This is a discussion on Poker, how we test and measure our thoughts? within the online poker forums, in the Learning Poker section; If I said I am in fear of a situation, even though, when describing the fear, I may even understand parts or the whole situation
If I said I am in fear of a situation, even though, when describing the fear, I may even understand parts or the whole situation of the fear I face. The hard part is admitting, and recognizing the fear; the next step is to stop letting fear dominate my thoughts, emotion. Create new memories that eliminate existing fears, use old memories to create new thoughts from the same information about fear that can be used as a new strength in my game.
Loose aggressive, tight aggressive, one is right; the other is looked upon as a dirty little secret. Fear of being drawn out by LA players? Fear of image being a donk, LA? Fear of what others think of your play?
Why do we play? For respect? Do we play only TA because we fear of what others may think about our play? Do we play for money? Do some play to eliminate fear from their game? Do others play to learn how to beat others? Do we play to have fun or entertainment?
In sports, a person will compete against other likeminded competitors, one stands out away from the crowd and seemingly will do anything within the rules to win. They are revered by their peers as a fierce competitor.
Poker, a player will play tight aggressive, compete for the win, they are revered by their peers as playing the right way, they had a good run. A loose aggressive player will compete for the win, when they win, they may not be revered by their peers, and they may be looked down on by their play. They are not revered as a fierce competitor even though, they played within the rules.
When a player explains their TA strategies, actions, how they play situations, explain their thoughts, actions that encompass their game, their opponent’s game. The same player now can understand LA play in the same way they understand TA play. LA player explains their thoughts actions behind strategies, situations and those of their opponents in the same manner as TA styles, players. The power of observation can allow for using and evolving the player’s abilities at the table in the moment, the experience comes from putting your game in vulnerable spots over and over and analyzing the movements instead of the results.
Could this collaboration create balance of aggression, play, how opponents now think about both TA, LA play? Could these be combined into one style, however, both could be done individually at any time, place or even alternated depending on structure, dynamics of tables, during a MTT tournament? Would this collaboration be for the betterment of their game?
Would this be seen as luck? If a person knows what the other is holding but plays the opposite of the opponent in a random situation, no matter what type of aggression they use LA, TA; are they a luck box when they win? Has any rules been broken? Do players have unwritten rules at the table because of how they view TA actions, actions of donks, LA? Is there a social expectation of entertainment at the table and when the unwritten social contract is broken are they now looked down upon by their peers?
When playing right people call me a luck box, usually they will point to one hand they lose because I was playing the opposite in this one random situation. However, playing TA, LA before this situation, any hands prior to the random situation was not talked about because they only recognized what style was used when the hand was over, and the cards were turned over.
It would be hard to test and measure this situation, then produce empirical facts about why people do not recognize dynamic switches, also the difference of thought, play about different aggressions from image, and style. However; it would take many times talking about honesty to uncover true thoughts about why this frustrates people about donk play, LA players. People do make statements why a person should not play in what they observe as a donk play however; conclusions without facts are just statements with no empirical information.
A counter to this would be an argument of how much money does this crap I am spewing make in an hour, a day? If I am this good why am I not playing for a living instead of posting in a forum? Do you actually think this is a good way to play because it looks like you are just trying to get lucky and this is bad to post? These questions are valid arguments but what motivates me to think about my play to invest time into merging my LA, TA play; with motivations to play LA to instill fear, emotion to test others?
Is poker a game of skill that was cleverly disguised as a game of luck? I have asked this a few times and each time I try to give additional information to flank the question. Would adding more information with the question create deeper thoughts about the question?
Similar Threads for: Poker, how we test and measure our thoughts?
When analyzing information just as I would at the table by only playing one game, one table, no software totally dependent on my abilities from what was consumed mentally. Now having been wrong over and over, mentally stronger that results have little impact on my mood while playing a session, but mastering this mentally I believe is still a moving target just like my “A” game.
Building a selection model based on mood and abilities to perform now can have a positive impact on how I use memories consistently, over a longer period of time because of how I select my games based on my mood and the experience of what skill set better fits my moods.
For example, my routine is to play the $1.10 $300.00 GTD R/A in the mornings on ACR. I can play TA and dodge variance, make quality decisions, even though, this approach is a quality decision however, variance in this model is the biggest swing to success consistently but it does offer a viable way to add to my bankroll.
After improving my LA game to the point of solely using these actions, this allows the mental game to be used and to put my game in vulnerable spots to use new memories then be creative by playing off the cuff at times. To be competitive for the win by the add on period my chip stack needs to be around 19K.
If I am not in the mood to play LA mostly with pivoting back to playing T A less and for strategy reasons as an example; I need to then adjust what I pick for a game to be competitive for a win. Maybe playing a longer progressive game with a deep stack and long blind levels; this would be a more TA game with limited decisions based on my mood for the betterment of my game with little LA movements because this mood requires discipline, patience, and focus with little emotion until my conscious thought snaps be back into the moment by what I have been waiting for just like a anaconda stalking their prey while being disguised until they can unleash their surprise attack.
A player also needs emotion to perform but the line is a fine one to walk because when my game was not mentally as strong, emotion was using me to make decisions and then chatting at the table was fueled by raw emotion when the results went against me.
When playing LA, realizing opponents are going to invoke a mental model of generalizations of a LA player. Knowing this energizes my game to use emotion to focus, losing, making bad reads, self-inflected errors from lacking mental focus, these negative emotions from previous hands, sessions, now can be harnessed to fuel my LA play in the moment, instead of unleashing my emotions in a negative way that could be harmful to compete for the win, as well as losing this emotion by wasting this fuel in a negative way instead of using this as fuel to play LA in a positive way as an example.
On days that I play the morning tournament and compete for the win, a break is then taken to take back my life away from poker to be outside, do house work, walk the dog, mow the lawn that allows my brain to absorb the information by doing light activity outside that promotes creativity from reflection of my play to build new memories or strengthen existing memories.
Then I play $500.00 GTD $3.30 buy in with 2 hour late reg. I will play a TA game, because of the tournament structure and other dynamics that make playing TA a better decision. Also because of the mental process of the first game, for the betterment of my game and mental process to balance a completely different tournament to use the same tools in a different way to compete for the win.
I can play LA and have to experiment with this game but although, it can be productive it is not the best choice to add to my bankroll. However, supporting this approach to balance my TA game here helps to keep my opponents off balance and to switch gears, change table dynamics for specific strategy reasons by what is observed as an example.
By evolving my learning, my play, the need to play various styles, using various personas at the table allows using emotional intelligence to manage my emotions at the table, and how to harness this emotion or use emotion to focus for a longer period of time is important to build a better mental game to compete. This will allow for my buy ins to increase when I show improvements, and to be used better that actually fits my bankroll rather than slumming in lower buy ins.
However, knowing I am not consistently beating these games or games at this level then why would I risk more money? Just because I have the bankroll? As I continue this journey forcing an issue is not for the betterment of my game but I do take shots and move back up at times to test my targeted level. The most important thing right now is to beat this level and move up then have this level to come back to if problems arise to fix my game, also give my game a chance to make money while I improve my game as examples.
August 2nd, 2016, 2:11 PM
STL FAN 
Poker at: ACR
Thinking is a requirement at the table, as well as away from the table. How would players view some certain hand matchups pre flop or post flop when it comes to making a hand changing decision in the moment? Would the decision made be dependent on the ability of the player(s) or would this be as some describe as luck? Are the player(s) trying to understand what the person is holding or are they looking at the %’s only? Perhaps the %’s are to help support a decision, but is the decision ultimately the player(s)?
Having played during the time of Pokerstars before black Friday, the PSO was the first part of the journey and those questions had different meanings about how I made decisions then and now. As time went forward the meanings have changed because of what I have taught myself, the thoughts the ideas of others, what I have read as some examples, but the information is now understood in a better way. However, the original meaning of how those questions were viewed is not forgotten but a point of reference to compare and contrast thoughts, ideas.
When playing TA or LA the point for my game at the moment, what is being worked on, and what is thought about is match ups, player(s) vs. player(s), hand vs. hand. What am I looking for to counter my opponent? What does my opponent hold? Are the opponent(s) thinking about these two questions? Do they think I think about them thinking about these two questions? Prior play, bet sizing, these are some of the determining factors to take into consideration when assessing these questions.
Hands prior, observing my opponents playing prior, in the moment against others while I am not in the hand, in the hand, how do they handle table dynamic changes pre and post, polarizing moments that come unexpected by how they react?
All of what was typed is taken into consideration about how players put themselves into situations and how it could be determined at least in theory about what is considered skill, luck, or the importance of timing? However, for arguments sake, does this change the price of eggs?
By assessing in this manner, I am trying to stay neutral in what is being discussed in this post, the same way I am reading the hand in the moment based on as much information, facts of what I know because of the importance of not being biased by what I hold or what I think they hold. This exercise is not a the exercise of a NIT but rather as I become better at an overall non bias account of a situation it is about match ups, and abilities vs. the situation. This helps not to justify my actions but rather objectively look at my play with honesty without spinning the outcome to fit my narrative.
Players analyzing results, can a line be drawn to how much they understood the situation leading up to a random result by how much of the story they can recall when analyzing the situation? Because people can rattle off the facts about the match up post results but how much of the story does the player recall correctly, can they narrate a story about the situation as they could the % of the hand after the fact, while in the moment? Could now a line between luck, skill be drawn about how a player narrates the moment, or does the play only get discussed after the fact but not in the moment?
Hard one to answer because this is about hearts and minds, and it is hard to define what is in the heart and mind of a random player; however, this could be a moment to compare and contrast plays to help understand how peoples actions define themselves by their decisions. The last question, could the abilities or countering other players abilities a better way for players to assess what each person may determine what is luck, skill, or timing by what they could explain, define, about their abilities, tendencies, the abilities, and the tendencies of their opponents?
Here are some variables that are tagged in my thought process for defense and offense, analyze at and away from the table, while playing or getting ready to play.
• When playing micro’s, players have tendencies that would seem on the surface that would eliminate the need for advanced play, fancy play, however, knowing this; the illusion of action has to be put in place for players to define their skill set for me that would eliminate some of the bias against how little or how deep the micro players pay attention in a session, in the moment.
• This helps to separate the good and bad players in a first stage assessment until further evaluation with more information to help trust small edges my opponent(s) chooses to reveal. This assessment starts with two to my left and right then reaching out across the table as the session moves forward.
• When playing LA the first bullet point is for assessing match ups while looking for those who pull back against aggressive dynamics, others who will embrace what I am doing. The need for X amount of chips is taken into consideration when applying information against opponent(s).
• When playing TA assessing by observing more than playing allows for the same process as above just as if I was giving the illusion of action for them to define their skill at a quicker rate, this allows for more facts to come out slower but at a more reliable rate. Since this approach does not have a more defined chip model, the need to acquire chips more slowly but looking for places to double up becomes a more progressive approach rather than a LA polarizing quick strike approach.
• Playing a limit poker approach by taking free cards for floating purposes, that will allow the opponent(s) to define moments post flop. This helps to assess how much bluffing potential they have by how they react in and out of position. Also how they are reacting to why I would float? This helps to see how they apply their mechanics to make movements that are a direct reaction to purpose plays for reaction or the lack of reaction. Also taken into consideration in these many different situations are my image and the image of my opponent(s) at the time of the assessment and then compared to priors hands leading up to this moment for example. Note taking is required in some cases.
• Narrowing down tendencies of micro players are moving targets just like my “A” game, the reliability is dependent on how much I can recall properly in the moment because of how erratic the players are with their decisions consistently. This challenge helps my mental game to further eliminate bias decisions, and to better trust reads.
• Even though, this is quite a laundry list from which to think, the movements of my game are quite simple because these are micro players. The amount of tools needed to compete, prove myself each day is necessary to create, then use because of how poker is unpredictable with certain table dynamics.
• The brain has three hours for a player to compete with their “A” game that is determined by how the player is playing that day, how this plays out for three hours is how a player would assess how they are playing compared to how they view their “A” game before setting down in a session for example. After this period the tendency for making quality decisions will erode, how long a player can play consistently beyond the three hour mark depends on how or if they start making mistakes because their game erodes or do they have the ability to play consistently beyond three hours. This is something I pay attention for my game as well as observing the games of others.
• The question then becomes how quality are their decisions while in that sweet spot compared to what is observed after this time? My R/A game will run from 9 a.m. until around 2 p.m. depending on the field. The 2 hour late registration game lasts around the same time give or take depending on the field.
• Choosing games are important that assess mood, skill sets for certain tournaments, the type of players who play the same tournaments, and tournament structure. All of this allows for non-biased decisions about how my game is playing that day, in the moment, and whether I am assessing information properly prior to choosing my games that day or feel the need to pick a better day for which to play.
August 11th, 2016, 3:44 PM
STL FAN 
Online Poker at: ACR
re: Poker & Poker, how we test and measure our thoughts?
When a person makes a choice, was the choice theirs to make? An unconscious choice, a choice was made from no thought but just a repeated action, and if the action is negative how would the person know before making the choice if the information comes from unconscious thought? From this would it now be clear in these spots the brain is using the person, the choice was not theirs to make because of the deep ingrained information that was stored in the brain that comes from the unconscious?
Mistakes, actions that are made at the table that result in negative outcome, and then are repeated to the point of mastery, a losing player in these spots will not know they are making but just repeat the action because of the information stored in the brain. A better explanation would be a better player would bring this action out of their opponent in the moment by observing a weaker player, the mentality of a loser, or a person who has this particular mistake repeated to the point of mastery?
Could this be out of the person’s control to know they are about to make a mistake? How would they know unless they had conscious thought before changing their mind before the mistake? What a player does not recognize in themselves when making a mistake is considered unconscious incompetence, this type of player does not even know what he or she does not know, meaning they are blind to the way they lack skill.
The better player could not have made those actions, recognized what action to make against the weaker player in the moment unless they have themselves been in those positions then either learned, or learned from others what mistake they were in fact making in the moment.
For arguments sake we believe the better player has this action down to the point of unconscious competence, this means the person knows the information to the point that it is totally automatic and requires no thought. This person would have had to start from unconscious competence at some point.
However, the player that had unconscious competence with one part of their game, even though, the tables could be turned against the better player; that would simulate them being the losing player that shows unconscious incompetence, meaning the losing player would have this situation to the point of unconscious competence against the better player that just took their money from the above situation that now shows unconscious incompetence from the better player. Now in the moment it is being used against the better player making them the losing player, but as the game moves forward there are ebbs and flows many encounters. This would show how vast the game of poker is in reality, and how hard it is to get any part of the game down to the point of mastery within each person’s individual game.
The two other levels will show the journey between unconscious incompetence and unconscious competence.
Conscious incompetence, this means a player becomes conscious of what they do not know but that does not make them skilled. It just means the player knows what skill they need to improve. Becoming conscious comes from the players own insight or the insight shared by others.
Conscious competence, this level shows there has been work done and have had some repetition to gain some skill. However, in order to be skilled the player has to have conscious thought about what was learned otherwise, the player will turn around and go back to incompetence.
The struggle between the two levels mentally, this means in the moment when having to face a situation with the lead or waiting to make a decision in position; the vastness of how to handle this mentally, the psychology either being used to make a conscious, unconscious decision. How does this affect the player’s mental state? Could they use psychology to turn the table on a random opponent in the moment because of conscious competence or allow psychology of the situation to use them then turn around to incompetence in the moment?
Could a person learn to go beyond the moment and use other tools from various styles that would seem backwards in the moment but know a polarizing play would throw their opponent off balance because at the very least conscious competence of the situation reading the opponent is at the same level here and could be influenced by a surprise?
Playing off the other player(s) when recognizing their opponent is at either one of these two levels allows for a play to shut down conscious thought because the situation has no clear understanding, an execution of a surprise knowing the other player does not have conscious competence of the situation this will shut down the brains ability to figure out what action to make? When the brain shuts down conscious thought by an action what happens past this point?
The person turns around and goes back to what is comfortable, they move forward with a potential mistake? Meaning they are faced with choices, raise, call, fold, shove, and any of which could be a mistake by either acting or not acting in the moment? Does psychology of the moment use them or are they using psychology to help support with making the best choice when they are faced with these two levels? Could this help to break through levels of learning?
Is luck applied in this equation or implied to all situations? Can luck alter the equation or implied in all situations where skill is not recognized? Is skilled applied in situations when opponents do not have conscious thought over their play, and then analyze the play only to conclude the play was luck because they do not have unconscious competence of a random situation? Can skill alter an outcome or implied only to those situations in which the player will recognize their own skill to use against the skill or lack of skill of their opponent?
August 11th, 2016, 6:11 PM
Game: nl holdem
I'm just curious and don't mean to be a troll; do you actually expect an answer to a 4 post-long stream of consciousness message?
If you'd like a reasoned reply I'd suggest condensing this into a much briefer (ideally one or two paragraph) post(singular).
August 11th, 2016, 9:00 PM
Online Poker at: PokerStars
Game: NL Holdem
We need to play at least an hour to relax especially if you play a tournament I personally helps
August 17th, 2016, 7:16 PM
Poker at: pokerstars
Game: Texas holdem
When I'm tired a long time and do not start the reasonableness of rates, read Harrington, I understand that I have not already, and play a lot. Probably the hell how long and without a mistake you can play and determines skill.
August 20th, 2016, 2:42 PM
STL FAN 
Online Poker at: ACR
re: Poker & Poker, how we test and measure our thoughts?
Emotion, how my thoughts explain triggers, how to recognize and explain which emotion, the impact it has on the mental state. Going back to the snap shot in time from past posts these triggers now can be seen with a better vision of what my mental state will face moving forward. For example, fear is an emotion that is needed to perform, to overcome for the betterment of my game; fear is a welcomed emotion. However, panic is not, panics definition is different than fear, panic can kill your game, in a life threating situation panic can have the same result however, fear is healthy to perform in the moment.
The scars represent the embrace of mistakes, mistaken identity of how a trigger effects my mental state; mistaken definition of how this affects moods that impact the effect of tilt, how my mental state handles the ebbs and flows of poker. What is important? Why is it important for me to post this when observation of forums many just seem to be sidelined by thought of an implied memory or justification of assumption we as poker players have this built into our game?
For example, when faced with a situation, 60 plus BB in the bb with no extra money invested suddenly snap shove AJ suited over an over bet pre-flop from a LAG? The read snapped me back into reality because of the prior play of this person. Snapped loss running into AQ off-suit, this person was watched closely however, knowing, understanding why a LAG does this image plays by changing gears, changing table dynamics, because of showing negative ev hands on the river or pre-flop races; my game knew if this was a smart LAG they are hedging on getting dealt a premium hand waiting to trap a player such as myself.
The bad LAG player that switches gears will call with an inferior hand, fold to that shove when caught but would call the three bet pre just because of prior observations, to play this hand was a fold or shove situation not a call or three bet out of position. My game at this time did not need to exploit the situation because of there was still an hour late registration and how deep my stack was in this tournament.
Since my game has never been put in this situation pre with that many BB with such a marginal hand against a LAG that had just a little bigger stack, in these situations with this hand it is an instant fold however, psychology was a big factor in how this might affect or shut down their thought process if they held rags because if they were paying attention my game had not made such a move pre-flop, even though, a bad LAG would cancel this thought out if they are in fact waiting to gamble themselves with a premium hand perhaps any two.
The loss had no mental effect on my tilt, no rage, no disappointment, odd on how much this remained neutral even though, in my pitching days it would represent giving up a game winning homer against my read of what to pitch, my best pitch, it was like they knew what I was going to throw them. In the past shame would usually be felt by saying what did I do, what could I have done different?
This just reinforced why my game does not need to repeat a situation just as this in the future but in the moment my game needed this experiment for my mental state to embrace the potential negative outcome to see how this affected my mental state afterward or the polarized play afterwards by either winning the hand, perhaps a fold by the LAG. My image moving forward would allow my game to further exploit situations if necessary. Seems like a cruel unnecessary experiment on myself, actually it bothered my game that I did not play for the rest of the night but monitored my thoughts and did not chase the loss like I normally might do upon recognizing a bad read then think my skill would win back the money.
My game simply embraced my thoughts then like a closer in baseball, analyzed the situation then enjoyed a Cardinal baseball game, and then this morning reflected my thoughts with this post. This blog form of posting does not look for replies but rather offers thoughts of a random poker player, in other forums this type of response or posts usually invokes statements from my peers that will make me chuckle.
After reading some of my other past posts within this section because of a random reply, the thoughts of what my game was experiencing in the moment brings my game back to that moment then contrast and compare where my game has grown, then the direction where it needs to continue to grow.