blonde poker forum

That some poker players are born with genetic advantages over others, ie, prone to risk taking, having people reading skills, mathmatical brains etc

Or do you think it's all learned and some are better, (more dedicated/determined) students of the game?


As a side issue, Tony 'How beige is my jacket' Kendall has a HUGE physical advantage, but that's just a freak of nature

Good question

As with most things I do believe some are "naturals" and some have to work at it.

Myself, I am not a natural risk taker though I am naturally good with maths. Consequently due to my lack of natural aggression I often found I was vulnerable to the muscle that NLH tends towards, from other players. I was easily bullied.

However I have studied hard, practiced a lot and taught myself the techniques required to overcome my natural disadvantages which I have bolted on to my natural strengths.

My results have improved

Another thing I think is vital is temperament.

George Best...huge natural talent, suspect temperament

Wayne Rooney....the same

IMHO temperament is just as important as natural talent....in poker terms the ability to remain even tempered in response to the ebbs and flows of a long MTT and not spoil hours of hard work through tilt, impatience or frustration adds dramtically to ones long term results....and thus with hard work and study allied to a good temeprament it is possible to win even with only linited natural talent.

i wouldnt use the phrase "genetic advantage" - i mean, look at BigArmo!! You cant get any more of a disadvantage as that genetically and still he can hold his own at the online poker table!!  ;goodvevil;

Unless you've hit onto something when you talk about freaks of nature........  :D

 :goodpost: :respect:

I think the way we play Poker reflects ouir "real world" characters & personality.

I am cautious by nature, know the value of money, have solid financial principles & morals, & so tend to see the dangers more readily than the advantages. Someone like, lets say, Jac Arama, is more gung-ho, "wtf" sort of thing.

And I have good mathematical skills, but these are countered by seeing the downside too easily.

To some degree, these personal traits DO shape our game. I am MUCH better & much prefer Pot Limit than No-Limit, because I rarely have to "risk the whole shop" early doors.

Genetic advantages?

Well, in my case, compared to Twitchy Eyebrow Red, handsome is as handsome does. Wanna borrow my jacket, Red?

I would say that Poker is the same as any sport/activity.

You CAN learn, and even to a high standard, but to be one of the best, you have to be a natural - that cannot be learnt.

His arse again?

You're infatuated with it Tom!

Well I do admit that during a long tourney, I envy his upolstery

He's not alone Trace. But I am not comfy with the "sex-God" image I have, I hate it when women  - and some men - look at me & I can sense them mentally undressing me. Love me for my mind, not my body, is my message.

I don't about loving Tikay - but I tend to love a girl for what she doesn't mind :D

Oh dear!

Someone up his medication he's fantasizing again!

Even more worryingly, so am I.

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW...


rotflmfao

No choice these days Trace, the sell-by-date sems to have long been & gone......

just be thankful you at least had a sell by date!! :'(

Awwwwwwww ;reallyamsorry; ;reallyamsorry; ;reallyamsorry; ;reallyamsorry; ;hide; ;hide;

do you know from a long way away and in a poor light he has a chin and looks kinda like paul newman in that photo...

That's often been said. As has Bergerac's likeness to me. Tom Cruise too, I shouldent wonder.

I don't know about being born genetically better than anyone else. I suppose this relates to other areas just as much as to poker. The nature verses nurture debate.

However, when you look at someone like Gus Hansen's heart rate during a game, he is so relaxed. This obviously shows that he is 100% confident in what he is doing and also what he feels he is able to do. I think this factor is what sets out a winning poker player. I doubt if any of the top players ever feel negative during a game. Of course, experience of playing at these high levels make this a thing which can be learned.

To continue with the Hansen example, he has played games from a young age with a competative mindset. I think this helps as it ingrains a competative streak in a persons character. He is also intelligent which allows him to adapt to different situations throughtout the game.His backgammon background and general games skills must play a part in his present success.  

I honestly believe that most top sports people could play poker well. Of course this would require a large commitment of time and patience that any other person needs while learning the game. Their advantage would be, they are used to using their brains in a competative way. Look at someone like Stephen Hendry, he is a good poker player. Apart from the fact he may just have studied the books available on strategy, I think his ability can be related back to his mindset used for years of playing snooker at a high level.

In my opinion anyone can be a world class poker player. All it takes is self belief, dedication, lots of study and a basic understanding of people,this can be obtained through our normal daily interactions with the people we meet. If all of these criteria are met then really there is no need to gamble.
 
I freely admit, I am an obsessive person when it comes to winning. When I look at the members of Blonde, there is not a single person that doesen't have the potential to play with the so called 'Greats' of the game. Don't get me wrong, I have huge repect for all the top players. But not because I feel they are gentically better than me or even in a lucky position to be where they are. I respect them because they are at a stage in the path to greatness which we have still to reach. It is within all of us, it is just the releasing which is the hard part.

Some people on Blonde may be able to compete with a DB or Gus Hansen at the moment. But there is no reason why all of us couldn't compete with them in the future.

Poker is a game where you can never have enough experience, so there are constantly ways in which you can look to improve.  No matter what your background, there's always likely to be a facet of the game which is not natural to you and which you have to train yourself in.

I was attracted into the game by the logical/mathematical side of it and with a determination to 'learn it' - hence the numerous books on the subject in my collection.  However, its an impossibility to do this as the game is so complex.  Hence, there's no 'basic strategy' which will guarantee you success.

For me, the real learning curve has been the non-mathematical side to the game (e.g. making moves, playing the player and 'gambling' to accumulate chips) which is much less of a natural thing for me to do, but is as much as a necessity as understanding the maths.  However, I can think of many players who are naturals at this side of the game who perhap don't understand the 'theory' as well as I do.  However, there's no guarantee as to who makes the better player at the end of the day.

I can identify very much with TightEnd's sentiments as I went/am going through a similar learning curve to him.  I think we are similar players in style and its interesting to see him seek to improve and to read his posts on here as in a lot of ways it closely mirrors issues that I've found during my development.  However, I'm equally as fascinated by the 'gamblers', as their approach to the game provides me with much more 'learning material' as they possess the natural skills that I am trying to artificially develop.

The one certainty among all this is that nothing beats experience.  I've shared tables with the likes of Micky Wernick and Joe Grech and am constantly awed by this fact at the end of the session.  Ignoring the fact that their presence at the table makes my immediate situation much more difficult I've found that I can learn a hell of a lot just from watching them play.  

At the end of the day its a simple fact that the more hands I play, in as many formats as possible, the more exposure I get to make the decisions that count.  Provided I can extricate myself from the emotions (not easy) and focus on the decisions I made (regardless of the results), learn from the ones I got wrong and re-inforce the ones I got right then I should become a more formidable opponent than before.  However, experience only counts if you are willing to go through this process - if you spend your life putting everything down to bad cards, bad luck, crap opponents and the like then you'll end up making the same mistakes over and over again until they're so entrenched that they become impossible to undo.

Sheriff

Another  :goodpost:

Now that post by Sheriff, a sparring partner for me across the felt for many months, is an an excellent post.

Top stuff!

I extract this from Sark's most insightful Post......

".....It is within all of us, it is just the releasing which is the hard part........."

I am not 100% certain he is right insofar as it affects poker, but let me tell you a little story, 100% true, to reflect the "it is within you, it's the releasing it which is the hard part" theory.

For reasons we don't need to go into now, at the age of 13 I could neither read nor write, barely speak as it happens, too, as I had a dreadful stammer. I was at a regular school, & then I got sent to a "special school". I sat in all the lessons, & I seemed "normal-ish" in other ways (stammer apart) but I just could NOT read or write, no matter how hard I tried.

And then, as if by magic, I COULD read & write. Not over 6 weeks or 6 months, but literally - & I do mean literally (in both senses) OVERNIGHT I could not only do both reading & writing, but I could do them both jolly well. I was instantly the school Spelling Bee Champion (bet thery are a thing of the past) & I immediately started reading quite heavy stuff, the quality newspapers & pretty detailed technical books & the like. In other words, it was within me all the time, but something needed to happen to unlock it.

Maybe I will wake up tomorrow & be able to play poker well, too..... though that would be asking a bit much, I fancy.....

Still, I've got a  lovely @rse, or so I'm told.

It's always amazes me how a seemingly simple question on blonde can sometimes bring forth these deep, brutaly honest replies

 :respect: to all the posters

 :goodpost: tikay.  It started off sad, but ended with a happy ending.  :)

I don't see it as sad at all Sark. Everything happens for a reason. Early adversity has served me incredibly well in later life, so iit's swings & roundabouts. I can handle disappointments & setbacks & bad beats better than anyone I know, the "immune system" has done it's job well. So the early problems have been wholly to my benefit. I do fear - terribly - for today's kids who get wrapped in cotton wool & protected from life's bumps & bgruises - they NEED to suffer those bumps & bruises to prepare them for the real world. But these days they are cosseted & protcted from them by over-protective parents & the nanny state, & it's damn CRUELTY to children to educate them to think they can go through life without taking a few slaps along the way.

It ended happily? Well, not QUITE done yet, but yes, I'm as happy as a happy person can be. So, back to the subject mstter, yes, maybe it's all bottled up inside us - though I fear I will never know how to bust Karabiner's QQ with Thewy's K-9........

yea I agree

Great posts on here guys . I think that with hard study you can become a very good player but if you want to be great then you do need a little extra and I think that you probably are born with it.

that sums it up nicely.....

I cant see anything that makes you a natural poker player, there is no physical skill involved.

The more intellegent you are the easier it will become, that is the only thing that holds people back.

All other things, like temprament, reading skills etc can all be taught.

...but I know many great poker players who are not very bright, & many bad ones who are.

I'm not convinced intelligence is the biggest key ingredient.

I think "instinct" is important, & I think you are either born with that or you are not.

I also think you have to have great instinct, and the balls to make moves
I'm not a great percentage person, but I know how many outs I have at any point and if
i'm getting pot odds to call into it

and my claim to fame is I made Gus Hansens heart rate beat faster when I made a move on him :) 
Nobody else on my table did that ;)   

You probably just leaned a long way forward across the table Mel  ::)

Blimey, I pop out of the office for a meeting and this great thread springs up (well, great apart from all the talk about the Kendall posterior...). So many great posts - who to quote first?


True, up to a point. There are personality traits which are advantageous to have at the poker table - mathematical dexterity, the ability to be able to think clearly whilst under pressure (ie avoiding 'rabbit in the headlights' moments), people reading skills, adaptability to changing situations, to name a few. Some people are naturally good at these, others aren't. The ones who aren't can, through hard work and dedication, raise their skill at these things up to the required level.

To use the example of me, I've always had a sharp mind concerning numbers, and have been good at avoiding panic in pressure situations. However, my people reading skills are practically non-existant at the poker table - I have a long, long (long) way to go to get good at this - it requires far more effort than the maths as I'm starting from a lower base to start with.

We all have natural strengths and weaknesses. Playing to your strengths is fun, and can be easy. Eliminating your weaknesses is rarely fun, and is always hard work. True champions put the effort in to overcome their weaknesses - this is the difference between them and others.


How do the great players make the right decisions? It's because they'll have been in similar situations in the past and the best course of action has been ingrained into their psyche and they are able to act upon it 'without thinking'. It may seem like gut feeling or instinct, but it is actually their years of prior experience being brought to bear on the current situation.

Sheriff had it right - nothing beats experience, which can only be accumulated over time, by putting in the hours at the tables, and also afterwards, examining where you went wrong and how you can make a better decision next time. You only ever really learn how a household appliance works when it goes wrong and you take it apart to fix it. It's the same with a poker decision - it often has to go wrong before you can truly understand how and why it goes right.

Bugger - i'd better quit poker now then!! i'm forever finishing with more bits than i started with!!

I have just realised who you are Londonpokergirl.  Were you on the pokerchannel?.  I think, but I may be wrong, Roy Brindley was at the table as well. Forgive me if I am wrong, I don't get out much and may have just imagined it.

I really believe the biggest advantage is the desire to come first. I have two fine dogs, Roland and Elvis. Roland is two and Elvis is nine. They are both about the same size as a Lab.

Elvis is the most competative person I have ever met. If he is swimming at the beach and another dog is beating him through the water to the stick, he whimpers and tries as hard as he possibly can to get to the stick first. He was a stray and we found him when he was about 2 months old near the Kilmarnock football ground. My other dog is alot younger and faster but when they both play football( with a tennis ball) together on the beach, Elvis always wins. Roland can actually run alot faster than Elvis. He is also a better footballer than Elvis, although I never actually tell Elvis this. But Elvis has a burning desire to win and as a result, more often or not does win. It is unfortunate Killie can't get a player like him for their team  :D

My point is this, all top sports people and poker players have to have a massive desire to win. I really don't think that natural talent comes into it. Look at both Damon and Graham Hill. They are recognised as not being natural drivers but they were both World Champions. Did you know both of them didn't start their careers on four wheels untill they were 24/25 years old. To put this into context, Schumacher won his first F1 title at 25 and Alonso is the current World Champ at 23. Natural talent does not play as big a part as most people think. It is desire to win that counts, any setback can be overcome. Many people said age was against Hill when he first started against much younger more experienced drivers and Elvis my dog beats my other dog on the football field through sheer will to do so.  Desire is the strongest character trait a person can have.

aye that was me sark ,  devilfish, roy the boy, gus , me , regholdsworth(martin green) and matt


karabiner :)  naughty boy.  although funny enough devilfishs first comment was nice ***s which got edited lol

Not me!!

I would have remembered playing with someone as good looking as you mel!!  :-*

My husband Mr Nun..tells me I am a natural at it,    and that I was  born to always hold  a deck in my hand......well at least that's what I thought he said... 8) :D

LOL LOL LOL LOL  POST OF THE DAY !!!

An intellegent person playing for the first time is still a fish. I mean that intellegence makes it easier to learn.

As for "not very bright" there are many diffrent types of intellegence, knowledge is not one, the 2 are often confused.

I have to say you can learn up to a certain level, but to be world class you have to have "it"! Watch Ram's heat of the willhill gp, it was an excellent example of someone who is naturally talented at the game... You could not teach that!

All world class players have aspects of there games which are a cut above the rest. I don't think it is one particular skillset maybe a combination of many, but there definately is something that differs the good from the great! Someone let me know exactly what it is though!

There's a great take on this on the John Gale interview Neeko posted a link to earlier http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=7584.0

He's saying that after his wpt win he went away and studied the game reading harrington, tj etc. When he went back to playing following their advice he was awful so he went back to his natural game and became a winning player again.
He really comes across as someone who believes 100% in his natural ability

One of the best threads i've read. I'm really sitting on the fence on this one, and i'm with kev with regards to post of the day. ::) ;)

matt monkeyboy u sweetie  :-* :-*

I don't think poker is about genetics and natural ability. Just like life itself, it's about learning to make correct decisions through experience.

Genetically and naturally, I am the most talented player on Earth, but I have made the decision not to show it at the table. I bloody well choose to be a crap player.