Fascinating article, Benton. At the risk of stating the obvious, our success at anything (from work to interpersonal relationships) is heavily influenced by our mental state. I'm somewhat envious that you got a boost from a single 90 minute session. It took me 5 years of psychotherapy to understand myself well enough that I stopped sabotaging my own success.

It's going to be interesting to see responses to this article. For many I suspect it will be radical; some may be highly skeptical. To the latter I'd point out that if people engaged in competitive sports that are largely physical in nature retain sports psychologists, doesn't it make even more sense to consider psychotherapy to improve one's performance in a game that is mostly mental?

Many thanks for sharing your experience, sir.

~ Kat

No problem. I was skeptic #1. I even considered not sharing my experience for fear of humiliation or shame, but thought that overall the article would be more helpful to others (and therapeutic to myself) than hurting my ego a bit by people thinking I'm nuts.

As an aside, the article got its first Facebook reply. It simply stated:
"What a nut job"

Haha, oh well.

Hi,

Thanks Benton for such a great article, I'm glad the session helped so much!

I'd just like to say there is no magic in hypnotherapy, it's just a way to explore your emotions and their sources through a guided meditation (it's nothing like the shows on the strip). Using these techniques I've been successful in helping players rationalise their downswings and reduce/remove tilt issues from their poker.

If anyone has any questions I'm happy to answer them either on the thread or via PM, don't worry about offending me if you're skeptical I don't think I've met a poker player who doesn't start that way.

Good luck at the tables

Elliot

@BentonBlakeman

All the more kudos for writing the article. There is a pervasive negativity in our culture towards all forms of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. I suspect it stems from fear. Many people would rather ignore the imps in the basement of their unconscious. I'm convinced that for a poker player to ignore those imps is -EV, but for society as a whole I regard such willful ignorance as truly tragic.

/endsoapbox

How is hypnotherapy different from psychotherapy or from meditation techniques?

@thisguy74

It was my first time delving into any of this so I think Elliot or Kat who seems knowledgable in the subject can give you a suitable answer.

I'm afraid I know little about hypnotherapy specifically, but Elliot's reply above indicates his approach is close to guided meditation. In which case it's very different to psychotherapy which is typically a deeper, longer-term process. If you're specifically trying to build a poker mind in a relatively short time-span, Elliot's approach sounds ideal. However, I'd suggest that many of us, to varying degrees, have cracks in our mental bedrock that can get opened by a downswing. Spending five years in psychoanalysis to get better at poker might be like using a jack-hammer to crack a walnut, but the point is the process helps in all areas of life.

This is moving a bit off topic, but for those interested enough in Benton's article to read this thread might find the following illuminating.

One of the recreational player types that amuses me the most is The Professor. Typically this is someone who plays a tight, unimaginative game, but their main trait is their inability to deal with the poor play of others. They hate losing pots to players who are not playing "properly." As a result they berate bad players and even switch to games in which there are no bad players.

So let's put this in context. What is the purpose of poker? We'll ask Sklansky.

“When we play, we must realize, before anything else, that we are out to make money.”

Thanks, David, that was mercifully succinct and free from pomposity. We're trying to make money. Will berating bad players and moving to games where everyone is playing "properly" make us money? No, quite the reverse. Thus we conclude that The Professor is, from a poker point of view, acting completely irrationally. They are exhibiting a form of poker insanity, and it follows that their behavior is at essence a deep-rooted psychological problem.

If The Professor wants to start playing poker to make money again, he or she (actually it's nearly always "he") needs to address this psychological problem. The odds are it's a convolution of the diabolical tendrils of childhood experiences, trauma, and possibly a clinical disorder. Unfortunately, Professors are particularly resistant to seeking help for their problem because, as far as they're concerned, it's all the idiots playing 94s that have the issues.

To link this to the OP, our poker mind is one of the manifestations of The Whole Shebang. Call it superego-ego-id or the-crap-that-made-me-who-i-am or whatever, but the way we play poker is not somehow split off from everything else. In fact the everything else allows us to excel at poker, but the murky bits in the everything else will also sometimes hold us back. And in extreme cases, like The Professor, these psychological issues are so severe that they will prevent us winning at all.

Thanks for the great insight Kat.

@TheGameKat

lol, great definition.

Excellent question.

A rather functional definition. Yes, technically the aim of the game is to win. But that's true for practically all competitive games. In tennis, football, soccer, baseball etc. the players aim to win matches. But usually that's not the reason people play those games.

All you pros tend to forget that poker is a game, after all. In the article Benton wrote something like that his new mindset makes him come home happily - from work. My first thought was: Now what has his work to do with all that? It actually took me a couple second to realize that poker is "work" for him. The money he makes at the table is his livelyhood. The overwhelming majority of casual players just doesn't treat poker even remotely the same way. They are there for the thrill of cards in the air, the banter, the outrageous draw-outs and a million other things. Winning some cash in the process once in a while may keep them coming back but most of them don't mind losing. For them it's just a way to spend a night out. They decide to blow 200$ at the poker table the same way they decide to spend it on an evening out with the wife, a concert, a show - you name it.

I think there isn't one single correct answer to your question. Everyone is free to define the purpose any game in general and poker in particular serves for THEM. Yes, a professional poker player will of course be "out to make money". The "Professor", however, as you correctly point out is usually an amateur, and he is NOT out to make money. He may not even realize it, but what he really wants is to use (and show off) his skills. He wants people to recognize how he outplayed them. He doesn't want indifferent victims, he wants an audience, and an audience that is sufficiently educated to acknowledge his "solid" play. If he gets beat, he wants it to happen in a "fair fight", against a halfway knowledgeable opponent.

Apologies for not yet having read the article if this displays ignorance of something you said; I'll do so shortly.@As quoted from Sklansky No. I believe the "no" extends to much of the small proportion of those playing who have ever read anything by Sklansky, comprising his "we."

There is the obvious little fact that very few people will make money playing, and most people I know who play are capable of awareness of that and possess the emotional maturity to acknowledge it to some degree without troubling themselves much. Because they know to some extent they aren't really there for that, even as they try.

While hoping to get lucky people more often play for amusement, for social interaction, for the thrill they get from the risk of gambling. Some NEED that thrill of being “in action” and find poker a better outlet for it than some other expressions of their pathology. Some find it a good congenial place to unwind after work, some to drink. It may be a relaxing diversion from their kids. Some are seeking a reaction from others. For some it is an opportunity to be the center of attention, with a somewhat captive audience. Some are playing out little internal psychodramas. Some to get what they imagine is respect from others, while some others are confirming their view of themselves as victims of this or that. I think a small number, still visible out of proportion to their number even while declining lately (but larger than those who actually make money) adopt poker as an identity, a cover story of sorts, an answer to the question “what do you do” for those who mostly don't, just as I've seen similar cohorts of guys before them adopt the identity of being an “artist” (while there was precious little "art") or before that a new-age healer or spiritual guru or before that a political activist or revolutionary... while doing nothing much at all.

But for most, it is a form of amusement, for having fun. For many it may serve simply as an alternative to playing golf. Unless playing in the small number of high stakes games (maybe sometimes even then) it is important to remember this, front and center. It is the purpose of the game, even if it isn't the purpose YOU have in mind. It is the reason casino resorts have poker at all; they do not need to modify this purpose to accommodate those who think otherwise, and at most venues they should not. Forgetting it is bad for the everyone, and I think players who chronically forget or can't grasp this are a serious problem hurting the game for all, as well as (of less significance) themselves. Yes, including some varieties of poker professors, among others who may have heard of Sklansky. It is also just plain wrong, on the most basic level of just being a decent human in the world. There are unfortunately a disproportionate number of people who gravitated to poker tables imagining themselves as poker pros who have more than a little trouble with that decent human in the world part.

When poker ceases to serve primarily as a form of entertainment, it ceases to exist on any significant scale.

In golf the object of the game is to get the ball in the hole while hitting it with a stick the fewest number of times. In poker, as in the board game of Monopoly, the objective is to win money. *Why* people choose to try and whack a ball in a hole or get all the Monopoly money is a fascinating topic, and in poker it is a topic the analysis of which can improve the chances of winning more money.

@TheGameKat I have foolishly tried asking that question a few times. Always regretted it, while leaving with no answer in hand.

ADDENDUM: But I do know of a former poker room manager who is no longer there because of his golf. More specifically because of losing money to others while playing golf. Yet more specifically because of stealing tournament buy-ins to pay people to whom he lost money playing golf.

@Local Rock I have foolishly tried asking that question a few times. Always regretted it, while leaving with no answer in hand.

[/quote]

Have you considered trolling golf forums and professing derision and contempt for club professionals?

@TheGameKat I have foolishly tried asking that question a few times. Always regretted it, while leaving with no answer in hand.

[/quote]

Have you considered trolling golf forums and professing derision and contempt for club professionals?[/quote]No Kat, can't say that I have. And if it needs to be said: Yes, there are people who make some money playing poker. Even some enough to be professionals at it. Oddly enough, I even am very modestly profitable (for unimpressive amounts - probably due to lack of sufficient study and skill) at my little small stakes play. Better?

But, is it not also obvious that the number who tend to represent and probably in some cases even believe themselves to be poker pros is rather significantly larger than those who are? I don't claim to necessarily know which are, and don't care since it isn't something I ever see myself becoming. But I definitely do regularly see a number of individuals who clearly aren't, with a lot of unfortunate pompous buffoonery to the contrary attached.

@Local Rock No Kat, can't say that I have. And if it needs to be said: Yes, there are people who make some money playing poker. Even some enough to be professionals at it. Oddly enough, I even am very modestly profitable (for unimpressive amounts - probably due to lack of sufficient study and skill) at my little small stakes play. Better?

But, is it not also obvious that the number who tend to represent and probably in some cases even believe themselves to be poker pros is rather significantly larger than those who are?[/quote]

Yes, absolutely. And some of them engage in practices that are detrimental to the game. Equally there are also people who have chosen to make a modest income playing the game because they have a genuine passion for poker and enjoy independence from the 9-to-5. Some of them even have doctorates and have written books and wotnot.

^I should probably quit editing and posting at the same time, as it may tend to mess up the conversation when you are responding and possibly quoting while I do that. Mea culpa.

Yes, there are some brilliant folks in the game, along with a large helping of those who are very much not.

For some of my perspective on that I'd fall back on a game I've known much longer and recollect that there are some with a passion for the horseracing game, often disproportionate to the money, and apart from the enjoyment of the sport by many, I know some of them can actually make some money at it, at least for a time. Usually exceptional people who could do many things. And very few, as I was involved in it enough that I'm pretty confident that at one time I could personally recognize most of them who actually did so in the western part of the continent, and that they were also a very tiny fraction of those who enjoyed it and also a distinct minority of the small part who imagined themselves doing so. I do not see the room for a larger number of such individuals doing the same with poker, which wonderful as it may be does amount to a smaller market with less liquidity sloshing about in it.

It is gambling game offered in casinos for the entertainment of their customers, most won't make money playing it, most of those who manage to make a little won't be making a living doing so, and I'll plan to keep saying so as long as that is permitted around here. If that ever becomes a threatening kind of statement which sounds excessively confrontational, it is time to call the number on one of those "When the Fun Stops" handouts. People who do make a meaningful amount of money at it certainly don't need any validation or approval from me.

@thisguy74

The beginning of a hypnotherapy session is similar to guided meditation, you reach a very relaxed and calm state that allows your subconscious to become dominant over the conscious mind.

Once in this state most clients achieve a state of hypermnesia (abnormally vivid memory). This allows us to trace back to the causes of issues at the table in their past. Many of my clients even in their 40-50s will bring up vivid memories of kindergarden or elementary school. This process of resolving memories and emotions and understanding the reasons behind any irrational actions is very similar to psychotherapy, but due to the hypermnesia is a much faster process. Typically hypnotherapy lasts between 5-10 sessions where as psychotherapy can frequently take years.

I made an "introduction to hypnotherapy for poker" video for poker tube, which may be of interest: http://www.pokertube.com/videos/hypnotherapy-for-poker

I hope that helps explain the process

Elliot

Thanks for the explanation. I am going to check out that video.
Cheers!

Hi Benton,

Thanks for your last two articles. I imagine they weren't the easiest for you to write. We all have egos. Accepting a downswing and accepting help to strengthen mental toughness in a public forum of fellow players, couldn't have been easy. Thank you!

So many "pros" make it seem like all they do is win. Dealing with downswings are some of the toughest things for me. Even when I win, I'm always questioning, "Did I maximize that hand?" "Did I extract enough value?", "Was that fold the correct decision?", etc. For me, these questions are amplified when I'm losing.

I don't want to hijack your thread but....
How does game selection factor in a downswing? For that matter, even when your not in a downswing?
For example, it seems to me that if you're in a tough $5/$10 game wouldn't you be better to move to $2/$5 or even $1/$3 if you could have a higher hourly rate.

In the bigger games aren't you playing against the same players all the time? (or maybe Vegas offers enough dead money new players in these games?) If they are the same players, isn't your marginal edge very small? Wouldn't you be better off to move to a different table even if it's a smaller game?

I've played $2/$5 at the V a few times and it was among the toughest games I've played. I quickly decided to move to an "easier" table.

Thanks,
E

Great question! And thanks for the kind words. They weren't easy to wrote but they were therapeutic.

If you're lucky enough to be in a place where you have options then dropping down to play new players/regain confidence is a great idea. I have been doing this as well opting to play in easier 2/5 games over tougher reg filled 5/10 games. My only caveat is that if the 5/10
Is tough but there are one or two very live ones then I will still sit in the bigger game as I know it's the correct decision for me long term. I'm confident enough in my ability to pick up
On these spots and profit from them.

Benton,

Thanks for the last couple of articles. Even for recreational players, some of the hardest things are dealing with downswings and realizing that you need to toughen up your mental attitude. I think a lot of that comes from the macho nature of a lot of poker players -- after all every time I win, my opponents lose. That does lead to a sort of tough guy aspect to the game. For someone who makes a living playing, opening up about these subjects had to be very tough, but is helpful for a lot of us -- amateur or pro -- to think about.

I also wanted to comment on the discussion between Kat and Local Rock. I've read one or two books on poker psychology because I knew it was an area where my game needed work. I really liked a book called "the Poker Mindset" to help me on this and I believe a lot of what is below is cribbed from that book. From what I've read, both of you are actually right. Many people claim to play poker to make money, but many of them are deceiving themselves and only a limited number of them actually do make money. That said, one of the things that a winning player needs to do is to try and figure out what is actually motivating their opponents. For instance, if they are a regular and are at the table for the thrill of gambling, then it could be in your long term interest to give them a little more action. If they are a casual player and just there to socialize, then try to make the game fun -- this will actually help against just about everybody. If they want to be a "professor" and lecture people on how to play, then give them a little of the "respect" that they crave and listen to them -- they will tell you exactly how to beat them if you let them.

Oh and for the record, I say all of this as someone who aspires to be a winning player, but isn't there yet. I think I'm getting better my records indicate that I'm climbing out of the initial hole I dug while learning the game and during my early forays into no limit. But, overall my time at the tables has still cost me money. I hope someday that will change and reading and posting here is part of my efforts to change the results. So thanks again to Benton for posting strategy articles and articles like this which can help us all to think about how to improve our games and achieve success on and off the felt.

Dave

"The Poker Mindset" is good. I also like Feeney's "Inside the Poker Mind," although it's more applicable to limit. And Dr. Schoonmaker has knocked out some good volumes.

And you're quite right, Dave. My motivation for mentioning "The Professor" is that they have a psychological disposition that makes them exploitable. More generally, since I am playing poker to win money, anyone who is playing for any other reason is also exploitable.

Kat,

I've read "Inside the Poker Mind" as well. It's odd but most of what I've learned about psychology has been due to my "poker" studies. I've taken some of it into other areas of life as well, and it's helped away from the table -- maybe even more than at the table.

Dave

just chiming in real quick...

good article and great insight by Kat. I'm a big fan of Dr. Schoonmaker's books as well.

as far as hypnotherapy, etc. I'd say simply that all of us are insecure in some kind of fashion despite our levels of comfort in our skin. Intropection applied by others and simply exercising and listening to other viewpoints is always healthy for the soul.

peace out...