Until now, I have fervently praised the advantages of poker theory and the strict results of research. However, I must also emphasize that I do not believe theory is omnipotent. Some players, especially those who are natural mathematicians, view poker through rose-colored glasses. They think poker is just a mathematical construct, a problem with a defined solution. Such people imagine that by locking themselves in a room with a calculator for 20 years, they could develop their game to the point where they could defeat the best player in the world.
These players are convinced that poker consists only of strategies. As if you had a card that told you how to become unbeatable. Of course, poker doesn't work that way. You need to learn it, all the learned information must seep into your bones. Your mind needs to form the correct network of neural associations, and this can be achieved by playing hundreds of thousands of hands. You don't need to plan all the strategies or be obsessed with mathematics. I knew many players who were mathematically more capable than me but couldn't sustain themselves in a $1/$2 blinds game.
Remember a tough poker hand you once played. You might believe there's a way to win this hand and find the “correct answer,” like a scientist looking at a lab mouse in its maze. You might believe that theory will show you the answer. But why do you believe that? You want to see it from the scientist's perspective. But in reality, you are the mouse in the maze. And you will never be the scientist. You are stuck, and there's no way to escape that. You don't have access to the perfect theory, and you don't know why your theory is imperfect. And it might be that everything you know will never lead you to the optimal solution. In some part of your mind, you might believe that poker is a beautiful, fair, mathematically unspoiled game. But you are the one learning poker, you are the mouse looking for the way out of the maze. The mind won't always save you.
Haseeb Qureshi
