The Poker Whisperer
lawh...@hiwaay.net
is a mix of two equally important components: Math ability and
psychology. Many players are good at one component or the other, but
it is rare to find a player who is both a good “poker mathematician”
and a good “poker psychology” player – all in the same package. We
all know who the really good poker mathematicians are – guys like
David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, Bill Chen, Jerrod Ankemann, Dan
Harrington, Chris Ferguson, and Andy Bloch. (There are many more of
these “math geniuses” with advanced degrees from places like MIT and
Harvard, but these are the ones who quickly come to mind.) These guys
are so good that they can calculate the odds of even the most complex
poker situations in their heads – and they can do this before most
players have focused their eyes on the flop! (Daniel Negreanu half-
mockingly refers to these human calculators as “math guys” in his hold
‘em book.) It can be very intimidating playing against a really good
poker mathematician – especially if you have not expended the time and
effort to learn poker math yourself.
Then there are the players who have incredible poker instincts – the
players who are very good at poker psychology and reading people.
These players may not know or understand all the intricacies of pot
odds and implied odds calculations, (as well as all the other esoteric
math situations that occur at the poker table), but they can smell out
a bluff like a shark homing in on a drop of blood from ten miles
away. These players are experts at sensing and exploiting fear.
While the mathematician is busy calculating the odds and coming to the
conclusion that he should fold his [winning] two pair, the poker
psychologist knew (beforehand) that he could run a successful bluff on
this “math guy” and get away with it. Of course, we all know who the
good “poker instinct” players are – guys like the late Stu Ungar,
Doyle Brunson, Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, and maybe even
Phil Hellmuth Jr. (I suppose this is just my subjective judgment, but
there are many Asian players – Scotty Nguyen, Johnny Chan, Men “the
Master” Nguyen, J.C. Tran, David “the Dragon” Pham – who are really
good at reading people. There are many other great Asian players I
have left out, but these are the ones who quickly come to mind.)
These players aren’t necessarily math or “computer” geniuses, but they
know what your twitching eyebrows mean in a microsecond. Some of
these good “instinct” players have probably never opened (or read) a
poker book, but it’s funny how they can run circles around a good math
player. Of course, we all know how scary and unnerving it can be to
find yourself sitting across the table from these kind of players.
Tonight I was watching Cesar Millan, the semi-famous “Dog Whisperer”
on the National Geographic channel. Cesar is probably one of the best
at what he does: Working with and training dogs. (Cesar likes to say
that he “rehabilitates dogs and trains people” – which is kind of
funny when you realize that Cesar spends as much time working on the
owners as he does working with their dogs.) Tonight Cesar was
undergoing intensive “aggression detox” with an especially difficult
Rottweiler that was prone to suddenly attacking other dogs. As I
watched the way Cesar interacted with this dog, the way he sensed (or
“knew”) how this dog would respond, it suddenly dawned on me that
Cesar Millan would probably be a good poker player too – a good
“instinct” poker player. I call players who can do what Cesar does
(with dogs) at the poker table “poker whisperers”. Poker whisperers
are very good at sensing what is going on inside another player’s head
– they are very good people readers.
What is really rare (and probably the scariest thing imaginable) is
running across a player who is both a poker math genius and a poker
whisperer. I don’t know many (or any) poker players who are good at
both. It seems that most poker players tend to be good at one or the
other – but not at both. An interesting question might be: “Of the
two types of poker player, which would you rather be – a poker math
genius or a poker whisperer?” I wonder which group has won the most
poker tournaments and WSOP bracelets – not to mention the most money?
(I suspect poker whisperers have done better, overall, than poker math
whizzes; but that’s just a guess on my part.)
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
Follow
Good post. I disagree with your appraisal of Stu Unger though, I think he
was both. Phil Ivey and Daniel are both on that verge, but both of them
seem to shake and tilt, Daniel more frequently and for longer periods than
Phil, but those are my very mundane observations mostly from TV.
I try to do both, but I'm not a natural at reading people. All of my
social interaction is learned for me, and mimicked. I imagine most are
good at only one or neither and have to learn the other or both. I can't
point at anyone besides possibly Stu who was a natural at both. At least
no one who actually played the game anyway.
Follow :)
_______________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Clave
news:d4fabc39-b6e2-45b6...@c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
<...>
> What is really rare (and probably the scariest thing imaginable) is
> running across a player who is both a poker math genius and a poker
> whisperer...
Just a booger-eatin' goober TVSM's opinion here, but Hoyt Corkins seems to
me to be one of these, and a class act as well.
Jim
Paul Popinjay
news:d4fabc39-b6e2-45b6...@c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> One of the most interesting aspects of poker is the fact that the game
> is a mix of two equally important components: Math ability and
> psychology.
No way. Psychology is way more important.
lawh...@hiwaay.net
> <lawho...@HiWAAY.net> wrote in message
Jim:
Excuse me for my cluelessness, but I see this "TVSM" acronym being
used on here all the time and I have no idea what it stands for.
Would you (or anybody) please enlighten me?
Thanks,
Clave
news:1d8d386d-c9e8-4b66...@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
<...>
> Excuse me for my cluelessness, but I see this "TVSM" acronym being
> used on here all the time and I have no idea what it stands for.
> Would you (or anybody) please enlighten me?
TV Scooter Moron: pejorative referring to someone whose play suggests that
they had little knowledge of the game prior to popular broadcast of the 2003
WSOP Main Event final table, and who are inclined to push all-in with poor
odds.
Corrections welcome.
Jim
lawh...@hiwaay.net
> <lawho...@HiWAAY.net> wrote in message
Jim:
Thanks for the clarification. Now I know - it's an insult!
Gary Carson
Again, Paul is right.
Without an understanding of how gamblers think ad behave the mathematics
that you'll bring to the table will be weak.
Math is a modeling tool, it's fairly straightforward to model the cards,
but the best math models will also incorporate behavior.
Math and psychology aren't two seperate thigs. They're the same thing.
Combinatorial arithmetic and straightforward expected value isn't all
there is to the math of poker.
I'll don't know if I'll ever get it done, but yesterday I started working
on a multi-attribute utility decison model (with qualitative components)
to address that big stack v. small stack in the blinds fold or raise
question in another thread.
Expected value of showdown outcomes suggests push, expected value of an
ICM model suggests push. But what about adding the qualitative strategic
factors of position relative to other stack sizes? That's a psychological
effect -- being a big stack right behind another big stack will tend to
slow him down. It's part of a complete math model.
Good math will always take the psychology into consideration.
---�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
da pickle
>> One of the most interesting aspects of poker is the fact that the game
>> is a mix of two equally important components: Math ability and
>> psychology.
>
>
> No way. Psychology is way more important.
Part of the psychology read is being able to ascertain whether the person
you are reading is a complete mor00n. You can absolutely "know" that some
players think they have a big hand but you are never sure if that player has
a clue about what a big hand might be and how it might compare to what is
happening on the board or at the table.
Math guys and gals and poker whisperers do their best work with otherwise
competent players. But even then, it is often a double or triple or ... ...
... a never ending consideration of considerations. The ultimate battle of
wits. Very witty.
"Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU
K9way
I INVENTED IT
- Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll
just
kill you.
----�
K9way
the world does you absolutely no good if you dont have the intuitive
aspects down .
Do you honestly think that because Andy Block can go to 17 more digits in
calculating the value of pi.. that it is the difference between winning
and losing ?
it is not
if andy block and I flop a big draw and I know there are 17 outs and he
knows the "EXACT" number down to 16 decimal places ... my contention is
this
WE BOTH KNOW WHAT WE HAVE .. WE BOTH KNOW THE VALUE
if you dont have the table "presence" (not table image ), some moxy and
other traits .. you are drawing dead ..
and Stu Ungar was by far the best at combining both
- Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll
just
kill you.
________________________________________________________________________�
raven1
<jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU
Never get involved in a land war in Asia, either!
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<lawh...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
>What is really rare (and probably the scariest thing imaginable) is
>running across a player who is both a poker math genius and a poker
>whisperer.
I'm not sure about how much formal math knowledge Phil Ivey has, but I
rarely make him see a mathematically bad decision, and his primary
strength is that he reads most players like a book and can both bluff
and call bluffs with uncanny ability. Of all the NLHE players in the
world, he's the player I'd least want to play. In LHE, I'd say Jen
Harman mixes both types of skill well, though again, I don't know how
much formal math she knows, and her strength is player-reading and
aggression.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
It is playing people when you're actually sitting at the table with
them. Online, it's almost all math, except for a very few players
with extreme "psychological" tells, like always pausing dramatically
before an idiotic bluff, or always pausing dramatically before smooth
calling with some monster, or always making a weird-sized bet with
aces. Not many people have tells that specific, though, and you can't
really tell whether the guy behind you is obviously going to fold by
how his avatar blinks.
Oh, there are a couple tells. Anyone who has Jack Nicholson in the
Shining or Charles Manson or Al Pacino in Scarface is a weak-tight
wimp. Anyone with a shark avatar is a megadonk, unless they're
exploiting the megadonk rule, etc. Also, anyone with a baby avatar is
a shit-for-brains moron who needs to die.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<garyc...@pokercultureblog.com> wrote:
>Expected value of showdown outcomes suggests push, expected value of an
>ICM model suggests push. But what about adding the qualitative strategic
>factors of position relative to other stack sizes? That's a psychological
>effect -- being a big stack right behind another big stack will tend to
>slow him down. It's part of a complete math model.
>Good math will always take the psychology into consideration.
If this is about that ICM thread a bit ago, I've thought of another
reason you might just call. If you have a genuine monster and there
are other people behind you, you might want to get a third person into
the hand so as to stack them both when the third person catches a
little something on the flop. I still think that, while that's
clearly a "best case," the proper move is generally jamming in the
situation in that thread.
raven1
<nob...@fool.foo> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:01:51 -0800 (PST), "lawh...@HiWAAY.net"
><lawh...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
>
>>What is really rare (and probably the scariest thing imaginable) is
>>running across a player who is both a poker math genius and a poker
>>whisperer.
>
>I'm not sure about how much formal math knowledge Phil Ivey has, but I
>rarely make him see a mathematically bad decision, and his primary
>strength is that he reads most players like a book and can both bluff
>and call bluffs with uncanny ability. Of all the NLHE players in the
>world, he's the player I'd least want to play.
I agree. He's a scary player. It sometimes seems like he has x-ray
vision.
Paul Popinjay
news:pvgrm5psvuqed55fk...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 00:14:25 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
>>
>>No way. Psychology is way more important.
>
> It is playing people when you're actually sitting at the table with
> them. Online, it's almost all math,
Dude, no friggin way. Your statement is so wrong. I still think you are a
smart kid, but that is so wrong.
joeturn
for you is to prolong the agony of defeat!
If your playing an opponet that has less experience than you then and
only then has skill given you an edge over luck!
All the books written about poker and how to win can never be applied
to the same table that looses or gains a player! A full table of
players means most of the cards in the deck will be used giving one
person at least one player a good hand. A heads up table on the other
hand requires a whole new set of guidelines.The luckiest of which will
win however the bluff has an enormous effect here whereas at a full
table you can expect to get caught with your pants down.
The tourneys are by for the hardest to win because the worm turns
makes the game soo long you eventually start playing stupid because
youve lost your ability to concentrate!
All that time killed between plays is for actors that want to imply
they are trying to reach an orgasm,so shit or get off the pot you will
either get called by a good hand or be rewarded for a quick play!
On line games has nothing to do with skill nor luck at all and poker
playing is not envolved.Its whoever has the best expierience with the
latest cheat-ware
bo dark
Wonder how many tournament players are rote players but vary their
play a bit as not to give off how they play. System players , they
might not be top tourny players but do well. They bet standard bets or
by the book. Don't see these players as live players , at least not at
higher limits.
Is this why Phil Helmuth is a better tournament player ? Wouldn't more
seat time at the table make you a more intuitive player ?Would a
online player develop these intuitive skills better as he advances in
play due to not having the physical tells but having to read play
patterns ?
bo dark
Some people are good at business but don't have business degrees. Some
people have a good math aptitude but never apply it. Some sales people
have great people reading skills and it helps them be successful at
what they do. So many variables.
Paul Popinjay
news:15469a35-4afe-48dd...@q27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Well, you know what they say, Joe. There's no fool like an old fool.
Deadmoney Walking
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:06:42 -0800, "Gary Carson"
>
This isn't dog's blind vs blind hand?
Oh Gary, do explain why Math and Psychology are the same thing,
because you can do Psych without any numbers.
mccard
news:6a7e4e2f-5c54-426e...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
After Psych 101 comes Statistics....
raven1
wrote:
My college made me take Statistics before taking *any* Psych courses.
Gary Carson
No, I was talking about a thread with a big stack on the SB and a short
stack on the BB
But the point is the same, there's often more to it than just calculating
showdown equity and the math to include those additional factors (some of
which are psychological and some strategic) might be fuzzy, even
qualitative, but it's still math.
------�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
news:0k7sm59c2f95pnosq...@4ax.com...
>
> My college made me take Statistics before taking *any* Psych courses.
Was that before or after becoming a dumb liberal?
Pepe Papon
>One of the most interesting aspects of poker is the fact that the game
>is a mix of two equally important components: Math ability and
>psychology.
<snip?
> I wonder which group has won the most
>poker tournaments and WSOP bracelets � not to mention the most money?
>(I suspect poker whisperers have done better, overall, than poker math
>whizzes; but that�s just a guess on my part.)
There seems to be a bit of a logical contradiction here. If the
skills are equally important, as you stated, then it would stand to
reason that there would be no difference in results between the two
types of players. But you state the belief that the psychology
players actually have better overall results. That would lead to the
conclusion that the psychological skill is of greater importance.
I tend to believe that this view is correct. Math skill is great, but
pretty meaningless in poker without the ability to read opponents.
When you calculate the EV of any particular move, you need to assign
percentages to your opponent's possible holdings. Without a read on
the opponent, your EV calculations are classic examples of the GIGO
syndrome (that's "Garbage In, Garbage Out" for all you non-computer
geeks).
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
lawh...@hiwaay.net
wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:01:51 -0800 (PST), "lawho...@HiWAAY.net"
>
>
>
> <lawho...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
> >One of the most interesting aspects of poker is the fact that the game
> >is a mix of two equally important components: Math ability and
> >psychology.
> <snip?
> > I wonder which group has won the most
> >poker tournaments and WSOP bracelets – not to mention the most money?
> >(I suspect poker whisperers have done better, overall, than poker math
> >whizzes; but that’s just a guess on my part.)
>
> There seems to be a bit of a logical contradiction here. If the
> skills are equally important, as you stated, then it would stand to
> reason that there would be no difference in results between the two
> types of players. But you state the belief that the psychology
> players actually have better overall results. That would lead to the
> conclusion that the psychological skill is of greater importance.
>
> I tend to believe that this view is correct. Math skill is great, but
> pretty meaningless in poker without the ability to read opponents.
> When you calculate the EV of any particular move, you need to assign
> percentages to your opponent's possible holdings. Without a read on
> the opponent, your EV calculations are classic examples of the GIGO
> syndrome (that's "Garbage In, Garbage Out" for all you non-computer
> geeks).
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
>
> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net
Seth:
That is very perceptive on your part to see (and pick up on) my
logical inconsistency. This leads me to believe that you are probably
a better (and more observant) poker player than perhaps am I.
I spend a lot of time studying (and trying to understand) math-related
poker topics, but I'm gradually coming to the belief that really good
people skills are more important. (I think this is especially true
in no-limit.) The math is important, but if I could be a master at
one - and terrible at the other - I would choose to be a master of
poker psychology. That seems to be your point and I agree completely.
This has been a really interesting thread with a lot of good comments
and observations.
Paul Popinjay
news:91c63d82-d361-4037...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Seth:
That is very perceptive on your part to see (and pick up on) my
logical inconsistency. This leads me to believe that you are probably
a better (and more observant) poker player than perhaps am I.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holy shit, then this must really be a case of the blind leading the blind.
Pepe sucks, I assure you.
raven1
May I ask the reason for the gratuitous insult?
Paul Popinjay
Insult? Come on, don't be so sensitive. It was a fair question. Surely
you can understand my curiosity.
raven1
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>news:4dutm55atofht95t2...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:36:02 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
>> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0k7sm59c2f95pnosq...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My college made me take Statistics before taking *any* Psych courses.
>>>
>>>
>>>Was that before or after becoming a dumb liberal?
>>
>> May I ask the reason for the gratuitous insult?
>
>
>Insult? Come on, don't be so sensitive. It was a fair question. Surely
>you can understand my curiosity.
Sorry, not playing along.
Paul Popinjay
I'm sure you can understand my dilemma. I am trying to figure out if you
were that stupid BEFORE you started college, or if you had to go to school
to become an idiot. I've seen it go both ways before. I know many people
who were just kinda neutral, until they started college. Then they became
full-blown fucking idiots. Then I know other people, who were just stupid
from the git-go. So it was a legitimate question. No reason for you to get
snotty.
da pickle
>> Sorry, not playing along.
>
>
> I'm sure you can understand my dilemma. I am trying to figure out if you
> were that stupid BEFORE you started college, or if you had to go to school
> to become an idiot. I've seen it go both ways before. I know many people
> who were just kinda neutral, until they started college. Then they became
> full-blown fucking idiots. Then I know other people, who were just stupid
> from the git-go. So it was a legitimate question. No reason for you to
> get snotty.
You are not being nice, Paul.
igotskillz22
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9614A7D3941FFAEF&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL
Paulie, Please pay attention. This is from my very last vacation.
Prolly wont get to go there again.
Gary Carson
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
_____________________________________________________________________�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
> On Feb 6, 12:40�ｿｽpm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo> wrote:
> > On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:06:42 -0800, "Gary Carson"
> >
> > <garycar...@pokercultureblog.com> wrote:
> > >Expected value of showdown outcomes suggests push, expected value of an
> > >ICM model suggests push. �ｿｽBut what about adding the qualitative strategic
> > >factors of position relative to other stack sizes? �ｿｽThat's a psychological
> > >effect -- being a big stack right behind another big stack will tend to
> > >slow him down. �ｿｽIt's part of a complete math model.
> > >Good math will always take the psychology into consideration.
> >
> > If this is about that ICM thread a bit ago, I've thought of another
> > reason you might just call. �ｿｽIf you have a genuine monster and there
> > are other people behind you, you might want to get a third person into
> > the hand so as to stack them both when the third person catches a
> > little something on the flop. �ｿｽI still think that, while that's
> > clearly a "best case," the proper move is generally jamming in the
> > situation in that thread.
>
> This isn't dog's blind vs blind hand?
>
> Oh Gary, do explain why Math and Psychology are the same thing,
> because you can do Psych without any numbers.
You can do math without numbers.
A qualitative multi-attribute decsion model can be characterized as having
symbolic attributes with discrete scales that consist of words rather than
numbers.
Position relative to stacksizes can be expressed as such an attribute.
It's a good thing to have a big stack and it's a good thing to have other
big stacks in front of you. You can make much better decisions acting
after big stacks. But if you are in the middle of a big, big, small
lineup you're giving an advantage to the small stack. So you have some
competing objectives in lineing up stack sizes.
The mathematics of qualitative attributes uses decision tables rather than
numeric functions.
Those decision tables are determined by psychological effects of acting in
front of or behind big stacks.
The trick is to determine a heiracle tree structuure for the qualitative
attributes of interest
I didin't say math and psychology are the same, I said that if you're
doing good math then the psychology of the situation is part of the math.
You can represent preferences without numerical functions and even without
transitive relations. It's kind of an esoteric area of utility function
theory and it's still math even without real valued functions.
------�ｿｽ
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Peg Smith
<garyc...@pokercultureblog.com> wrote:
>> Oh Gary, do explain why Math and Psychology are the same thing,
>> because you can do Psych without any numbers.
>
>You can do math without numbers.
>
>A qualitative multi-attribute decsion model can be characterized as having
>symbolic attributes with discrete scales that consist of words rather than
>numbers.
I had to read it twice to get it, whew! You made an old girl work
awful hard, Gary.
I expected you to tell him that psychology *is* about math, because
you can't really "do psychology without any numbers" as he thinks. You
may think he's bluffing, and you may think there's no math involved,
but you're intuitively working with math when you're figuring the
probability that he's bluffing. For instance. You know. Did that make
sense?
Peg
Gary Carson
No, most people think of using math in decision making as just computing
an expected value then doing whatever has the highest expected value.
That's fine for well-structured problems where we know clearly all the
cause ad effects and can evaluate the value function for every outcome.
But most of the time that's just not the way the world is.
People that consider themselves "math guys" are willing to just assume the
world is well understood (i.e. their are willing to assume that the other
guy is also trying to win or that the ICM model accurately reflects the
chances of winning with given stack sizes.
But what if the other guy is more worried about avoiding regret or if your
ability to make future decisions well depends on whether the big stack is
in front of you are behind you?
Those are the psychological factors I'm talking about and they are factors
that the "poker math" dweebs are willing to wave their hands about and
just assert that they don't matter.
What they really mean is "I don't know how to deal with those issues".
But math can deal with them. It's called decision analysis. It's a set
of tools that won't give you an answer, that won't make the decision for
you. But a well structured decision analysis of an ill-defined problem
can help you determie what the critical isues are that you must make a
judgement about in order to make a decision.
Expected value, bayes theorem, optimization, all that stuff is part of
decision analysis. But so are the tools such as influence diagrams,
flowcharts, it-then tables, hierarchical trees, decision trees, etc, etc.
Here's a readable technical article on the subject. It's as much math as
is the quadratic equation.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/cee115/wiki/uploads/Main/Schedule/DAPracticeAndPromise.pdf
Deadmoney Walking
> One of the most interesting aspects of poker is the fact that the game
> is a mix of two equally important components: Math ability and
> poker tournaments and WSOP bracelets – not to mention the most money?
> (I suspect poker whisperers have done better, overall, than poker math
> whizzes; but that’s just a guess on my part.)
>
> Huntsville, Alabama
Had the same argument of whether limit hold'em is more mathmatical
than no limit. I think it is, if not then limit is more mechanical.
I'd guess it would depend on the game structure and conditions. A
heads-up game is probably more mathematical, fixed limit more math,
TAG games require more estimations of hand ranges.
A psychological player, assuming that means he is very good at
figuring out if the opponent likes his hand and what mood he is in.
would probably do best in a medium stacked tournament or a no limit
cash game provided that neither is full of tough players. I'd imagine
you could beat most nl games if you just knew whether an opponent was
confident in his hand, and had a vague idea of how yours is in the
hand rankings.
Paul Popinjay
news:4d7vm51fnqfqe7gjc...@4ax.com...
>
> I expected you to tell him that psychology *is* about math, because
> you can't really "do psychology without any numbers" as he thinks. You
> may think he's bluffing, and you may think there's no math involved,
> but you're intuitively working with math when you're figuring the
> probability that he's bluffing. For instance. You know. Did that make
> sense?
>
Yes, Peg, I don't know what he's talking about either.
Gary Carson
A math model that doesn't take important psychological factors into
account in the model is just bad mathematics.
______________________________________________________________________�
Gary Carson
Math modelling iks a skill that's often independent of computational
skills. Being good at math modelling requires something that madellers
call "domain knowledge". I.e, knowing about that thing you're doing the
model of. You can't do a good math model of poker without a solid
understanding of poker before you do the model.
In that sense psychological skills feed the application of math skills,
but I don't think you can say one is more important than another. I think
it's a mistake to even set up the dichotomy in the first place.
_____________________________________________________________________�
Gary Carson
> On Feb 6, 12:01�am, "
>
> Had the same argument of whether limit hold'em is more mathmatical
> than no limit. I think it is, if not then limit is more mechanical.
>
A limit game is more ameanable to prescriptive math models, in that sense
it's more mechanical. But that's mostly only true in bad games.
The kinds of math models I'm talking about which include psychological
factors aren't prescriptive, they don't yield easy to apply fold/raise
solutions, they result in a better understanding of the important
considerations.
If you'll recall that's a central theme of my hold'em book, the idea that
any one model of poker doesn't do the job, you need to modify the way you
look at the game on the fly. That's particularly true in the more
profitable wild and crazy limit games.
> I'd guess it would depend on the game structure and conditions. A
> heads-up game is probably more mathematical, fixed limit more math,
> TAG games require more estimations of hand ranges.
>
> A psychological player, assuming that means he is very good at
> figuring out if the opponent likes his hand and what mood he is in.
> would probably do best in a medium stacked tournament or a no limit
> cash game provided that neither is full of tough players. I'd imagine
> you could beat most nl games if you just knew whether an opponent was
> confident in his hand, and had a vague idea of how yours is in the
> hand rankings.
________________________________________________________________________�
Frisbieinstein
wrote:
Look at game theory.
Eventually computers will be very tough to beat Especi8ally in a one-
on-one match, because you can't read a computer.
mo_charles
> >running across a player who is both a poker math genius and a poker
> >whisperer.
>
> rarely make him see a mathematically bad decision, and his primary
> strength is that he reads most players like a book and can both bluff
> and call bluffs with uncanny ability. Of all the NLHE players in the
> world, he's the player I'd least want to play. In LHE, I'd say Jen
> Harman mixes both types of skill well, though again, I don't know how
> much formal math she knows, and her strength is player-reading and
> aggression.
this from all the hours you've logged in bobby's room ...
mo_charles
_____________________________________________________________________�
mo_charles
>
> Again, Paul is right.
>
> Without an understanding of how gamblers think ad behave the mathematics
> that you'll bring to the table will be weak.
>
> Math is a modeling tool, it's fairly straightforward to model the cards,
> but the best math models will also incorporate behavior.
>
> Math and psychology aren't two seperate thigs. They're the same thing.
>
> Combinatorial arithmetic and straightforward expected value isn't all
> there is to the math of poker.
>
> I'll don't know if I'll ever get it done, but yesterday I started working
> on a multi-attribute utility decison model (with qualitative components)
> to address that big stack v. small stack in the blinds fold or raise
> question in another thread.
>
> Expected value of showdown outcomes suggests push, expected value of an
> factors of position relative to other stack sizes? That's a psychological
> effect -- being a big stack right behind another big stack will tend to
>
> Good math will always take the psychology into consideration.
there's no such thing as a "complete math model".
mo_charles
Gary Carson
That's actually a ood point.
The whole point of a model is to create an abstraction of reality, not the
replicate reality. The key to a good model is to include all the features
that really matter. Many people will ignore the pschological features to
make the resulting model computationally tractable.
All I'm saying is that sometimes doing that means you're leaving out some
of the features that really matter and that's not good practice.
It requires an understanding of psychological factors to know when it's
okay to leave them out of the model and when it's not okay.
____________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Pepe Papon
La Cosa Nostradamus
>
> NPR! NPR!
> --
16
---�
Travel A
abundantly clear that 90% of his dog trainung is the result of applying
the choke collar.
Now, if you can mangage to get choke collars on your opponents somehow,
you may have something there.
Deadmoney Walking
wrote:
> On Feb 8 2010 2:17 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
Maybe less-useful mathematics?
As in the other thread I asked if you could quantify any of the
pysychological factors, to the point that they would tip a simple
chipEVor even an ICM choice to the unexpected direction.
I'm trying to think of one now... Maybe calling the last bet in limit
hold'em when you know your beat but don't want to get bluffed at in
the future. Like I do almost always.
Gary Carson
> On Feb 8, 3:02�am, "Gary Carson" <garycar...@pokercultureblog.com>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 8 2010 2:17 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
> >
> > > "Peg Smith" <pegsmith...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >news:4d7vm51fnqfqe7gjc...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > > I expected you to tell him that psychology *is* about math, because
> > > > you can't really "do psychology without any numbers" as he thinks. You
> > > > may think he's bluffing, and you may think there's no math involved,
> > > > but you're intuitively working with math when you're figuring the
> > > > probability that he's bluffing. For instance. You know. Did that make
> > > > sense?
> >
> > > Yes, Peg, I don't know what he's talking about either.
> >
> > A math model that doesn't take important psychological factors into
> > account in the model is just bad mathematics.
> >
> Maybe less-useful mathematics?
>
> As in the other thread I asked if you could quantify any of the
> pysychological factors, to the point that they would tip a simple
> chipEVor even an ICM choice to the unexpected direction.
>
I don't know.
I think so, but it's hard.
I'm working on it.
--------�