10,000 hours

[nawhead]

I've just read this book called Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell. In a nutshell, it's an analysis of successful people from all walks of life from a liberal perspective. It puts forth a theory of great individual success as aided significantly by culture and timing and especially luck.

That's the book review. But I don't want to debate on the validity of the book.

What I found most intriguing was sort of an aside that the author goes into while explaining some of the success stories. A general number that researchers have come to to define someone as the title of "expert." 10,000 hours. Or about 3 hours a day, almost every day, over 10 years. The author goes into detail about how these assorted people don't achieve their stride or greatness until they've have their 10,000 hours in. There are no exceptions. Even Mozart, who we think of as a child prodigy, needed about 10,000 hours before he started putting out his masterpieces.

So I started to think about my poker progress. How dedicated have I been in my studies and my productive play? Not just screwing around, but really trying to play with the intent of gettting better? I came to the number of about 2,000 hours over 3 years. In about 8-9 more years, I might actually become a good poker player.

When I'm full of gray hairs, maybe I'll be grinding a middle class living playing 10-20 or 20-40 at a casino somewhere. I think it's very possible. I know it's possible. I know I'm smart enough and I'm disciplined enough. I really believe I can do it. I don't think I'll be the next Phil Galfond or Brian Townsend, but I really believe I can make a living at this.

How many hours do you have in?

[Vantek]

Hmm... Actual playing time, I've probably got maybe 200 hrs. If I include time spent like reading posts and watching vids and discussing hands though, it must be at least thrice that. Will likely be doing ~3 hrs a day on average in the future as well so... 9 years to go? ^^

I really don't think I'm ever going to be like, an actual good player though. Simply as the state of things is over here, with $10/hr (which I'm pretty sure I'm already making as a 25NL donk) being above average salary, poker is actually like practically the most lucrative source of income for me lol. I think I'll be able to rise to decent mediocrity and make at least $50/hour in a year or so, already that would be just an awesome income over here. But I don't honestly think I have it in me to ever break past that mediocrity. My brain muscle just doesn't have the stamina. No amount of hours will help you anywhere if you're not gifted enough.

[juvydriver]

I'm actually reading his book called [I]Blink[I] and it is pretty interesting. It discusses the idea that we think we make better decisions if we slow down and think it out, but in actuality, we are able to make judgements and decisions in a split second that are as acturate, and it most cases more accurate than decisions we make when we think about things. It's pretty interesting and potentially helpful for poker since you tend to make a lot of quick decisions.

One way I think it applies is that when I see something I'm not sure of and I start to weigh the pros and cons, I lose a little objectivity and start wanting to go a certain direction. For instance, when I'm playing and I've got a guy that is constantly reraising me or shoving over me it really pisses me off. Eventually, I'll have a mediocre hand (say 2nd pair 2nd kicker or something similar) and he shoves over me, I may believe that I'm beat...but if I think about it for a while, I can talk myself into a play that is -EV (I do this a lot, BTW).

Anyway, pretty interesting book.

[Vantek]

Hahaha what? That is the most backwards logic I have ever heard. (I formed this opinion in a split second.)

[boomswitch]

I read blink, it was an ok read, I heard this book was better though.

[juvydriver]

Hahaha what? That is the most backwards logic I have ever heard. (I formed this opinion in a split second.)

Then you are probably right. LOL I didn't say it was a good analogy, it was just the first thing that came to mind.

[nawhead]

Originally Posted by juvydriver

I'm actually reading his book called [I]Blink[I] and it is pretty interesting. [...]

One way I think it applies is that when I see something I'm not sure of and I start to weigh the pros and cons, I lose a little objectivity and start wanting to go a certain direction. For instance, when I'm playing and I've got a guy that is constantly reraising me or shoving over me it really pisses me off. Eventually, I'll have a mediocre hand (say 2nd pair 2nd kicker or something similar) and he shoves over me, I may believe that I'm beat...but if I think about it for a while, I can talk myself into a play that is -EV (I do this a lot, BTW).

Anyway, pretty interesting book.

I started listening to this book (audiobook, I'm lazy) this week. All the marriage stuff in the beginning was so boring I was about to stop, but once he starts getting into the card games and people with brain damage, my ears perked right up.

I know what you're referring to. It's that old poker saying, "think long, think wrong." With most players (with enough experience like a few hundred hours playing at least), the instant something happens, we have an intuitive sense from our unconcious that something's not right, but a lot of times we consciously overanalyze it and override our instinct to make the standard play or aggressive play or safe play or whatever. Then when it goes showdown, it's that "Oh... he did have that hand" moment.

The more experience we get, I think the more we can rely on our instincts and just go with our initial read. And the thing that separates the better players is going with that read, even if they might look stupid in the hand.