Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
I'm happy to hear that you got something from that, as I ended up thinking it was a waste of a post. Also happy 'cause I'd like to hear what you have to add.
So, your post got me thinking about "Basics" vs. "Fundamentals", and how this relates to my learning curve.

Someone once said: "I’ve realized [..] that everything in poker boils down to just a few simple things like ranges, betting and adjustments [...], and everything else that we’ve learned about poker at one point or another are just other applications of those things. So now instead of thinking about the principles we all learn along the way, I’m thinking more in terms of what seem to be the real fundamentals."

which seems emminently sensible.

Someone else wrote about: "..the backwards learning theory of poker. It's the idea that people think that they first need to learn the facts before the theory"

which i either don't understand, or understand but don't fully agree with, because - as you say - "it takes a bit of background to talk about these topics meaningfully".

i'm trying to dig out a vid i got from Nick Wealthall (yeh, the creepy English guy w/ the teeth) where he takes his copy of The Theory of Poker and chucks it off his balcony. His point being that it has the same amount of value to the poker noob as a technical manual on carburettor maintenance has to a noob driver. When you're a novice, your focus is almost 100% "inside the car" - turning the wheel, working the pedals, trying not to crash, etc. It's only as you gain experience that your focus shifts outwards.

(LDO he edited out the bit where he runs downstairs to retrieve his book from the bushes.)

So i'm now pondering the tipping point where a moranic BC hand-chart jockey might have amassed enough experience to make the jump to poker light-speed.