Poker is a math game but it isn't everything, online or live.
Ive taken an extreme love/interest in teh live pokerz of late and have been reading alot about table dynamics, categorizing villians, mental notes, multi way pots, and perceived image.
All of these things you mentioned are math:
Table dynamics: tell us to loosen or tighten our range (numbers).
Categorizing villains: and adjusting ranges to exploit them
Mental notes: more exploiting vs opponents ranges
Perceived Image: our perceived ranges etc.
All of these things apply to online poker as well, except for the fact that math and nash simply cannot factor these things into play.
Yes it can. The nash calculator is easy and simple to use anyone can do it. But to use it effectively you have to learn to use all those things you mentioned and turn them into math adjustments. This is what I do videos about.
Yes im talking live cash, but it carries over into live mtt's as well.
Yes it carries over and it turns into math.
When we sit at our computers and fire up a big long session, and go through the monotonous task of clicking buttons and making purely math based decisions all day, we stop becoming poker players. We become robots.
We are robots. Once you realize that we are poker bots you understand the game better. You only win at your hourly rate, thats your 'Costanza rate' Everyday you play the same and win at the Costanza rate, the only way to change that is to 'upgrade'. You are a robot you play the same way everyday unless you learn or grow.
Its easiest for me to explain like this: online almost every decision or adjustment can be represented with programming.
Such as:
Timing tells
Looking up sharkscope stats
Identifying donks who are drunk and just shoving all in.
bet sizing tells
Bluffing frequency
range
Tilt factor
We are NOT robots.... If we were robots we would never need to rest. The ability to make a different decision based on un-mathable factors is what sets us apart from a computer (which is a robot).. You are trying to quantify and simplify something that simply does not fit... Our minds are far more complex than that and capable of so much more than we even realize...
I know it's sacrilege but poker is such a small part of life and to understand the fact that we're not robots one has to experience the much bigger picture..
In short you seem to be guilty of what you think of others... .
this is a different subject, about my other beliefs that are controversial and about gray subjects. This one can be shown right or wrong.
I think in the most part we are arguing apples and oranges... I never want to be that predictable...
I understand what you are referring to here but I disagree. I think many and most people and players think many decisions are gut feelings but they are actually either math based or guesses.
That is some peoples gut actions are really just guesses that are random. While some peoples gut actions can be represented with math and they don't know.
There is no gut based decision process that can beat a game, thats the secret to poker.
We are NOT robots.... If we were robots we would never need to rest. The ability to make a different decision based on un-mathable factors is what sets us apart from a computer (which is a robot).. You are trying to quantify and simplify something that simply does not fit... Our minds are far more complex than that and capable of so much more than we even realize...
ah yes now that you said this you will understand me. At the poker table we are robots. And a poker bot would destroy a real player. Every made at the poker table can be expressed in a computer language and turned into an action performed by a computer. Now if we are saying live your going to run into technology issues as far as facial recognition etc. but it still holds, there is no poker 'intuition' we can't teach computers.
I'm sure you don't agree, but I'm betting you understand exactly what I am suggesting now.
Also...ask a very good programmer.
I know it's sacrilege but poker is such a small part of life and to understand the fact that we're not robots one has to experience the much bigger picture..
Just to clarify...I'm not saying we are robots, just at the table we are.
I'm sure you don't agree, but I'm betting you understand exactly what I am suggesting now.
Also...ask a very good programmer.
I did, looked in a mirror... We are so far away from software or even the hardware capability to emulate the human brain it's laughable...
Advantage that a computer has is the ability to process so many 1/0 decisions per second and never get tired... However it does not learn and can only do what it's human creator has designed it for..
As for a poker bot destroying any human opponent, I think not... We are close to making a chess bot which can beat any human player but chess can be completely made to be a complex math problem, much more so than can poker.. Even Big Blue from my alma mater barely beat top chess masters but it again had the advantage of never tiring while running all the combinations and permeatations while the chess master does tire. I think that given an unlimited amount of time to rest and rethink a human player would virtually draw each game with the perfect chess robot... Poker is much different and in a lot of ways, much more complex... And definitely can not be represented by a complex math formulae, that's only one element...
In your example of the "tell", you are calling it math decisions and compuease, and I, for that matter are calling it a "read". Yes, you change your approach bases on reads, thus it changes your range against that opponent.
I entered a top gunn programming course that was designed by a husband and wife programming team. To get in you had to go through a 3 part screening process which included a 10 page questionnaire on your life history and a 1 hour long interview.
Semesters were made up of advanced math, accounting, business English, and learning 4+ languages at a time. Every week starting on the first day you get a test in every class (6 classes), a mid term to study for, a group project, plus homework and reading. The course is built to make people fail and almost 1/2 the class drops out by the end of the first semster. Students get key cards to the school and have 24/7 access and are expected to use it. When finished the 2 year program students are prepared to get a job and learn all the languages associated over the weekend, or to start their own business. This is what I mean by a very good programmer (not me).
The guy who explained this thought to me has done stuff with programing/robots/electronics he told me the head electrical engineer at the mine I worked at wouldn't believe.
We are so far away from software or even the hardware capability to
emulate the human brain it's laughable...
yes we don't need this to make a poker bot.
Advantage that a computer has is the ability to process so many 1/0
decisions per second and never get tired... However it does not learn and can
only do what it's human creator has designed it for..
You don't need to learn to play poker, none of my peers (regs)learn while they play. But they do adapt, and a computer can take input and adapt, that is poker.
As for a poker bot destroying any human opponent, I think not... We are close to making a chess bot which can beat any human player but chess can be completely made to be a complex math problem, much more so than can poker.. Even Big Blue from my alma mater barely beat top chess masters but it again had the advantage of never tiring while running all the combinations and permeatations while the chess master does tire. I think that given an unlimited amount of time to rest and rethink a human player would virtually draw each game with the perfect chess
robot... Poker is much different and in a lot of ways, much more complex... And definitely can not be represented by a complex math formulae, that's only one element...
I'm not trying to suggest a poker bot can beat any human. I'm saying it can multi-table easily and probably have the highest 180 man winrate out there if the best players had their say in what it can do. People don't think computers can do this, and they don't think poker works that way.Here's some 2+2 chess pros who disagree with you about poker being more complex...they are actually laughing at the thought....
In your example of the "tell", you are calling it math decisions and compuease, and I, for that matter are calling it a "read". Yes, you change your approach bases on reads, thus it changes your range against that opponent.
And that means that we can quanitfy it into a mathematical desicsion and program a computer to do it.
Very poor example, skim read that and while interesting clearly does not mean a bot can't be beat. In fact that discussion seems to back up my point...
You don't need to learn to play poker, none of my peers (regs)learn while they play. But they do adapt, and a computer can take input and adapt, that is poker.
I'm not trying to suggest a poker bot can beat any human. I'm saying it can multi-table easily and probably have the highest 180 man winrate out there if the best players had their say in what it can do. People don't think computers can do this, and they don't think poker works that way.Here's some 2+2 chess pros who disagree with you about poker being more complex...they are actually laughing at the thought....
Adapting is learning, or at least a part of learning.. You are saying a poker bot will have a higher winrate playing many tables and while that may be true, or not, we can't really prove that one way or the other.
Remember live is so much more than doing the same thing every time..
You forgot chess I'm going to have to go over that 2+2 thread later. As an ex tournament chess player (I was at least average, I think above average tourn player by the end) I am with comp where he says:
"Poker is much different and in a lot of ways, much more complex."
I've always felt a difficulty transitioning from chess to poker, after all these years I'm still not comfortable.
Very poor example, skim read that and while interesting clearly does not mean a bot can't be beat. In fact that discussion seems to back up my point...
I don't know if I could beat it long term but I know for sure it has to be destroying 99.9% of people it plays against because everyone thinks there's a 'trick' to beating it when it just plays well.
You are saying a poker bot will have a higher winrate playing many tables and while that may be true, or not, we can't really prove that one way or the other.
Playing multiple tables does not increase winrate, but a bot can play as many tables as the hardware can handle and it can pass info to itself from table to table. Not sure what we need to prove there?
Adapting is learning, or at least a part of learning.. ..
Then a bot can learn, plain an simple because a bot can adapt, the reason this one can't is because it would crush the players and be unbeatable. Can it beat every player in the world? Probably if the the best players were involved in the design.
But cleary, it could take the oppenents actions into account and adjust its own reaction to further exploit human oppenents. This machine can't but programming is easily cabable of that.
Remember live is so much more than doing the same thing every time
No this isn't a correct sentence. You do the same thing every time. You do your Comp strategy if you raise Aces 2 times and the next time you just flat you are doing 1 strategy that is raising 2/3s and flatting 1/3.
There is no esp live you take in input you compute it and you make decsisions based on it. There is nothing else to the game, anything else is just guessing.
You forgot chess I'm going to have to go over that 2+2 thread later. As an ex tournament chess player (I was at least average, I think above average tourn player by the end)
I hope you are talking about online chess, because live chess isn't going to be near the calibre of online, and to say your above average is quite an accomplishment I'm sure.
I've always felt a difficulty transitioning from chess to poker, after all these years I'm still not comfortable.
This doesn't correlate to anything though. Perhaps you weren't playing high enough level chess players to make you uncomfortable.
Poker plays will always say, I played really good today or I'm really confident with all my spots these days. This doesn't mean he is settling in, it means he stopped questioning his own play and is no longer learning. Feeling confident isn't a matter of being good, its an illusion that you are good.
Comments
I know it's sacrilege but poker is such a small part of life and to understand the fact that we're not robots one has to experience the much bigger picture..
I understand what you are referring to here but I disagree. I think many and most people and players think many decisions are gut feelings but they are actually either math based or guesses.
That is some peoples gut actions are really just guesses that are random. While some peoples gut actions can be represented with math and they don't know.
There is no gut based decision process that can beat a game, thats the secret to poker.
Here is an example:
Heres the tell followed by how it is math
Attachment not found.
Here how to quantify it into a programable adjustment.
Attachment not found.
^^^ the strategy is to call more often and bluff less...a mathematical adjustment.
I'm sure you don't agree, but I'm betting you understand exactly what I am suggesting now.
Also...ask a very good programmer.
Just to clarify...I'm not saying we are robots, just at the table we are.
I did, looked in a mirror...
Advantage that a computer has is the ability to process so many 1/0 decisions per second and never get tired... However it does not learn and can only do what it's human creator has designed it for..
As for a poker bot destroying any human opponent, I think not... We are close to making a chess bot which can beat any human player but chess can be completely made to be a complex math problem, much more so than can poker.. Even Big Blue from my alma mater barely beat top chess masters but it again had the advantage of never tiring while running all the combinations and permeatations while the chess master does tire. I think that given an unlimited amount of time to rest and rethink a human player would virtually draw each game with the perfect chess robot... Poker is much different and in a lot of ways, much more complex... And definitely can not be represented by a complex math formulae, that's only one element...
I'm sure you can understand this can't you?
Semesters were made up of advanced math, accounting, business English, and learning 4+ languages at a time. Every week starting on the first day you get a test in every class (6 classes), a mid term to study for, a group project, plus homework and reading. The course is built to make people fail and almost 1/2 the class drops out by the end of the first semster. Students get key cards to the school and have 24/7 access and are expected to use it. When finished the 2 year program students are prepared to get a job and learn all the languages associated over the weekend, or to start their own business. This is what I mean by a very good programmer (not me).
The guy who explained this thought to me has done stuff with programing/robots/electronics he told me the head electrical engineer at the mine I worked at wouldn't believe. yes we don't need this to make a poker bot.
You don't need to learn to play poker, none of my peers (regs)learn while they play. But they do adapt, and a computer can take input and adapt, that is poker. I'm not trying to suggest a poker bot can beat any human. I'm saying it can multi-table easily and probably have the highest 180 man winrate out there if the best players had their say in what it can do. People don't think computers can do this, and they don't think poker works that way.Here's some 2+2 chess pros who disagree with you about poker being more complex...they are actually laughing at the thought....
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/poker-vs-chess-game-more-complex-1196222/
When I say that I'm not asking if you are smart or dumb, I'm asking if my explanation was sufficient ..but yes I understand you completely.
Head Up Machine Inventor Answers Some Questions - Poker News - News, Views and Gossip
-BvB
-ranges
-star wars
-Poker is math / not all math
-Robots
Very poor example, skim read that and while interesting clearly does not mean a bot can't be beat. In fact that discussion seems to back up my point...
Adapting is learning, or at least a part of learning.. You are saying a poker bot will have a higher winrate playing many tables and while that may be true, or not, we can't really prove that one way or the other.
Remember live is so much more than doing the same thing every time..
You forgot chess
"Poker is much different and in a lot of ways, much more complex."
I've always felt a difficulty transitioning from chess to poker, after all these years I'm still not comfortable.
What thread were you reading?
Talking about rule 4: The machine is programmed to sometimes NOT play its best.
Playing multiple tables does not increase winrate, but a bot can play as many tables as the hardware can handle and it can pass info to itself from table to table. Not sure what we need to prove there?
Then a bot can learn, plain an simple because a bot can adapt, the reason this one can't is because it would crush the players and be unbeatable. Can it beat every player in the world? Probably if the the best players were involved in the design.
But cleary, it could take the oppenents actions into account and adjust its own reaction to further exploit human oppenents. This machine can't but programming is easily cabable of that.
No this isn't a correct sentence. You do the same thing every time. You do your Comp strategy if you raise Aces 2 times and the next time you just flat you are doing 1 strategy that is raising 2/3s and flatting 1/3.
There is no esp live you take in input you compute it and you make decsisions based on it. There is nothing else to the game, anything else is just guessing.
I know your gonna go read about it anyways, but I'm just pointing out that you are getting laughed at by the guys on 2 plus 2.
This doesn't correlate to anything though. Perhaps you weren't playing high enough level chess players to make you uncomfortable.
Poker plays will always say, I played really good today or I'm really confident with all my spots these days. This doesn't mean he is settling in, it means he stopped questioning his own play and is no longer learning. Feeling confident isn't a matter of being good, its an illusion that you are good.
Yes true I can't forget about this:
Illusory superiority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was either that phrase or Dunning–Kruger effect I recall DrTyore posted some time back.
(Still going to take me a while to go through that 2+2 thread)