Poker News / Short-Stacked Shamus / 31 December 2010 / Leave a Comment

It's the last day of the year, a day when many poker players are looking back on 2010, delivering final verdicts on whether it the year was up, down, or break-even -- verdicts that will either be true, false, or somewhere in between.

Such judgments having been made, many will then turn their attention to 2011, with their performance this year perhaps suggesting the need to make some "poker resolutions" before proceeding into the next.

The fact that so many of us instinctively associate the making of resolutions with the start of a new year probably says something interesting about human nature. No matter how happy or successful we might have been in the past, there's something in each of us that yearns to be able to "start over," to live our lives differently. Like the first hand of a new session in poker, the first day of the year seems to afford an opportunity to do just that -- to begin again. And perhaps even to get it right this time!

Of course, new year's resolutions also tend to illustrate another, less appealing part of human nature, namely, that while we sometimes know what we want to do (and even what is best for us to do), we don't always act accordingly. The fact is, a lot of us might make new year's resolutions, but few of us follow them. For very long, anyway.

"In one year and out the other," so the saying goes.

Tempted once again by the calendar to start thinking about such lists, I wondered whether or not it might actually be detrimental for me to start the new year by drawing up a list of resolutions. Preparation and study obviously help at the tables, but could it be that artificially adopting a set of "rules" as resolutions might not be recommended for everyone?

In his 2007 book, Your Worst Poker Enemy, Alan Schoonmaker examines in detail the many psychological explanations for why we often go against our better instincts at the poker tables, beginning with the premise that "you aren't going to reach your full potential until you beat your own worst enemy: yourself." He thus recommends to his reader "you must ruthlessly analyze yourself" in order to discover the flaws and weaknesses that make you an "enemy" to yourself at the table.

As a way of introducing this business of self-analysis, Schoonmaker spends the first part of his book talking about a couple of different player types, distinguished by their differing approaches to the game. It's a discussion that I think has some relevance to this question about making resolutions -- and whether or not doing so could possibly be less than helpful for certain poker players.

Schoonmaker explains how among poker players we find those who tend to favor logic (think David Sklansky or Chris "Jesus" Ferguson), while others tend to favor intuition (think Doyle Brunson or Stu Ungar). Schoonmaker is careful to point out that most players use some of both; that is, most approach the game both logically and intuitively ("it's a continuum, not a dichotomy," he explains). His point here early on is to try to figure out which way you play, then use that as a starting point from which you can then "ruthlessly analyze yourself."

Having described these two approaches, Schoonmaker then offers a discussion of "Labels and Decision Rules," noting how the different player types tend to respond in contrary ways to the idea of following certain rules or resolutions in their play.

"Logical and intuitive people have completely opposed attitudes toward labels and decision rules," explains Schoonmaker. "Logical people usually like them, while intuitive people detest them." What he's saying makes sense, and perhaps seems obvious -- those who think (or play) logically prefer to have rational guidelines informing their actions, while those who think (or play) intuitively or by "feel" tend to find such "decision rules" too restrictive.

So what about these poker resolutions, then? Should those of us who consider ourselves "logical" players make them, while the "intuitive" players perhaps would be better off avoiding such?

If I'm reading Schoonmaker correctly, his answer to that question would be to say that no matter what kind of player you are, it is important to think clearly about the value of such resolutions. Sure, the logic-based players might like having such rules to guide them, and the intuitive types might hate them. But "both extreme reactions are destructive," says Schoonmaker. "It is as foolish to rely excessively on them as it is to reject them completely."

Schoonmaker puts himself in the Sklansky group of primarily logic-based thinkers. In fact, he puts most of us in that group, noting that "except for a few, very gifted people, a logical approach works better than an intuitive one." That said, know that "systems" or resolutions "should not be used mechanically," but rather regarded as "nothing more than a starting point" from which to proceed.

In other words, make your resolutions (if you must). But know that they are necessarily starting points, not to be followed too dogmatically. The fact is, even the player who favors intuition can benefit from having a few such guidelines in mind, as long as he or she keeps in mind they are meant to orient our thinking initially, not direct our every move.

I'm going to conclude, then, that there's no harm for me to make a few poker resolutions, as long as I remain conscious of their limitations and use them constructively.

There. I've made my first resolution.

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comment: