This is cross-posted from 2+2, I just typed it up in a text file and copy/pasted it in both locations.
I was thinking of some concepts in poker today I wanted some feedback on, I'm not sure if my rationalisation of the situation is correct, it will require a bit of foreknowledge so bare with me.
Firstly, its logical that improving the rate at which you learn something will improve the amount you learn more than actually studying the subject given an infinite amount of time(think a graph with both a linear function and an exponential function, the intersection point of the lines is where learning to learn becomes less profitable than learning itself, learning to learn = learning^2).
So, taking that one level further, its also logical to assume that by figuring out what makes someone learn faster, its better to work at that rather than working at poker theory up until a certain point.(derived from the length of time you can realistically expect to play poker for and how much of an impact learning will have on your overall expected profitability, )
In order to learn, 2 things are required, the ability to acquire knowledge, and the ability to rationalise that knowledge. Acquiring knowledge is a part of human nature, we see things and therefore acquire information. However, in order to rationalise something, we need to consciously think about it, something that people will never do unless it occurs to them to do it.(Rarely)
This is evident by looking at fish. It's widely accepted that the average fish in todays game are generally better than the average fish back in 2003. However the average reg in todays game has improved a lot more by comparison. This is because regs are more likely to have studied the game, and therefore rationalised concepts and developed a better understanding of them. Whereas fish merely play for fun, they gain the same knowledge, but don't have the ability to rationalise it, and therefore, use it as effectively.
I applied this to my own game and found it was actually way more efficient as a method to discover leaks than anything I'd tried before.
If I wasn't able to explain why I did something, but still thought it was the right play, I worked out the hand mathematically until I could rationalise it using an EV calc.(Pretty standard tool for learning I think?)
Although this is all purely theoretical, applying the concept to itself logically means that by improving my theoretical knowledge of poker, I'm still improving my game regardless of whether or not it seems tedious and unnecessary.
Edit: I just realised that this theory is paradoxical, given that the only evidence I have to support it stems from the assumption that the theory is correct anyway, does this matter? Or is it a chicken and egg scenario?
I only ask because if the theory is correct, by knowing that a paradoxical theory can still be used as a proof, I'll improve my grasp of theory itself which will exponentially improve my future ability to learn, and therefore, by merely asking the question, I've already improved my profitability more efficiently than studying poker itself.
Also, does this entire theory seem bat**** insane?
