Some lessons in poker we stand on the shoulders of giants, others we have to learn for ourselves.
One of the real gifts poker has given me is that it has been a great jumping off point to learn things from other disciplines like economics, AI, psychology and Game Theory. So here is a series of articles where I bring some of the most interesting things I have learned from other subjects outside of poker which are applicable in this game we know and love.
I’m a huge fan of money writer Morgan Housel (lots of his work is relevant to poker players) and in his latest blog, he defined two types of knowledge – Cumulative Knowledge and Cyclical Knowledge.
Cumulative Knowledge: This refers to fields where knowledge builds upon itself over time, with new discoveries and advancements becoming universally accepted and passed down through generations. An example is scientific or medical knowledge, such as the eventual acceptance of germ theory. Once proven, these truths remain foundational, allowing society to progress steadily in these fields. Cumulative knowledge represents areas where truth is quantifiable, objective, and not easily debated once established.
Cyclical Knowledge: This type of knowledge refers to fields where lessons learned are not consistently retained or applied, leading to repeated mistakes or rediscovery of the same principles over time. Financial and behavioural knowledge are key examples, where despite past experiences, society continually forgets the risks of debt or greed. Unlike cumulative knowledge, cyclical knowledge is subjective, and shaped by changing circumstances and human behaviour, which makes it more volatile and difficult to pass down reliably across generations.
Strategy vs soft skills
.png)
In poker, the actual strategy at the tables is, mostly, influenced by Cumulative Knowledge. Just look at how many players follow very close approximations of GTO preflop ranges these days. In recent years, we have learned of the power of blockers, something we never thought much about before. These days when I play a satellite, most players understand how tight they have to be on the bubble, but when I played them a decade ago this was not the case.
My point is that as modern strategies develop, most players start the game further ahead than their predecessors. Brand new players are just as weak and station-y as they ever were, but those with an appetite for learning start off as much better players than the people who came before them.
It’s the softer skills that are more a form of Cyclical Knowledge. No matter how much you tell them, most people dismiss bankroll management until they encounter their first big downswing. Likewise, most people ignore the importance of mental game until they notice a tilt issue.
When you have been around the game long enough, you sadly see the same stories of bad money management or cheating scandals that are bad adverts for the game. This is despite the history of the game being littered with them. This is because things like discipline and money management are subjective softer skills, based on personal experience. This is why we see those particular cycles repeat, over and over.
What theories from outside of poker have helped your game? Let us know in the comments.
