metode de grind, abordare de grind ( long )

[ferdi]

Sticky thread imo.
Ferdi ar fi interesant daca ai juca si turnee live regulat as fi curios ce fel de grind ai face online, inainte de un turneu important live si cu ce grind ai face startup-il inapoi la online dupa o saptamana de pauza.

inainte de turneu live bag grind in functie de mood. dupa turneu live aproape 100% grind autopilot pt a domoli setea

[ferdi]

When discussing the game of poker, there will always be a disparity between what we say that we'd do when recalling the hand or reading it on paper, and what we're capable of doing in real time. Our at the table decision making process is more complicated in the moment than it is when we have a more vacuum like scenario-lacking in finer detail and some short term memory-plus we may have a rush of emotion through the duration of the hand that we do not experience during recollection and reconsideration. When learning and practicing our game, we must not only refine our thought process, but refine our decision making. Coming to the correct conclusion is rather useless if you can't pull the trigger in a live scenario, but having a thorough and complexly developed thought process is all for naught if you knee-jerk reaction your decisions in real time.

Our decision making process has two sides, a half that is emotional, impulsive, and instinctual, and a half that is rational, logical, and contemplative. To quote Jonah Lehrer from his book How We Decide: "The most popular theory frames decision-making in epic terms, as a pitched battle between reason and emotion, with reason often triumphing. According to this classic script, what separates us from animals is the godly gift of rationality. When we are deciding what to do, we are able to ignore our feelings and carefully think through the problem." These halves of the process are obvious within poker but I'm not sure there's been a label to them before. As far as I can see, our decision process goes in a consistent sequence. We first take an emotional impression of what's going on, what we see, what we feel, how the flow and history affect the dynamic, what our instinct is telling us, what our immediate gut reaction is. It is instant, and subconscious, and exactly what people mean when they say "Don't think, blink". Then, we go through a logical progression wherein we run down the hand trying to figure out whether everything in the decision we're supposed to make adds up on a logical level. At least, we go through this process when we're playing well, and not on some form of tilt.

It seems clear to me that when it comes to making decisions in poker, the two prevalent halves of the poker world, live and online, generally have a separate opinion of which is more important to develop. Live players are often heavily reliant on their emotional impression of the hand, trusting their years of experience watching people, reading situations, and listening to their instinct to lead them to the right conclusion. Conversely, online players are more reliant on their logical progression, trusting that hundreds of thousands of hands analyzed in poker tracker, hold'em manager, and pokerstove will produce patterns leading to profitable and exploitable situations that are backed by sound math and strong logic. Emotional impression is the G.W. Bush angel on your right shoulder, telling you to shoot first and ask questions/search for WMD later, and logical progression is the Obama on your left, looking to deliberate and theorize until you get shot. Not surprisingly, the two trains of thought are often portrayed at odds with each other, and one group snickers at the other for failing to realize something that they feel is obvious. A few years ago I was snickering myself, and in an industry that often breeds jealousy for others success it can be easy to scoff when someone plays a vastly different style from yourself. What I've come to learn since that time is that the two should not be at odds, but that we should strive for a conflation and synergy that optimizes our decision making capabilities in whatever form of poker we might be playing (and really, in decision making in general).

First we must develop, calibrate, and fine tune each process, and then we need to find a way to give the appropriate consideration to both sides. This is of course done the way everything worth doing gets developed: through practice. But how does one practice a thought process? Depends which one it is.

Practicing your emotional impression seems like an odd idea if it's in theory supposed to be "instinctual". But instinct in a skill set isn't something you're born with, it's something you develop over time through repeated experience and learn to trust as you get better and grow with it. The kind of emotional impression factors we look for during a hand of poker are things like what we see from our opponent, what our "gut" is telling us, and what the flow at the table has felt like up to that moment. These are variables that are hard to quantify in traditional terms and hard to relate on paper when describing the history of a hand. It's easy to mock live players who have clear fundamental and technical leaks, but it's much harder to measure the degree their development in emotional impression negates the lost edges and in some extremely talented cases, can be used in the creation of unexpected ones. To practice the accuracy of your emotional impression, watch hands when outside the action and ask yourself questions such as:

1. What is the strength or weakness read on the body language of the other players? To discern the accuracy of behavior patterns you need to have a sample size of observation to draw upon, otherwise you're just making guesses about the body language of a person based on the generalizations and preexisting assumptions you have about tells. The observation you engage in leading up to the hands you play against certain opponents will provide context to your future decisions against them.

2. Are my opponents being congruent? Are they being consistent with the things I've seen them do before in similar situations, or is something different? Does what's different seem natural, or in some way fabricated? When people lie their body language changes involuntarily, and some are better at controlling and hiding it than others. A surprising amount aren't even conscious of hiding it or anything they’re doing with their body.

3. What is my gut and/or instinct telling me? What do I feel compelled to do before reason and logic even enter my mind? If I were to "follow my heart", where would it take me? (Likely spew-town in my case). Take note of what your immediate reaction is telling you, and look to see how accurate it is over a number of hands.

Practicing your logical progression and general analytical break down process of poker thinking is a more broadly accepted and encouraged idea. All of us that undergo this process do so by a number of methods, be it coaching, watching videos, posting/reading on forums, reading books/articles, talking poker with friends, and using computer programs to study patterns, leaks, and potential edges. Building up this talent is more a pattern of study, play, and review/revision that will often go in cycles over the course of a career as one or the other becomes more pertinent. Practicing your logical progression during play is another thing. What I have found to be chiefly important in maximizing your analytical potential during play is to slow the **** down and think it all over. Once poker hands reach a certain level of thinking there's an awful lot of variables going into every decision, and you need to spend some time to eliminate possibilities from opponent’s lines and holdings as a result of their patterns, sizing, history, metagame, and style of play. Take a moment and consider every option. Is the situation really just call or fold, or is there a surprising reason that raise could be better? Have you thought over all the relevant details, and made an effort to remove your emotion and desire from the situation so you can accurately gauge the relevancy of those details and how they should affect your actions? Are you perhaps seeing the patterns or making the rationalization you want to make, and not the one that would be most logical? Are the kinds of things you're seeing from your opponent consistent with what you've seen in the pattern of his play so far, or is something altered and suspect? Are there external factors that would sharply change the thought process of your opponent as opposed to normal circumstances? Take every sliver of information you can then boil it down to the most important pieces and come to your conclusion on what's happening, and then do that over and over again until it becomes pure habit when you're at the table. Let's be realistic here though, nobody is focused 100% of the time on the table, watches all the action, and makes a constant conscious effort to record mental notes. What's important is that you try, and strive to increase the astuteness with which you do this.

Finally, when it comes to making the decision in game time, make sure to use both. First, listen to that emotional impression and what's trying to tell you. Make a mental note of it and save it for later. Then, aim to shut that line of thinking off, slow things down, and start thinking over all the relevant details. Run through your logical progression of the things you think are crucial to the hand and see what conclusion you come to. If your emotional impression and logical progression are in unison then you can feel very confident about your decision. If they're not, then deliberate about whether one is making a stronger or more compelling argument than the other. Think about which one you have more practice listening to and feel comfortable basing a close decision off of, and have the confidence to not second guess yourself on that. For most online players it will likely be their logical progression, for most live their emotional impression, but I'd encourage everyone to start thinking about practicing the side they're less comfortable with instead of viewing it as some kind of intellectual heresy. And if you find yourself in a situation where you just can't decide between the two well then ****, I guess it's time to flip a coin and pray.

bond18

[Darth]

tldr;

[cereala]

fain articolu , bond rulz again.