Can you learn it or do you just have it

MooseJam

Giving some passing thought to giving this poker lark a go, was wondering if it is possible to just sit down and study to the point where you could make nice monies or is it just something you have to have which no amount of study will replicate.

A bit like reading a book in the hope of being the next maradona.

TommyGunne

You can learn it, but it is a lot of work to get good. Its pretty easy to get ok at it though. Nobody is born good at it. Everybody learns it. Some learn faster, some learn slower but thats obv the same with everything.

zuutroy

It would be pretty hard to start playing now and make any easy monies.

tipp86

zuutroy wrote: »

It would be pretty hard to start playing now and make any easy monies.

Not if he intends to play live. Im still pretty sure there is ok money to be made.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

nicnicnic

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No-one just "has" it.

Stu Unger did

TommyGunne

nicnicnic wrote: »

Stu Unger did

Even he spent a lot of time working according to his book. He just learnt a lot faster than usual.

DAMO72

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No-one just "has" it.

I Have:D

zuutroy

Obv some people have it ffs. Darvin Moon hardly plays at all and he came 2nd in the biggest tournament in the world.

Mr check raise

zuutroy wrote: »

Obv some people have it ffs. Darvin Moon hardly plays at all and he came 2nd in the biggest tournament in the world.

lucbox. isildur1 had it but busted it, ungar had it until he busted himself so really i dont want it

nicnicnic

TommyGunne wrote: »

Even he spent a lot of time working according to his book.

??

first time he played NLH was in the "big game", 1st tournament he played was winning the wsop main event.

Ace2007

tipp86 wrote: »

Not if he intends to play live. Im still pretty sure there is ok money to be made.

depends what he plays, micro limits PLO = easy money if you don't bluff and play well and can handle the variance imo

elshambo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No-one just "has" it.

some have the big pair of diamond balls which apparently cannot be learnt

Beat: Read a Vicki Coren piece and actually liked it (damn you insomnia, damn you to hell)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/dec/02/victoria-coren-poker

On Monday night, my heat of the Bounty Stars of Poker was shown on Sky Sports. In this show, punters play a multitable online tournament, then a live one-table, and the winner goes on to play "a pro" heads-up – though it is not always a poker pro. They might get me or Peter Eastgate, they might get Phil Tufnell or Mike Tindall. But regular readers will know I'm suspicious of the term "professional poker player" anyway. It's not like being a doctor. Poker requires guts, instinct, maths, psychology and a little bit of gambling flair, it doesn't require full-time commitment. If anything, having another job has helped me play more confidently, because there's an alternative source of income to help during the dry spells. No need to panic.

I can't deny, my vicious will to win was slightly dulled when my Bounty Stars opponent (known online as xxxSonic) told me that he does not have another job because he is a full-time carer for his elderly mother. That didn't exactly make me eager to snatch the $6,000 prize from his grasp.

And I didn't. I hope Sonic won't mind my saying that, not having much heads-up experience, he didn't quite have all the technical skills. He called a little too frequently out of position and raised a little too infrequently from the button. His sense of pot odds – how much to bet, when to call for value – was not always rigorously mathematical. But what he had, naturally, was bravery. He was ready to stick the chips in. This meant that we were often gambling and Sonic won the day.

The "science bit" can be learned with time. Bravery can't. If you find the latter easier than the former, heads-up is a great variant. If not, I recommend cash games. If you can do both, play everything!

ArmaniJeanss

VickiCohen wrote: »

My vicious will to win was slightly dulled when my Bounty Stars opponent (known online as xxxSonic) told me that he does not have another job because he is a full-time carer for his elderly mother. That didn't exactly make me eager to snatch the $6,000 prize from his grasp.

I reckon xxxSonic pulled a fast one on her there.

Reminds me of nicnicnic telling Roland De Woolfe that he was a primary school teacher in his first live tourney.

kakak1

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I reckon xxxSonic pulled a fast one on her there.

Reminds me of nicnicnic telling Roland De Woolfe that he was a primary school teacher in his first live tourney.

but he was, teaching us young kids poker in Aces

NiPoker

Just with anything, there is obviously going to be a learning card.

If you want to get really good at it, specially in todays games then you will really have to study a lot. But for anyone who really enjoys the game, that should be an easy task.

kincsem

I doubt you can study poker from books to a level where you can win when you begin playing. How do you decide you have done enough study?

Play poker. If you lose you are doing it wrong. If you are smart you will realise you need to improve some part or all parts of your game.

You should realise many are lured by the easy money we all make at the game. No one loses.

TommyGunne

nicnicnic wrote: »

??

first time he played NLH was in the "big game", 1st tournament he played was winning the wsop main event.

Yeah that a fair point. He kinda did have an advantage in that he already had a hell of a lot of experience at hold'em, gin, stud etc, to which he had put in a hell of a lot of work (the book mentions how he'd endlessly play out hands). Undoubtedly he just had a gift for picking it up quickly, and for being able to see things in a new light, and in that sense he "had it." Its not like he was some randomer sitting into the big game for the first time though. He already had a lot of gambling, cards, and poker experience. He probably already understood ranges, opponents actions, how likely a hand would be to win, decent betting lines, and he obv just picked up betsizing fast. The point is that he did have some experience of most aspects before this, and he had worked a fair deal on them.

Moving to tournament poker isn't an enormous adjustment from cash games, and if he was one of the best in cash, then it would be only natural that he would do well in tournaments.

There is no doubt that he did "have it" more than anyone else, in that he picked stuff up fast, and was naturally smart at that kinda thing. Nobody is born with it though (well natural smarts help I guess) but conditioning is everything.

EDIT: Gl in galway!

Slash/ED

I think in the same way some people have it to an extent, some people have certain personalities and mentality's which give them certain strengths and weaknesses that means no amount of learning will ever push them past a certain level, same as everything really.

However most people could certainly reach a level of beating small stakes through sheer learning and dedication, but this could take years of experience and learning and dedication. Starting to learn poker from scratch with the intention of making money will lead to disappointment, it isn't that easy that you can read a book and become a decent winning player, you WILL lose at the start and to go from that to making 'nice monies' could take the kind of dedication you aren't willing to give it especially since at the start you'll just be playing for pittance and probably losing. Take it up as a hobby, try play with friends, read a bit, get experience, and enjoy the game at first treating any money you spend as money you don't mind losing. Whatever happens after that happens. Don't just take up something you've never played before with the aim of making it any kind of source of income, that's just not realistic.

gigetheman

kakak1 wrote: »

but he was, teaching us young kids poker in Aces

some of us where young and some wherent

nicnicnic

TommyGunne wrote: »

Yeah that a fair point. He kinda did have an advantage in that he already had a hell of a lot of experience at hold'em, gin, stud etc, to which he had put in a hell of a lot of work (the book mentions how he'd endlessly play out hands). Undoubtedly he just had a gift for picking it up quickly, and for being able to see things in a new light, and in that sense he "had it." Its not like he was some randomer sitting into the big game for the first time though. He already had a lot of gambling, cards, and poker experience. He probably already understood ranges, opponents actions, how likely a hand would be to win, decent betting lines, and he obv just picked up betsizing fast. The point is that he did have some experience of most aspects before this, and he had worked a fair deal on them.

Moving to tournament poker isn't an enormous adjustment from cash games, and if he was one of the best in cash, then it would be only natural that he would do well in tournaments.

There is no doubt that he did "have it" more than anyone else, in that he picked stuff up fast, and was naturally smart at that kinda thing. Nobody is born with it though (well natural smarts help I guess) but conditioning is everything.

EDIT: Gl in galway!

Tks for the GL, lost race, obv dont have it :-)

I think the story from brunson re unger was he actually had never played holdem when he satt in the big game the first time. He was a total fish and lost two $20,000 buyins ( this is 1980 ). brunson maintained as the game progress, he got better and better and after 24 hours had developed from a total novice to a world class player. could be all spoof though.

I do however think certain players have a natural extra something that there born with, Gorgie Best being the greatest example I can think of.