So far, we have examined many learning mechanisms, but if we want to fully understand their significance in this game, we need to discuss the concept of a player who is guided by feelings.
This persona is surrounded by a foggy and dark mythology. He is the spirit of mysterious sources. No one can explain how or why he is a good player, not even himself. He is like a squire born into a peasant family, pulling a mythical, self-made sword from a stone. He is a happy accident, an exception. He shouldn't be such a great player, yet he is.
Probably his inability excites us so much. Or maybe we have a dream to be like him. After all, what could be more democratic, more encouraging than the possibility of a feeling player? Unfortunately, this does not come true; this concept is a myth.
But before explaining why this is so, I want to clearly define what the word “feeling” means. The term feeling player defines how he justifies his actions. When you ask such a player why he bluffed, he will answer: “Because I felt it was the right action.” The origin of his answers is a complete mystery. Where we rely on combinatorics, betting logic, or our own notes, the feeling player relies on the god in his head. However, somehow incredibly, the god in his head usually turns out to be right. There are many players who have embodied the myth of such a player. Personally, I have always seen Ilari 
Sahamies (Ziigmund) as the clearest example of this. Of course, there are many others. And although I have seen many such players come and go, few of them have stood the test of time.
It is commonly believed that the feeling player has a unique thinking style. While most players think analytically and are focused on theory, the feeling player is intuitive. “Feeling” is often understood as a thinking style, like the difference between auditory and visual learning. Thus, feeling is the shortest path to intuition – pure, subconscious competence, which we have already discussed before.
Haseeb Qureshi
