Pokernews Strategy - Page 6

Btw, that old SC topic about talent is quite interesting. I've always argued that talent isn't really important and is pretty hard to measure anyway - I'd think most of the "talent" people speak of can be gained. Like, I think most of my own talent comes from finishing a math school. Obviously there are some limitations. Like girls will generally have poorer hand-eye coordination and reflexes (im not actually certain of that but thats not important), obviously men will differ some as well. But those can be altered too. I've spent a shitload of time playing missionred.com or specifically practicing my keyboard BW skills. But I guess someone else might spend the same time and not improve much. I also can't improve my color deficiency, which makes it pretty hard for me to follow the minimap at times.

I would assume the girl hand-eye coordination is largely so due to the result of societal needs. The society(ie siblings and peers) will generally encourage girls to pursue mild activities, while boys generally "be boys" and engage in violence and sports.
That being said you cant overlook the differences in male and female biology, mainly the production of hormones(ie epinephrine(adrenaline) and testosterone).

On one hand you cant really deny the existence of talent, its easily visible especially when you look at sports, even starcraft. You can say that for example Emelianenko or Armstrong, or Schuemacher or even Boxer are good because they practice a lot. But if you look at their opposition they do too spend hours upon hours in practice sessions. Yet there is something that brings those mentioned on a whole new level.

But my opinion is that this kind of, natural talent is what makes creme de la creme creme de la creme, and not just "one of the best".

What makes you one of the best, in my opinion, is another kind of talent, talent to practice the right way. And thats why there are coaches in sports, progaming and all over the place. I remember when i played starcraft, long time ago, there was a period when i wanted to become a pro. I played a lot, 8 hours a day or so perhaps, and yet there seemed to be little progress. My problem was that i never approached the goal from the right standpoint, i never had any plan, never analyzed my play, i just sorta waited for it to hit me. "Talent,"- i thought to myself,- "if i have it, i have it!"

I've started playing some WC3 recently- and approached the game from the right side- I was thinking. I watched other people play, watched my own replays, analyzed my mistakes, corrected them, had a thought-out strategy prepared for every game and every counter, timed my builds, etc etc. I've managed to become a top 20 of WC3 ladder- yes it is quiet weaker then what it used to be, but it still separates me from the regular folk, who, just like me a few years ago, never think about what they do, just wait for it to hit them.

I guess my point is that yes, to become the next phil hellmuth and win 11 WSOP bracelets you need a boatload of talent and a whole lotta luck. But to be a profitable poker player all you need is the talent for practicing.

Well to get good at abstract games, I'd say the ability to improve your game constantly is most important and its not really a talent. I remember I used to be somewhat smart at 16 and in school and in BW i did alright. But I was very dumb at learning. I didn't watch my losing replays and didnt try to understand the fundamentals or look at the big picture. So i was learning very slowly. Now that I've learned how to learn, getting good at abstract games or math or physics for that matter seems really easy for me.

So I guess my point is, I dont think talent plays that much of a role in BW or Poker. A great coach and a shitload of practice will suffice too.

Btw the word talent is horribly undefined, i hate it! Always makes me argue with ppl for hours at a time. Reality is driven by cause and effect, but all the things leading towards you winning Ongamenet for example are so many, its nearly impossible for a human being to perceive what part of them he can control. (i realize my english is starting to fail me)

Rhaegar,

I'm gonna have to disagree with you again. I think you opinion is based partly on the fact that you have succeeded at everything you put your mind to, giving you the illusion that anyone can do it as long as they try hard enough. Well, you're probably much smarter than most people in the world. There are a lot of people in this world that just flat out lack the mental capacity to excel at certain things.

Let me give a couple examples. I have a good friend that I've known for many years. OK, let me compound racial stereotypes and mention that he's black. We both went to the same high school, one of the top schools in the country, so you can't use the excuse that he's lacking the same education and opportunity. Well, he's a smart guy and very gifted in language. He's an excellent writer and his ability to freestyle rap is unbeliveable. But you know what, he is fucking horrible in math. He always failed it in school and when I tried to teach him basic concepts in poker, he just couldn't grasp it. I am certain that NO amount of practice or training will make him a top poker player. Same holds for BW, Backgammon, Chess, Go and other games that utilize that section of your brain. Maybe with enough effort, he may become average or slightly above average. But I am absolutely sure that no amount of practice could make him a long term winner at mid to high stakes. He just doesn't have the natural ability to do so.

Second example is regarding the game of Go. I've said it before and it really is an amazing game that requires such incredible analytical ability. I'm a 1-dan right now and there are many people that have played the game their entire lives and are much worse than that. And those people could take lessons from the top pros and still never reach that level. On a related point, let me mention that I've been a 1-dan since I was 13 years old. I learned the game at the age of 12, and advanced to 1 dan within a year. Maybe because the person who taught me was at that level, but I've plateaued there. I've played thousands of games since and I'm still a 1-dan. In fact, I may have dropped a level over the past few years since I rarely play anymore. At this stage, I'll pretty much be a 1-dan for life. Maybe if I really applied myself and got lessons from top players, I guess I could advance 1 or 2, maybe even 3 ranks. But that is it. That is the extent of my natural ability.

Remember Rhaegar, only one person can win a OGN Starleague. Only one person can win a Wimbledon and the Masters. If the entire world were completely fair and everybody had the same access to training and practice, well there still will only one winner. There still will be a last place. That is what I'm talking about when I mention the word talent. Sure there are a tremendous number of factors that lead to a champion, but talent will always remain the biggest factor. I think you are grossly underestimating the importance of talent.

Yawnwn, site out yet?

Also Beast runs good at bw and it's the only reason he ever achieved something zzz!

Practice is everything not only in poker and bw, but also in everything else. If you think why tennis, golf, football players start to train since kids and not 'wait' until they are 16-17 and 'see' who has talent and who has not? Because they must burn those moves in their heads and become machines and dont do errors when they play. Don't say Federer or Tiger woods are the best because of natural talent. If they stop to play just for a month they will become average and that's because the lack of practice. Talent means something on very a basic level. Talent meant something in the early years of poker, when poker wasn't so complicated. Talent is the ability to make the correct decision almost immediately. And when you are playing poker at the highest level like Beast, your mind can't handle those decisions that fast without matter how talented or smart you are. You need the decisions before you sit at the table. Planning and practice is everything. The rest is implementation. Well if you know you are talented before you start something that helps your confidence, but the use of the talent is very little overall and it can't be the difference between Boxer and Beast if they have equal hours of training.
And I am not saying it because I am a Beast fan. In fact, I too hate when people idealize someone. That's just stupid.I don't know Beast well and I have only met him twice I think, but when you talk with him you can very obvious see he's a genius, but his success is more because of the hard work and less the talent.

You might be correct but there are a lot of problems in this theory.

First the word "talent" means very little and until we define it better, no meaningful discussion is possible. Second, theres no good way to measure what part of your ability is totally talent - in other words unachievable for most other people.

I'm not sure about your math example, you might be correct, but it's very difficult for me to imagine that anyone will be totally unable to learn math, even if he had a good teacher. The reason is mathematics is basically a model of reality, studying the same laws of cause and effect that operate in the real world. I'd imagine that almost every human being, thats fit to survive, should be able to understand it. I know a lot of very smart people that know nothing about math and found it somewhat hard, but they excel at things that involve math, so im fairly certain that they had a bad start, missed some of the fundamentals, couldnt keep up and decided that they suck at math... I think this is a very common occurence, because math is impossible to learn if you miss some of the fundamentals and when people cant learn it from the first 2-3 tries they just decide they suck at it.

Now, I'm fairly certain people are not born the same, theres no argument about that. But the problem is, its very difficult to measure what the limitations really are and its quite probable that very few people get even close to their limitations anyway. Obviously in competative sports, this is much more pronounced.. Some guy might be as smart as I am, but might think a little slower and I obviously have an advantage.

And also, its impossible to tell if one excels in his field because he was born this way, or because of a huge array of other factors, also mostly outside of his control (or what we call luck).

But actually, while its hard to say if one has a genetic advantage, its incredibly obvious any winning player is incredibly lucky, however you look at it.

And I still think I can teach math to a monkey.

Edit: Tsl is correct that there are just way too many variables, leading to success and genetic talent accounts for a relatively small percentage in my opinion. And he's also correct that success in most games, especially abstract games like poker and BW is achieved out of the game, which lowers the importance of "talent" even more.
I'd argue that quality information is the most precious resourse and possession of it is definitely more important than any other factor.

For example, if someone told me what strategy Boxer would play against me and the perfect counterstrategy, I'm going to win.

I am not trying to underestimate the importance of practice and environment. The ability of humans is quite remarkable and there are many awe inspiring stories of people overcoming great challenges through incredible determination, effort and practice. And your point is correct in that it is very difficult if not impossible to quantify the exact percentages of a person's accomplishment due to natural talent and practice.

But there are serious limitations. You say that you can teach math to a monkey. Sure you may be able to teach a retard how to count, but can you teach him calculus? The point here is that as you get to more advanced levels, a lot of practice is virtually a prerequisite. Everyone tries hard and practices and if you didn't no amount of natural talent can carry you through. However, the very nature of the highest levels is that it is unattainable for the masses and only a select portion of the population can achieve it, even with massive amounts of practice.

TSLto says : "Practice is everything not only in poker and bw, but also in everything else."

If that were the case, everyone in the world would have the mental capacity to discover the theory of relativity if they just applied themselves. Everyone could crush high stakes games and everyone could win an OGN Starleague. Everyone could be a professional 9-dan in Go and crush Lee Sedol if only they practiced enough. Everyone could win gold medals. Everyone could make billions of dollars as a quant trader. If only they practiced enough because obviously, natural born talent means very little and practice is everything.

Take a hundred people and have the train and put them in the same environment. They all train since birth at BW or Go or math or whatever. When they reach adulthood, there will still be a first and last and 98 places in between. This is what I mean by talent. Everyone's brain and body is wired differently and has a different capacity. I could have trained since birth with the top coaches and I still would have never won a gold medal in the 100 yard dash or in weightlifting. In just the same way, I'm sure that I also don't have the talent to win an OSL or an International Go tournament. I have a strong level of self-esteem but I'm also a realist. I was tested as a child for an IQ of 140 and I consider myself a pretty smart guy but I just don't have the brainpower to be a 9-dan in Go, it is an impossible feat for me because I lack the talent and no amount of practice can change that.

And to your final point about quality information being more important than talent. This is not because the game is "abstract" as you put it but because poker and BW are games of incomplete information. Of course if you could see someone's hole cards or if you knew boxer's strategy while he didn't know yours, then you would win. But that is totally meaningless point because that is not the game. My point is better illustrated in a game of complete information such as Go. You could know exactly how a player such as Lee Sedol will play and what his strategy will be and he will still crush you. You could practice for all eternity and he will still crush you. Anyone that understands the game of go will know exactly what I'm talking about here. Of course many huors of practice is a requirement, he didn't fall out of bed one morning and become who he is. But on the other hand, 99.99999% of all people that have ever lived on this earth could have practiced 10x as much as he did and he will still crush them. This is because he was born with an incredible talent that no amount of practice could replicate.

wall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of text

wall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of textwall of text

On July 16 2008 09:25 TenBagger wrote: ...

That is really reductive. People are NEVER in the same situation. During your life you meet people, you have to deal with your parents and so on. Genetics arent the only factor. There are many skilled people who could have been better at poker or Bw if they had no studies or girlfriend for example.

You cant put people in the same environment period.

Prove that talent exist?

How many Maradonas you see? How many Peles? natural talent.

to add to this, Maradona himself was a "fuck up" meaning he would show up late for practice, get drunk after the games etc and still was the best of the best. While some players practiced everyday for 8 hours, and couldn't be half as good as maradona.

Dont matter if I practice 24/7 all my life, I will never be as good as maradona, yes I could turn out to be a good decent player but that is all

haha that is so narrow-minded. Like if there is a football gene .

Btw Pele would suck badly today.

I wonder how the name of Pele appeared on a poker discussion in a poker forum? That must be a donkey's fault to bring that up.

I think all people that are not mentally retarded are capable of doing anything. Some can do it working hard, others not so hard.

You can't put Football players into consideration. Every sick football player play football ever since they can stand up. Usually their parents love football and they start at the age of 4. They grow playing football at every opportunity.

Its easy to say "I cannot be a Maradona" when you played football 2 times a week for 1h in school during your life, while he was born in Argentina and probably played everyday many hours a day with young kids that played well around him.

[edit1] I forgot to say. Besides all the hardwork, there is obviously the genetic part. You can't be a Maradona if you are 1.85m tall.

[edit] To obiblion: of course. You wan't to compare someone who played in a era where players run 3km during a game with a player that plays in an era where players run 10km during the game? Its a different sport and you should not compare it. He was the greatest ***athlete*** of his time, that should be enough.

practice makes perfect, but you do need some form of talent to rise to the top

On July 16 2008 11:52 Raidern wrote: [edit] To obiblion: of course. You wan't to compare someone who played in a era where players run 3km during a game with a player that plays in an era where players run 10km during the game? Its a different sport and you should not compare it. He was the greatest ***athlete*** of his time, that should be enough.

Ofc i highly respect him .
It is like comparing Boxer during his prime days to Flash.

TenBagger,
'' ...If that were the case, everyone in the world would have the mental capacity to discover the theory of relativity if they just applied themselves. Everyone could crush high stakes games and everyone could win an OGN Starleague. ... ,,

Yes, everyone can do this if they dedicate themselves to it at 100% like the professionals, but the factor that stops them to do it is how hardworking they are. We are mostly talking for theory and abstract things now, and you have forgotten how hard actually is to achieve something in reality. It really sounds that simple and because of that you doubt it but this is the perfect formula for sucess - practice 24/7 for a given amount of time and you will be if not the best, then one of the bests. But not everyone can practice 24/7, not everyone can handle when it starts to be 'borring' in some way, not everyone can be so high motivated to keep trying and keep trying and keep trying... until it finally happens. Plus most people are just too fucking lazy just to 'think'.
I remember some bw player - ToT)SEn( and honestly when I watched his replays he wasn't creative at all. He looked like a dumb but perfect machine that just keeps pwning and pwning units and macroing all the map no matter who the opponent, which the race and what the map is. I highly doubt his tallent but he was one of the best foreigners back then when he was active. And that just because of sick amount of practice. He just played insanely huge amount of games and became perfect at his macro strategy. Well I don't think he's actually is dumb in person and we may never know but I know something for sure - he became gosu for one reason - sick, sick practice and nothing else.
And I agree with Beast that he can actually teach a monkey to math, even there are research universities where scientists are teaching monkeys to math, and very sucessfully. I've watched the series on Discovery Channel. lol.

On July 15 2008 20:23 Rhaegar wrote: Krantz really should be. And Patrik too if he continues to play as badly as hes been playing recently. .

yawn about those walls of text but... wat Krantz??? Krantz is the biggest winner in NLHE online from the past 3 years, nobody has ever won as much as him, he is imo the best NLHE player in the world.

Like always i agree with Beast. i think he shares similar perspective to me.

In regards to talent, many people are considered talented but in reality they just understand basic fundamentals and apply practice in a effective way to become good and appear talented.

lol wat. i can count 4 separate and distinct ways in which that post is totally retarded baal =[

edit: id list them but youd only yawn at more walls of text (also, stfu with your yawning nobody cares if ur not interested, this is some interesting discussion here)

On July 17 2008 11:44 Ket wrote: lol wat. i can count 4 separate and distinct ways in which that post is totally retarded baal =[ edit: id list them but youd only yawn at more walls of text (also, stfu with your yawning nobody cares if ur not interested, this is some interesting discussion here)

how is it retarded, that is true he is the biggest winner in online nlhe for the past 3 years, more than Patrick, Ivey or anybody else, i can understand u think that is not proof of him being the best thats why i clearly typed IMO he is the best.... to avoid posts like the one u just made -.-