What the hell?
Benji026
written.
http://www.improving.org/paulp/poker/biz2.0-poker.html
Just because you graduated with an engineering degree doesn't mean you
are any better than any other poker player. I hate how they make Mel
Judah and TJ Cloutier out to be really stupid just because of their
academic background. I'm sure they know just as much poker math, if
not more, than Paul Phillips.
"But as Phillips continues his routine, cupping his hands over his
cards for another peek, the complex workings of his mind reflect
subtler ways that technology is transforming the world of poker."
Does anyone else say WTF when they read this?
"Phillips quickly calls and, the betting done, flips over his two
queens. Seed shows king-jack and has to hope for a miracle."
I don't think 33% chance of winning qualifies as a miracle...however
the 77's against Cloutier's jacks does
They also say Chip Jett looks like a "back-alley punk".
"A lot of the younger guys, like Ferguson and myself, approach the
game from a mathematical angle," Phillips says. "It's game theory.
Basically, it comes down to modeling your opponent, assessing
percentages of the time they do particular actions, and then applying
the exploitive counterstrategy."
Paul Phillips isnt doing anything new...A lot of the older guys have
been doing this for years, its called looking for betting patterns.
just wanted to get this out of my system, I had to vent after reading
this very arrogant and snobby article, let me know what you guys
think...
Jon Eaton
because "it would have been bad poker to fold." That's all I need.
Jon
"Benji026" <benj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb9c7001.04030...@posting.google.com...
MCS
Cloutier has heard his geek challengers' algorithmic trash talk. "We all
know the math, the probabilities of this and the probabilities of that," he
says, waving his hand. "We don't have to talk about it."
That's classic. And true.
I'm tired of hearing the term "game theory" from people who wouldn't know
the first page of a good textbook. I love math, and I guarantee you I've
spent more hours working on game theory proofs than all but a handful of the
people who throw the term around. But I recognize that beyond some simple
probability calculations, there's really not much that matters a whole lot.
It's just not that important.
Pokerwise, I'd trade all my game theory work to be able to read people 5%
better.
--MCS
Chris Falco
interesting. I think the real thinkg that stuck in my mind is that there
is a definate trend of people who were successful in business (dot com era
or not) in the last 5-10 years who are now retired (having enough $ to
never have to work) and they're trying to find something to do.
Now, one of the hardest things for someone who started a company to do is
leave it. It is very challenging and intellectually rewarding.
What I find interesting is how many of the people that fit in that
category are now playing poker, because it is a CHALLENGE.
These are highly motivated and smart people with excellent techinical
backgrounds, isn't it funny that their game of choice is poker?
What does that say about the game? Or those that play it?
Perhaps we poker players are seeking something a bit different, a mental
workout with lots of action.
Sorry if this post became way to philosophical.
I read the article thinking that the main point was that it's uncommon
that the smartest and most successful people in the tech world all seem to
play poker now, and that the world of poker, technology, and business may
be closer than we all think.
Chris Falco
My poker Blog
www.tinyurl.com/exv3
Chicago Home games list
www.chicago2600.net/poker
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Mike
> I'm tired of hearing the term "game theory" from people who wouldn't know
> the first page of a good textbook. I love math, and I guarantee you I've
> spent more hours working on game theory proofs than all but a handful of
the
> people who throw the term around. But I recognize that beyond some simple
> probability calculations, there's really not much that matters a whole
lot.
> It's just not that important.
There are no simple prob. calculations when it comes to game theory in the
realm of poker. At least not if you want to implement it correctly.
> Pokerwise, I'd trade all my game theory work to be able to read people 5%
> better.
This statement leads me to believe you have nfi how to use game theory to
make you a kickass player. It is not easy.
Regards,
Mike
Nuts4daNuts
> "MCS" <X...@X.com> wrote in message news:qwX0c.163510$uV3.714366@attbi_s51...
<snip>
> > Pokerwise, I'd trade all my game theory work to be able to read people 5%
> > better.
>
> This statement leads me to believe you have nfi how to use game theory to
> make you a kickass player. It is not easy.
Reading your opponants is a part of "game theory". Poker is not about the
cards... it's about the people who play it... the cards are merely a tool
that allows each player's insecuruties and psychological foibles to
manifest themselves. Hold'em, especially no-limit, is NOT about having the
"best hand" and betting it, or waiting for that good hand. It's about
winning pots by driving out the best hand. It's about going all-in with a
total piece of shit hand because you think your opponant will throw away
his winner. And you better know your opponant(s) to be able to do this
successfully.
> Regards,
> Mike
Dave's Fridge
the time. It's great.
"Nuts4daNuts" <anon...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4044848a$0$63387$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
hatchetface
in my short lifetime.
Can someone tell me what the hell a computer science degree has anything
to do with poker? What you take one, maybe two statistics classes and you
are suddenly a fucking poker genius. 98% of all the math I have ever
needed to play poker effectively should have been learned in high school.
I cant imagine that sitting in some computer lab writing code all night
long makes you a poker great.
Paul Phillips is an asshole. Nouveau riche mother fucker with the
audacity to call other people wannabes.
Why is it that all these mathmatical computer dorks end up rivering the
shit out of TJ Cloutier? (think Chris Ferguson's A9 call against TJ's AQ
in the 2001 wsop) I bet it was years and years of studying game theory
that gave them the "edge" to make such genius reads/calls.
Go drink your gin and tonic you dilettante sycophant.
Hatchetface
_________________________________________________________________
Mike
news:40449d37$0$762$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> Can someone tell me what the hell a computer science degree has anything
> to do with poker? What you take one, maybe two statistics classes and you
> are suddenly a fucking poker genius. 98% of all the math I have ever
> needed to play poker effectively should have been learned in high school.
> I cant imagine that sitting in some computer lab writing code all night
> long makes you a poker great.
Anyone who has a strong mathematical foundation, especially if it's related
to game theory, or statistics, has a unique edge in poker. CS, although,
not stricly a math degree, does involve math, and Chris is well versed in
that discipline, esp. game theory (from what he's claimed).
Regards,
Mike
Mike
news:4044848a$0$63387$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> Reading your opponants is a part of "game theory". Poker is not about the
> cards... it's about the people who play it... the cards are merely a tool
> that allows each player's insecuruties and psychological foibles to
> manifest themselves. Hold'em, especially no-limit, is NOT about having the
> "best hand" and betting it, or waiting for that good hand. It's about
> winning pots by driving out the best hand. It's about going all-in with a
> total piece of shit hand because you think your opponant will throw away
> his winner. And you better know your opponant(s) to be able to do this
> successfully.
You are using game theory not in the sense most people know it as. Then
again, you did put it in quotes, so perhaps that distinguishes it.
Regards,
Mike
Nuts4daNuts
> Or better still, play on line, because they rig it for some of us to win all
> the time. It's great.
Works for me. LOL
hatchetface
have an engineering degree and a background in statistics/mathmatics is a
supremely fallable theory, at best.
The linked article is filled with disgusting overtones of elitism. Just
because Mel Judah can barely turn a computer on or TJ Cloutier doesnt have
an technical education does not mean that they are unversed in the
mathematics of poker.
I know Chris Ferguson is a great player and Paul Phillips has demonstrated
at least some poker success. I am not trying to take anything away from
their abilities, but I am disputing the theory that "digital" poker
players are somehow better than the "analog" version, just because they
spent some time in a learning institution.
I have an engineering degree and a solid mathmatical backgroud, but I am
hardly a world class poker player. Said background has provided a more
thorough understanding of probabilities, odds, etc. but, IMHO, it is only
a fraction of the poker player equation. The crux of the article could be
reworked to state that,"just because someone has a PHD in psychology, they
have a greater edge at poker than the uneducated person." That last
statement is just as bullshit as the math/tech argument.
One big reason why poker is such a great game is that it combines elements
from all aspects of human interaction. It is classic and romantic. It is
mathmatical and psychological. It is just and unjust. It is a microcosm
of the systems which make up this crazy world and, like those systems, it
is not something that can be broken down into finite definitions. There
is grey area, there is unknown. It is not a binary, black and white, good
and evil interpretation, which is precisely the reason why the uneducated
can play with the educated, the einstein can play with freud, the democrat
with the republican and vice versa.
hatchetface
_________________________________________________________________
A. Prock
>That business 2.0 article is the most disingenuous thing I have ever read
>in my short lifetime.
>
>Can someone tell me what the hell a computer science degree has anything
>to do with poker?
As far as I can tell, not too much specifically.
In general, the best poker players tend to use
logic when they play. So it's not surprising that
they also show prowess in other logical endeavors.
It's more of a correlational relationship, not
causal.
Smart people tend to be good at poker, and smart
people tend to get technical degrees.
- Andrew
AJohn808
>Now, one of the hardest things for someone who started a company to do is
>leave it. It is very challenging and intellectually rewarding.
>
>What I find interesting is how many of the people that fit in that
>category are now playing poker, because it is a CHALLENGE.
Actually, i think someone like that jumps into big league poker because it
ISNT a challenge. Its an easy way to step sideways from the top tier of
business into the top tier of another endeavor without working your way up.
Now, if he had to start with a relatively small bankroll and pay his dues as
he gradually worked his way up in limits, that would be a challenge. Or if he
spent thousands of hours memorizing scrabble words to become a top ranked
Scrabbler, or chess player, that would be a challenge. Or even try to build up
another business venture from scratch.
But to have $50 million dollars and buy your way into the major leagues of
poker, its not all that impressive.
Nuts4daNuts
You will likely play a particular hand in different ways depending on your
opponants... whether you are playing against a maniac, pro, fish, calling
station, or rock, and also your seat position relative to these other
players. That is what I meant when stating that "game theory" is
opponant-driven to a certain extent. Poker is not a "card game" but a
"people game"... the cards merely facilitate the interaction between the
players.
Compare it to blackjack. The "game theory" behind blackjack is pretty
straightforward, as the actions of your opponant are codified by rule,
which means that your decisions will be based strictly on the information
in front of you; your hand, the dealer's up-card, and possibly the
composition of the remainer of the deck/shoe. Where at poker the actions
of your opponants are a vital factor in your own decision making. A very
basic example... against a "rock" you could go all-in with a 2-3o and win
the pot if the rock doesn't have a really solid hand, while the same play
against a maniac you will likely get your ass handed back to you.
And this doesn't even get into the deception you lay onto the other
players to confuse and/or decieve them.
Mike
> Granted, but the idea that they are superior poker players because they
> have an engineering degree and a background in statistics/mathmatics is a
> supremely fallable theory, at best.
of course.
> I know Chris Ferguson is a great player and Paul Phillips has demonstrated
> at least some poker success. I am not trying to take anything away from
> their abilities, but I am disputing the theory that "digital" poker
> players are somehow better than the "analog" version, just because they
> spent some time in a learning institution.
I think digital/analog is a bad choice of words. You probably mean
intuitive players vs. analytical players.
> I have an engineering degree and a solid mathmatical backgroud, but I am
> hardly a world class poker player. Said background has provided a more
> thorough understanding of probabilities, odds, etc. but, IMHO, it is only
> a fraction of the poker player equation. The crux of the article could be
> reworked to state that,"just because someone has a PHD in psychology, they
> have a greater edge at poker than the uneducated person." That last
> statement is just as bullshit as the math/tech argument.
An engineering degree isn't gonna guarantee one's success in poker.
Probably no single attribute will. A math genius is probably more likely to
be succcessful in poker than an engineering genius (of course it depends on
what math/engineering subfield, but never mind that), but of course that's
not even guaranteed. What is close to guaranteed success in poker, I think,
would be a game theory genius. Especially if he/she does not have any
emotional problems (i.e. tilt-factor). Doubly so if he elects to play in
the bigger games, or the shorthanded ones.
> One big reason why poker is such a great game is that it combines elements
> from all aspects of human interaction. It is classic and romantic. It is
> mathmatical and psychological. It is just and unjust. It is a microcosm
> of the systems which make up this crazy world and, like those systems, it
> is not something that can be broken down into finite definitions. There
> is grey area, there is unknown. It is not a binary, black and white, good
> and evil interpretation, which is precisely the reason why the uneducated
> can play with the educated, the einstein can play with freud, the democrat
> with the republican and vice versa.
This is just rhetoric of the juxtaposed nature.
Regards,
Mike
Mike
> You will likely play a particular hand in different ways depending on your
> opponants... whether you are playing against a maniac, pro, fish, calling
> station, or rock, and also your seat position relative to these other
> players. That is what I meant when stating that "game theory" is
> opponant-driven to a certain extent. Poker is not a "card game" but a
> "people game"... the cards merely facilitate the interaction between the
> players.
This is simply the difference between the (maximally) exploitative strategy,
and a game-theoretic one. The two are not the same.
Regards,
Mike
Itea
> That business 2.0 article is the most disingenuous thing I have ever read
> in my short lifetime.
It's a lame article. Then again, so are all of the "bio" articles in Card
Player about any "top player".
> Can someone tell me what the hell a computer science degree has anything
> to do with poker? What you take one, maybe two statistics classes and you
> are suddenly a fucking poker genius. 98% of all the math I have ever
> needed to play poker effectively should have been learned in high school.
> I cant imagine that sitting in some computer lab writing code all night
> long makes you a poker great.
>
> Paul Phillips is an asshole. Nouveau riche mother fucker with the
> audacity to call other people wannabes.
You know, Paul didn't write the article...
It's not his fault if the article makes him look inaccurately brilliant.
It's not his fault if the TV broadcast makes him look inaccurately bad.
Have you met him? If so, I think your entitled to your opinion.
If you haven't, then I think you should take items like this article with a
cup of salt.
> Why is it that all these mathmatical computer dorks end up rivering the
> shit out of TJ Cloutier? (think Chris Ferguson's A9 call against TJ's AQ
> in the 2001 wsop) I bet it was years and years of studying game theory
> that gave them the "edge" to make such genius reads/calls.
>
> Go drink your gin and tonic you dilettante sycophant.
Paul is a sycophant???
> Hatchetface
- Itea
R. Ray
"AJohn808" <ajoh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040302120654...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> But to have $50 million dollars and buy your way into the major leagues
of
> poker, its not all that impressive.
And ladies and germs, we have a winner -- ding ding ding ........
Although the anything that brings 'access' to that kind of available cash is
always a good thing in poker :-)
Irish Mike
> to game theory, or statistics, has a unique edge in poker"
I don't think they have much of an edge. Poker math is relatively straight
forward and involves repetitive decisions. You don't have to be a math whiz
to calculate pot odds, card odds and implied odds. After a while it becomes
second nature, like knowing how many outs you have, the odds of hitting them
and how much money is in the pot.
Irish Mike
"I stood on the Dublin docks and my future was uncertain, in a place where
fortunes are won and lost on the dealing of a hand"
"Mike" <joec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O%11c.7922$t16.5...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Kevin Cline
> "hatchetface" <anon...@fargo.com> wrote in message
> news:4044b430$0$701$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> > Granted, but the idea that they are superior poker players because they
> > have an engineering degree and a background in statistics/mathmatics is a
> > supremely fallable theory, at best.
>
> of course.
>
> > I know Chris Ferguson is a great player and Paul Phillips has demonstrated
> > at least some poker success. I am not trying to take anything away from
> > their abilities, but I am disputing the theory that "digital" poker
> > players are somehow better than the "analog" version, just because they
> > spent some time in a learning institution.
>
> I think digital/analog is a bad choice of words. You probably mean
> intuitive players vs. analytical players.
There are no "intuitive players". TJ isn't intuitive. He just
remembers every play he's ever seen anybody make. And that's a common
trait of great game players -- everything that happens means
something, and they remember it. In poker, you don't have to memorize
a lot of book knowledge, but it sure helps if you can memorize your
opponents.
OTOH, if you play well enough, it doesn't matter what TJ remembers.
Mike
news:ba162549.04030...@posting.google.com...
> There are no "intuitive players". TJ isn't intuitive. He just
> remembers every play he's ever seen anybody make. And that's a common
> trait of great game players -- everything that happens means
> something, and they remember it. In poker, you don't have to memorize
> a lot of book knowledge, but it sure helps if you can memorize your
> opponents.
Sorry, I meant instinctive players. Which is consistent with what you
brought up about remembering past hands played.
Regards,
Mike
Mike
news:iY71c.8018$t16.5...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> "Anyone who has a strong mathematical foundation, especially if it's
related
> > to game theory, or statistics, has a unique edge in poker"
>
> I don't think they have much of an edge. Poker math is relatively
straight
> forward and involves repetitive decisions. You don't have to be a math
whiz
> to calculate pot odds, card odds and implied odds. After a while it
becomes
> second nature, like knowing how many outs you have, the odds of hitting
them
> and how much money is in the pot.
I don't consider game theory to be in the same category as "poker math," at
least not in the sense most people understand the term as such.
Regards,
Mike
Bjgkaraoke
>Granted, but the idea that they are superior poker players because they
>have an engineering degree and a background in statistics/mathmatics is a
>supremely fallable theory, at best.
Years ago I worked at Hughes Space Systems in El Segundo. I also played poker
in Gardena, CA. A scientist who worked at Hughes also played poker
recreationally. He was in charge of the Surveyor program, which was sent to
the moon to gather data.
Even though he was a brilliant doctor and was in charge of a program worth many
millions, he was a complete fish in a poker game. Consequently, your statement
is true in my experience.
Barbara Gallamore
MCS
> realm of poker. At least not if you want to implement it correctly.
Well then, please enlighten me as to an example. Are you referring to
optimal bluffing frequency or something? I agree that it's difficult; I
just don't think it's as important as some seem to.
To continue and semi-agree with some other comments in the thread, I would
argue that "knowing your opponent" is still a relevant concept in the sense
that it provides necessary information. For example, if I know you will
never, ever, ever fold, that's exploitable. Of course, when I develop this
exploitative strategy and use it against you, I'm also exploitable myself.
Not that you could take advantage of it.
I agree with you that mathematical game theory is different than "poker
math."
I'm not a great player.
But I do know a lot about game theory, most of which is inapplicable to
poker, and the rest of which you seem to think I'm underestimating.
Best,
--MCS
Mike
> > There are no simple prob. calculations when it comes to game theory in
the
> > realm of poker. At least not if you want to implement it correctly.
>
> Well then, please enlighten me as to an example. Are you referring to
> optimal bluffing frequency or something? I agree that it's difficult; I
> just don't think it's as important as some seem to.
limit HE ring game, you open (raise) in early, and get exactly 1 cold caller
behind you. Flop comes down whatever. Devise a strategy for all subsequent
betting rounds, and show that this strategy is optimal. Not easy, is it?
> To continue and semi-agree with some other comments in the thread, I would
> argue that "knowing your opponent" is still a relevant concept in the
sense
> that it provides necessary information. For example, if I know you will
> never, ever, ever fold, that's exploitable. Of course, when I develop
this
> exploitative strategy and use it against you, I'm also exploitable myself.
> Not that you could take advantage of it.
Fine. You can stipulate opening and cold-calling requirements for both
players, a specific flop/turn/river, and go from there. I still don't think
you'll be able to come up with an optimal strategy.
On the off chance that you do, I myself wouldn't be able to verify it, but I
know of at least 2 or 3 people off the top of my head who post on RGP, who
probably could check your proof.
> But I do know a lot about game theory, most of which is inapplicable to
> poker, and the rest of which you seem to think I'm underestimating.
Maybe I should have said "a deep understanding of game theory." One who
does should be able to devise the aforementioned requested strategy.
Regards,
Mike
Bill Chen
> > to game theory, or statistics, has a unique edge in poker"
>
> I don't think they have much of an edge. Poker math is relatively straight
> forward and involves repetitive decisions. You don't have to be a math whiz
> to calculate pot odds, card odds and implied odds. After a while it becomes
> second nature, like knowing how many outs you have, the odds of hitting them
> and how much money is in the pot.
Interesting. The mathematics of poker has very little to do with
calculating pot odds. It does have more to do with knowing how many
outs you have, in the sense that it's an important distinction between
having 9 outs or 35 outs.
Bill
Kevin Cline
Intuitive, instinctive, it's the same thing. But I think it only
looks instinctive. It's really quite analytical. But since there's
no deep tree to search, and they've all been there dozens of times
before, the analysis happens rather quickly. But I'll bet that if you
asked most of the top players why they made some play, they could give
you specific reasons.