I made my comment after reading some comments above like "3 bet here, auto-fold here". Similarly, iopq says "Actually theory says "bluff 50% of the time in this spot"". Is this proven mathematically? Is it proven for every kind of opponent? If not, can it be used against us?

I guess I didn't express myself well. I certainly agree with math but any "theory" other than math MAY worsen your game. I guess preflop statistics, or theory is much more healtier than post-flop theory since there are thousands of possiblities after flop and there are thousands of diferent opponents so that any board can be played in thousands of different ways. So, I don't know how good it is to trust post-flop theories.

well, if you bluff 50%, you don't care if villain calls or folds because you win as much money either way

I read this post while playing, so I guess +1 for the "doing both" option...

Originally Posted by sarbox68

I read this post while playing, so I guess +1 for the "doing both" option...

+2...

From my experience there is no right or wrong way to study/play. Our biology handles things differently in every single person. So just because someone found success with one book/coach/program doesn't mean it will work for me and vice versa...To say you've never needed a book or anything is kind of a dumb statement being its a free lesson. Some things will apply and some things wont.