Think Differently

[socal1111]

If we want to see different results, shouldn’t we think differently?

99% of our nation’s wealth is earned by 1% of the population! Why? A large part of that 1% visualizes, thinks, and acts differently than the rest. They’re willing to take risks that most are afraid of taking, and they’re not afraid of failing in the process! They’re not affected by those who tell them that their ideas won’t work, and shouldn’t be attempted.

This type of mindset can be brought to the poker table, as well. Our goals as players, should not only be learning from the winners before us, but to also create “new ways” of doing what’s already been done. We shouldn’t settle for the type of thinking that says,

“If it’s worked for 80 years, why try to alter it now?”

“If it was a good idea, someone else would’ve already tried it?”

We should use those winning concepts, of course, but also find different, more creative ways at looking at situations and decisions. We should want to be the type of players that are willing to “buck the system” in order to separate ourselves from the pack. The game, today, is filled with ABC, by-the-book type of players, who have learned to play in the same way as thousands of others.

In response to threads by players trying to improve, so many replies give close to the same advice—good advice, but still the same. That’s a problem, IMO, because I feel many players that are currently learning the game are turning into robots, making X play, because 10 people on X forum, or in X book said it was the correct play. Is there a different play that would create a better result? I don’t think that question is currently being asked often enough, but is a question, I believe, that would help separate ourselves from the 99%.

Players are learning quicker than they ever have, mainly due to all of the available information in books, and online. This is why I think it’s crucial to begin focusing on our own, new ways of looking at situations. Standard thinking is fine, and maybe even be the best way at certain times, but does it have to be the only way? Is there a different, better way? Can we question the popular logic and belief systems that are currently in place, creating our own winning formula, yet still hold onto the basic fundamentals?

Stay focused,
Dayne

[grnydrowave2]

[Our goals as players, should not only be learning from the winners before us, but to also create “new ways” of doing what’s already been done.

You, sir, are a visionary. Much like LeFou:

http://blog.flopturnriver.com/post/L...t-does-it-mean

[bjsaust]

People need to learn the why of advice so they understand and can adjust as required. People dont need to do things differently just because its different.

Successful players are the 10%, not the 80% doing the same thing. Learning from that 10% is not following the crowd, its smart.

[Stacks]

uhhh bj... 10% and 80% is 90%.... Who's the other 10%?

[JKDS]

uhhh bj... 10% and 80% is 90%.... Who's the other 10%?

ultimatepoker bot V6s

[swiggidy]

uhhh bj... 10% and 80% is 90%.... Who's the other 10%?

ultimatepoker bot V6s

maybe the intellipoker players

[bjsaust]

10% are good, 80% follow the herd and arnt, the other 10% are off inventing their own special flat wheels because the round ones are old hat.

[Stacks]

IntelliPoker players like flat wheels??? Now that's just dumb!

[socal1111]

10% are good, 80% follow the herd and arnt, the other 10% are off inventing their own special flat wheels because the round ones are old hat.

I'm not talking about "reinventing the wheel," but how about finding a better body-style to put on those wheels?

If we're unwilling to look for possible ways to evolve, we'll always be in a "state-of-stuck!"

-Dayne

[grnydrowave2]

Please impart me with your wisdom. Tell me about some of your unorthodox strategies.

-grnydrowave2

[socal1111]

Please impart me with your wisdom. Tell me about some of your unorthodox strategies.

-grnydrowave2

Can't tell is you're serious... or just busting my chops!

[asdpikas]

[EDIT:
Regarding your first paragraph:]

Rrrrrright....... NOT!

1/100 of the population has 99/100 of the wealth. Not because of brighter ideas. Because of oppression, control, and all the capitalist system mechanics that keep the lower classes at bay.
Tell me that Bush has bright ideas! LOL
I will assume your country is the USA, where the rights of the workers to organize in unions are suppressed all over. The country that condones torture and says fuck the Geneva Convention. The country that invades other countries by brute force without provocation.
In that country, and unfortunately, in most countries, inherited power and force is what keeps that top 1/100 where it is. NOT BRIGHT NEW IDEAS

Anarchist saying:
If shit was worth something, the poor would be born without an asshole

They say "the cream rises to the top", I say "shit floats"

[bjsaust]

This is the beginner forum, the more I think about this thread, the more I think its the worst one I've seen posted here.

People are coming here to learn how to play. They need to learn the basics, and then move onto understanding the concepts. Sometime way after they've moved beyond reading the beginner forum for advice they can start to branch out on their own to take those concepts and come up with something new if need be, but encouraging people still learning the basics to come up with plays all by themselves before they even understand why we use the plays we do is just dangerous to their development and their BR.

[jyms]

I agree bj. You can't re-invent the automobile unless you have actually spent some time driving, a ton of time.

As for thinking differently, we are all in a state of flux when it comes to learning poker. It's only when we have these so called "AHA moments" that we begin to think differently about a concept or the game and improve. To think that you are going to do something different in poker and find a new, successful path that has not been tried would be a akin to banging your head on the wall. It's useless. There are so many things that are proven, winning strategies that we cannot even grasp, why bother looking for new paths. I for one, will spend the rest of my pursuit of poker knowledge on trying to figure out what Gabe, Sauce, ISF, P4's, Cocco bill and all the other $400NL, $600NL, $1KNL regs on this site are doing differently and learn from them. Blaze a new path if you want. I'm going this way, it's been proven to be successful and I would rather take successful over trailblazing.

[celtic123]

they way I see it, Social1 has a valid point.

I read all new posts daily and am always taking in new information, a lot of stuff I just dont grasp , sometimes when Im at the table , i get a eureka!! moment and I marry up a subtle happening at the table with something I have read at FTR.

So Social1' s message is clear, keep openminded and dont be afraid to venture your own ideas.And I am very much an absolute beginner.

[jyms]

Those eurekas are not from your own ideas, they are from others. You are learning from them and their path. You would have to disagree with the dogma posted and go out on your own and figure things out. Do this. Get a deck of cards, and some chips and turn off your computer. Spend the next week figuring something out about poker that nobody else has, then come back and see if you blazed a new path.

[yourfather]

[Our goals as players, should not only be learning from the winners before us, but to also create “new ways” of doing what’s already been done.

You, sir, are a visionary. Much like LeFou:

http://blog.flopturnriver.com/post/L...t-does-it-mean

Good looks on putting me onto Lefou. LOL WTF.

"Knock Knock
-Who's There?
-TPTK
-GO AWAY!@!!!!!1 I never want to see you again, you SUCK!!!!1 I hate you!"

[sarbox68]

[EDIT:
Regarding your first paragraph:]

Rrrrrright....... NOT!

1/100 of the population has 99/100 of the wealth. Not because of brighter ideas. Because of oppression, control, and all the capitalist system mechanics that keep the lower classes at bay.
Tell me that Bush has bright ideas! LOL
I will assume your country is the USA, where the rights of the workers to organize in unions are suppressed all over. The country that condones torture and says fuck the Geneva Convention. The country that invades other countries by brute force without provocation.
In that country, and unfortunately, in most countries, inherited power and force is what keeps that top 1/100 where it is. NOT BRIGHT NEW IDEAS

Anarchist saying:
If shit was worth something, the poor would be born without an asshole

They say "the cream rises to the top", I say "shit floats"

Damn bro... I think you're looking for the anti-capitalist rant forum two blogs over.....

[asdpikas]

Damn bro... I think you're looking for the anti-capitalist rant forum two blogs over.....

LOL
i just had to say it. That whole "the powerful are powerful because they have bright ideas" is just ludicrous. Plus the comparison with poker is just crap.

[celtic123]

LOL
i just had to say it. That whole "the powerful are powerful because they have bright ideas" is just ludicrous. Plus the comparison with poker is just crap.

I beg to differ , poker is ruled by the Capitalists A's ,K's, Q's and J's, Royalists actually.

[Fnord]

That whole "the powerful are powerful because they have bright ideas" is just ludicrous.

[sil693]

celtic123 has to be social1111

how are beginners (like myself) supposed to develop new and innovative poker staratergies when we are learning the simple basics.

Walk before you run. . . . . ??

Thread fails IMO.

[Stacks]

Fwiw OP sn is socal1111. There is no social in it. But w.e.

I agre with the others that there is a certain process beginner's have to endure to grow as a player. First you get told how to do something and you start implementing it into your game. Later you start to realize just exactly what it is accomplishing and why it is good/bad advice to take. The good advice you keep, while the bad you disregard.

I'm pretty sure there isn't too many, if any, things that hasn't been tried in poker. While I agree that you shoudn't blindly follow someone's advice and when asked why you raise preflop with AA, say "because so and so said to". No, you must take their advice and delve deeper into it and understand why tht's the correct move.

In essence, you really shouldn't be focusing on how to create new ways to win. Instead you should be focusing on trying to learn and understand why the current winning strategies exist and why they do.

[celtic123]

That whole "the powerful are powerful because they have bright ideas" is just ludicrous.

I didnt write that . did I ?

[socal1111]

celtic123 has to be social1111

how are beginners (like myself) supposed to develop new and innovative poker staratergies when we are learning the simple basics.

Walk before you run. . . . . ??

Thread fails IMO.

I'm not advocating "making up your own strategy..." but I AM suggesting to learn the basic fundamentls (obviously very important), and look for ways to put your own signature on what you do at the tables.

For those who are afraid to "think differently, because it's worked for so long," you're definitely in the majority... which is why there aren't too many EXTRA SPECIAL in sport/game/field/job, etc.

Who the hell would change his golf swing 3 times after he's totally proven to be the world's best, and as dominant as the game's ever seen? What kind of horrible thinking that would be... to actually think "the best in the world" just isn't good enough-- there's gotta be more! That kind of thinking would be LUDICROUS!!

Ohh... wait... TIGER WOODS RING A BELL?!

You keep accepting what's "already been proven," and allow the rest of us to go beyond.

[jyms]

Tiger Woods may have CHANGED his golf swing, but he god damn well did not reinvent it ( or as you say "buck the system") . He changed it to a provenly better swing, and had a conventional wisdom instructor help him fix what was wrong with it.

[socal1111]

Tiger Woods may have CHANGED his golf swing, but he god damn well did not reinvent it. He changed it to a provenly better swing, and had a conventional wisdom instructor help him fix what was wrong with it.

Again, you say REINVENT! Not one time, did I say "reinvent" in my thread.

"Provenly better swing..." (as you said)
It was only proven AFTER it was completed! He had to risk changing it before it could be proven. DING! DING! DING!

Tiger was willing to take "the best game in history," and want to improve it. Do you understand the remarkable, and completely opposite (to conventional thinking) mindset that is?

Key word here: WANT to improve the best.

He wasn't going to settle for anything less than best-of-the-best-of-the-best, whatever that means. It only matters what it means to him. He knows that 99% of players aren't willing to "think differently" like that, because of the criticism they'll receive (as I am now). But he doesn't care-- he only cares of going beyond conventional wisdom, and recreate the record books... can't do that with "normal" way of thinking.

[bjsaust]

When you're as good at poker as Tiger Woods is at golf, feel free to do whatever you want creatively at the table, but then those people probably arent reading the beginners forum at FTR...

[jyms]

Again, you say REINVENT! Not one time, did I say "reinvent" in my thread.

If we want to see different results, shouldn’t we think differently?

99% of our nation’s wealth is earned by 1% of the population! Why? A large part of that 1% visualizes, thinks, and acts differently than the rest. They’re willing to take risks that most are afraid of taking, and they’re not afraid of failing in the process! They’re not affected by those who tell them that their ideas won’t work, and shouldn’t be attempted.

This type of mindset can be brought to the poker table, as well. Our goals as players, should not only be learning from the winners before us, but to also create “new ways” of doing what’s already been done. We shouldn’t settle for the type of thinking that says,

“If it’s worked for 80 years, why try to alter it now?”

“If it was a good idea, someone else would’ve already tried it?”

We should use those winning concepts, of course, but also find different, more creative ways at looking at situations and decisions. We should want to be the type of players that are willing to “buck the system” in order to separate ourselves from the pack. The game, today, is filled with ABC, by-the-book type of players, who have learned to play in the same way as thousands of others.

In response to threads by players trying to improve, so many replies give close to the same advice—good advice, but still the same. That’s a problem, IMO, because I feel many players that are currently learning the game are turning into robots, making X play, because 10 people on X forum, or in X book said it was the correct play. Is there a different play that would create a better result? I don’t think that question is currently being asked often enough, but is a question, I believe, that would help separate ourselves from the 99%.

Players are learning quicker than they ever have, mainly due to all of the available information in books, and online. This is why I think it’s crucial to begin focusing on our own, new ways of looking at situations. Standard thinking is fine, and maybe even be the best way at certain times, but does it have to be the only way? Is there a different, better way? Can we question the popular logic and belief systems that are currently in place, creating our own winning formula, yet still hold onto the basic fundamentals?

Sounds to me like "reinvent"

[socal1111]

Again, you say REINVENT! Not one time, did I say "reinvent" in my thread.

If we want to see different results, shouldn’t we think differently?

99% of our nation’s wealth is earned by 1% of the population! Why? A large part of that 1% visualizes, thinks, and acts differently than the rest. They’re willing to take risks that most are afraid of taking, and they’re not afraid of failing in the process! They’re not affected by those who tell them that their ideas won’t work, and shouldn’t be attempted.

This type of mindset can be brought to the poker table, as well. Our goals as players, should not only be learning from the winners before us, but to also create “new ways” of doing what’s already been done. We shouldn’t settle for the type of thinking that says,

“If it’s worked for 80 years, why try to alter it now?”

“If it was a good idea, someone else would’ve already tried it?”

We should use those winning concepts, of course, but also find different, more creative ways at looking at situations and decisions. We should want to be the type of players that are willing to “buck the system” in order to separate ourselves from the pack. The game, today, is filled with ABC, by-the-book type of players, who have learned to play in the same way as thousands of others.

In response to threads by players trying to improve, so many replies give close to the same advice—good advice, but still the same. That’s a problem, IMO, because I feel many players that are currently learning the game are turning into robots, making X play, because 10 people on X forum, or in X book said it was the correct play. Is there a different play that would create a better result? I don’t think that question is currently being asked often enough, but is a question, I believe, that would help separate ourselves from the 99%.

Players are learning quicker than they ever have, mainly due to all of the available information in books, and online. This is why I think it’s crucial to begin focusing on our own, new ways of looking at situations. Standard thinking is fine, and maybe even be the best way at certain times, but does it have to be the only way? Is there a different, better way? Can we question the popular logic and belief systems that are currently in place, creating our own winning formula, yet still hold onto the basic fundamentals?

Sounds to me like "reinvent"

Show me "Reinvent."
"Better" doesn't mean reinvent. "Our own" doesn't mean reinvent. "Question popular logic..." "Creativity"... nope, doesn't mean reinvent. All of those "X" go ALONG WITH CONVENTIONAL WISDOM, NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF, ALL TOGETHER!

I understand that's it's MUCH, MUCH easier to think like everyone else.

-BUT-

Everything gets better, changes, rethinks, adjusts. Nothing should ever stay the same!

[spoonitnow]

I'm sorry but this thread is retarded. And I'd like to think that I'm an expert on retarded threads due to all of the experience I have in making them.

A better thread would be talking about how 90% of poker players are lazy as fuck and what you could do to move into the other 10%.

[grnydrowave2]

One of these days I need to register a multi account and make hilarious threads like this.

[asdpikas]

LOL
LOL
ROFL
...and all those laughing acronyms

this is just the stupidest "poker" thread ever to hit the forums!

[sil693]

OP sucks. idaupvhfbglkgvp;bvihlvohas;dfvhpVLB i'm on tilt just reading his replies.

FUCKING DO THIS SHIT YOURSELF THEN AND BECOME SOME SORT OF LEGEND INSTEAD OF PISSING AWAY MY TIME MAKING GAY THREADS.

/end of rant.

[ATOTHEC101]

best thread ever

[sarbox68]

lolreinventtigerwoodsswingingpokerformoremoniezgay threadaments!!

[a500lbgorilla]

No human being has ever had a truely original idea. Take the strategies that work, make the connections and develop an improved strategy.

[sarbox68]

No human being has ever had a truely original idea. Take the strategies that work, make the connections and develop an improved strategy.

I'm pretty damn sure I invented the spork at my auntie's house a few years back.... but then you might consider that just an "improvement"...

[Jack Sawyer]

too much time is spent thinking crap, too little time playing instead.


people do not understand the type of beast poker is. they seem to think that you can somehow miraculously start winning every pot every time, and all of a sudden get like 100 bb/100 over a 100,000 hand sample, and be like davinci or picasso or tiger woods or roger federer, only instead on a poker table.

this is wrong, misguided, and flat out laughable thinking.

all there really is to poker is keep getting your money in good, figuring out when others are full of shit, how to win the pot, knowing who to avoid etc.

stop thinking about "being more original and creative than the next guy, i'm the next Phil Ivey, i'm god's gift to poker, i have devised the perfect strategy, nobody will ever beat me" etc etc. while its a fun thing to do, and wishful thinking, but you are only wasting cycles.

[a500lbgorilla]

No human being has ever had a truely original idea. Take the strategies that work, make the connections and develop an improved strategy.

I'm pretty damn sure I invented the spork at my auntie's house a few years back.... but then you might consider that just an "improvement"...

You're clearly inhuman.

[cowboyardee]

IMO, originality is besides the point. What beginners really need when learning strategy is to invest time and effort into learning not only what to do but why they're doing it.

Creative solutions to in-game problems come from nothing more than a thorough understanding of what obstacles you are facing (example, stolen from other thread: an opponent who floats flop c bets all the time and then turns up aggression on the turn and river) and what strategies, logically, would optimize your success against said obstacle (c betting flops seldom or not at all depending your opponent but betting your strong hands for as much as he's willing to pay).

Experience will help you better learn to identify obstacles accurately and quickly and your understanding of how your strategies work will guide you in picking optimal counter strategies.

I don't really see much room for brilliant original thinking in there. However, those who simply use strategies or textbook advice on how to play a hand without understanding why those strategies and advice work or what they are designed to work against -- those players are gonna run into problems.

[bobdor]

99% of our nation’s wealth is earned by 1% of the population! Why? A large part of that 1% visualizes, thinks, and acts differently than the rest. They’re willing to take risks that most are afraid of taking, and they’re not afraid of failing in the process! They’re not affected by those who tell them that their ideas won’t work, and shouldn’t be attempted.

This is just Horatio Alger BS. The American Dream died a long time ago. But I won't rant.

[sarbox68]

You know what I think the deal is? It’s like, you got all these pieces and parts. Like it’s one of those old school tubs of Tinkertoys. And the long straight stick bit is UTG pre-flop, and the short stick with the notch in it is, like, c-betting, and the wheelie thing with all those holes around the edge of it is a double barrel. And you dump all this sh!t on your rug and you’re like, damn, I’m going to build me something sweet. Now some of these pieces don’t go into other pieces, and some pieces don’t do anything at all like that crappy @ss green fan type piece that don’t do sh!t, like, wtf is up with that piece.

But anyway, so you take like a long stick piece and one of those joining pieces, that could be position or “attempt to steal,” and then mash it into a third piece and that’s, like, an amalgamation of basicness that gives you an approach. Now, if you put the wrong pieces together, even if they kind fit, you look at it and go that’s not sweet. So like if you figure out I got to be really tight UTG and I got to be aggressive and cbet but miss the what does a calling station look like or do piece then you go dude, I just donked off my stack and that is definitely not sweet.

And this gets more complicated as you build your thing and get more pieces in there. And you can be applying your creativity, thinking all out of the box and originizing, so when you finished you got something that is sweet and unique. BUT – it’s still made up of the same pieces that are tried and true… it’s just the way you put them together that is where you have flexibility, and also where you got opportunity for leaks.

So, study your parts – the fundamentals is the fundamentals and ain’t no reason to reinvent 150 options for that round wheelie piece when best and highest damn use is as a wheel which your dumbass could have figured out from the picture on the box if you’d paid attention, studied a little and had the humility to say “damn, people that been building sweet things for years think this piece is best used as a wheel – so even tho I think it would make a damn fine afro for my tinker stick man, maybe I’ll put it aside and use it for when I build his sweet ride.”

[JKDS]

You know what I think the deal is? It’s like, you got all these pieces and parts. Like it’s one of those old school tubs of Tinkertoys. And the long straight stick bit is UTG pre-flop, and the short stick with the notch in it is, like, c-betting, and the wheelie thing with all those holes around the edge of it is a double barrel. And you dump all this sh!t on your rug and you’re like, damn, I’m going to build me something sweet. Now some of these pieces don’t go into other pieces, and some pieces don’t do anything at all like that crappy @ss green fan type piece that don’t do sh!t, like, wtf is up with that piece.

But anyway, so you take like a long stick piece and one of those joining pieces, that could be position or “attempt to steal,” and then mash it into a third piece and that’s, like, an amalgamation of basicness that gives you an approach. Now, if you put the wrong pieces together, even if they kind fit, you look at it and go that’s not sweet. So like if you figure out I got to be really tight UTG and I got to be aggressive and cbet but miss the what does a calling station look like or do piece then you go dude, I just donked off my stack and that is definitely not sweet.

And this gets more complicated as you build your thing and get more pieces in there. And you can be applying your creativity, thinking all out of the box and originizing, so when you finished you got something that is sweet and unique. BUT – it’s still made up of the same pieces that are tried and true… it’s just the way you put them together that is where you have flexibility, and also where you got opportunity for leaks.

So, study your parts – the fundamentals is the fundamentals and ain’t no reason to reinvent 150 options for that round wheelie piece when best and highest damn use is as a wheel which your dumbass could have figured out from the picture on the box if you’d paid attention, studied a little and had the humility to say “damn, people that been building sweet things for years think this piece is best used as a wheel – so even tho I think it would make a damn fine afro for my tinker stick man, maybe I’ll put it aside and use it for when I build his sweet ride.”

best post in the thread.

[asdpikas]

You know what I think the deal is? It’s like, you got all these pieces and parts. Like it’s one of those old school tubs of Tinkertoys. And the long straight stick bit is UTG pre-flop, and the short stick with the notch in it is, like, c-betting, and the wheelie thing with all those holes around the edge of it is a double barrel. And you dump all this sh!t on your rug and you’re like, damn, I’m going to build me something sweet. Now some of these pieces don’t go into other pieces, and some pieces don’t do anything at all like that crappy @ss green fan type piece that don’t do sh!t, like, wtf is up with that piece.

But anyway, so you take like a long stick piece and one of those joining pieces, that could be position or “attempt to steal,” and then mash it into a third piece and that’s, like, an amalgamation of basicness that gives you an approach. Now, if you put the wrong pieces together, even if they kind fit, you look at it and go that’s not sweet. So like if you figure out I got to be really tight UTG and I got to be aggressive and cbet but miss the what does a calling station look like or do piece then you go dude, I just donked off my stack and that is definitely not sweet.

And this gets more complicated as you build your thing and get more pieces in there. And you can be applying your creativity, thinking all out of the box and originizing, so when you finished you got something that is sweet and unique. BUT – it’s still made up of the same pieces that are tried and true… it’s just the way you put them together that is where you have flexibility, and also where you got opportunity for leaks.

So, study your parts – the fundamentals is the fundamentals and ain’t no reason to reinvent 150 options for that round wheelie piece when best and highest damn use is as a wheel which your dumbass could have figured out from the picture on the box if you’d paid attention, studied a little and had the humility to say “damn, people that been building sweet things for years think this piece is best used as a wheel – so even tho I think it would make a damn fine afro for my tinker stick man, maybe I’ll put it aside and use it for when I build his sweet ride.”

best post in the thread.

can u make a sticky out of this??? pleassse???

[socal1111]

Ok, this is what I conclude from all the negative replies:

"Poker is what it's always been, and will never change. There won't ever be any more new ideas or concepts to help improve one's approach."


I never wanted to suggest that we can (if we get creative enough) make 4+4=1o...

Just asking if there's more to be aksed.

[daven]

I never wanted to suggest that we can (if we get creative enough) make 4+4=1o...

you should be a hedge-fund manager

[cowboyardee]

Ok, this is what I conclude from all the negative replies:

"Poker is what it's always been, and will never change. There won't ever be any more new ideas or concepts to help improve one's approach."


I never wanted to suggest that we can (if we get creative enough) make 4+4=1o...

Just asking if there's more to be aksed.

Don't know whether this is worth reviving (sorry), but I'll bite. Here goes...

What do you mean? Really?

If you presented us with a new thought (and it worked) I think we would all be very receptive> example: see Shania Theory -- I don't remember that being around when I first started playing (though most players had an intuitive imprecise notion of it). Or read most of ISFs theory threads -- he is certainly putting his own (rather deep) thought into the way he plays the game, and he also certainly has more laurels to rest upon than most of us. I agree that continually working on a game that's proven to win is admirable and important. But I'm pretty sure his insights, new or not, stem from a thorough understanding of the game and a real work ethic rather than from some sort of creative drive.

Your posts come off as criticism of current poker theory without providing any guidance towards possible alternatives. Poker is a game of somewhat finite options -- sure you can fuck around with how much you bet/how long you take before betting/what you type into the text box/finding the perfect degree of drunkeness to play/etc, but it's not like people don't do that already. As such, people are right to question the creative new approach you advocate. Cuz dude, it's nebulous as shit.

[socal1111]

Ok, this is what I conclude from all the negative replies:

"Poker is what it's always been, and will never change. There won't ever be any more new ideas or concepts to help improve one's approach."


I never wanted to suggest that we can (if we get creative enough) make 4+4=1o...

Just asking if there's more to be aksed.

Don't know whether this is worth reviving (sorry), but I'll bite. Here goes...

What do you mean? Really?

If you presented us with a new thought (and it worked) I think we would all be very receptive> example: see Shania Theory -- I don't remember that being around when I first started playing (though most players had an intuitive imprecise notion of it). Or read most of ISFs theory threads -- he is certainly putting his own (rather deep) thought into the way he plays the game, and he also certainly has more laurels to rest upon than most of us. I agree that continually working on a game that's proven to win is admirable and important. But I'm pretty sure his insights, new or not, stem from a thorough understanding of the game and a real work ethic rather than from some sort of creative drive.

Your posts come off as criticism of current poker theory without providing any guidance towards possible alternatives. Poker is a game of somewhat finite options -- sure you can fuck around with how much you bet/how long you take before betting/what you type into the text box/finding the perfect degree of drunkeness to play/etc, but it's not like people don't do that already. As such, people are right to question the creative new approach you advocate. Cuz dude, it's nebulous as shit.

Very good thread, TY!

I never wanted my post to come off as poker theory criticism, in the least. I was just trying to ask if it was possible for "more," whatever that meant.

It didn't make sense to me that I was getting hammered for suggesting "growth," but if I came off negative about current philosophies... my mistake!

I wrote that after talking w/ someone who was trying to make me believe that "poker should be played (X) way, period!"

Thanks for your response, cowboy.