So far we have explored a number of learning mechanisms, but if we want to fully understand their implications in this game, we need to discuss the concept of a player guided by feelings.
This person is surrounded by a vague and dark mythology. He is the spirit of mysterious springs. 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, drawing a mythical sword of his own making from stone. He is a happy accident, an exception. He should not be such a great player, but he is.
It must be his inability that makes us so worried. Or maybe we have a dream to be like him. After all, what could be more democratic, more encouraging than the possibility of a sentient player. Unfortunately, this does not come true, this concept is a myth.
But before I explain why this is so, I want to clearly define what the word "feeling" means. The term feeling player defines how a player justifies his actions. When you ask such a player why he bluffed, he will say "Because I felt it was the right thing to do". 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. Yet, 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) is the clearest example. Of course, there are many others. And while I have seen many such players come and go, few have stood the test of time.
It is generally accepted that a sentient player has a unique thinking style. While most players are analytical and theory-oriented, the feeling player is intuitive. "Feeling" is often understood as a thinking style, like the difference between auditory and visual learning. Feeling is thus the shortest route to intuition - the pure, unconscious competence we have discussed earlier.
Haseeb Qureshi
EN 
LT 
DE 
FR 
SV 
ES 
IT 
FI 
LV 
SK 
SL 
TR 