Stats full of Woo-woo

[bcholmes]

Is there a place for woo-woo in poker?

I was reading a poker book the other day that had a nice essay about the belief that people have about randomness. If I flip a coin 4 times and it comes up heads and then I go to flip it a fifth time, is it now more likely to come up tails because it's due for tails? The essay tried to drive home that you must be dispassionate in poker. You must understand statistics. You mustn't get caught up in the stuff your emotions are trying to deceive you about.

Today, I'm reading Doyle Brunson's Super System. Doyle writes, "if I win a pot, I nearly always play the next pot as well, within reason. Although the cards will break in the long run, card rushes do happen."

And then he has a section on his belief that ESP is one of the ways he's able to read other players.

Comments

[rosefox]

Woo-woo plus poker equals Tim Powers's Last Call. Since that's one of the most enjoyable books I've ever read, I would say yes. *)

[abostick59.livejournal.com]

As someone who is at least passingly familiar with various sorts of woo-woo, and who is also a serious poker player, I think that poker is best approached as if there is no place for woo-woo in the game.

My opinion is that what Brunson says he experiences as 'ESP' actually consists of his observing things through the normal five senses and making decisions based upon them through mental processes taking place below his threshold of consciousness.

When did you start studying poker?

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

I've often wondered if a lot of poker players' tricks and techniques are really just superstition... like baseball players who have to do stupid stuff before each game.

Maybe card rushes happen, but they're statistically improbable. Like flipping a coin ten times and getting heads each time. It can happen, but only a very very few times out of every ten flips.

This stuff is so much fun when you start thinking about huge numbers, like air molecules in a room, and thermal physics. ^^

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

"Dice have no memory" People do, and remember the big wins much more clearly than the incremental losses.

[msstacy13.livejournal.com]

what's taken for extra-sensory perception
is more likely extra-perceptive senses...
poker, like tarot,
is really more about people than cards...

and cards are very different from coins...

[abostick59.livejournal.com]

Card rushes happen. They aren't statistically improbable; they are pretty much statistically inevitable. The only trouble is, as one player I know puts it, "you can only see a rush in the rear-view mirror."

If you flip a fair coin ten thousand times, it is likely that you will find a run of ten heads in a row somewhere in that sequence.

One of my own tricks is that, when I've flopped the nut flush draw and there are three other players active in the hand, to bet and raise as much as I can, because the odds against me making my flush are only 1.8:1, and I'm getting 3:1 for every dollar I put into the pot. Is it superstition that tells me that this is the right thing to do?

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I was wondering what your view would be. I think I see a bit of woo-woo in everything, which suggests that I might be a terrible poker player.

When did you start studying poker?

About a month ago. I organized a poker game last month, and had a blast. That's probably what's fueled my current interest. At this point, I've probably read more books than played in games, though.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Must add to book list.

[elphie.livejournal.com]

I always play poker according to what I percieve the correct mathematical thing to do, at least in limit hold 'em which has a relatively small psychological component. I also have a hard time reconciling this with my more woo-woo beliefs, since I practice magick etc, but never allow it to enter my poker game.

I would use those kind of senses to try to read a player and react accordingly, but I make my decisions based on probability and statistics.

[beable]

Last Call is on my current (and lengthy) must-read list. I loved Declare, and I loved Expiration Date.

[beable]

Have you seen/read Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead?

Stoppard has a bit of fun with the whole randomness and probability thing.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

The best poker book I've ever read is "Poker: A Guaranteed Income For Life" by Frank R. Wallace. His argument is that poker is a game of psychology rather than mathematics and that long-term success is a matter of playing the other players instead of the hands. For instance, should you draw to an inside straight? He'd probably argue that you do it with great fanfare if you're playing against a bunch of mathematical robot players, because it will make you look wild which will open up the game. Because he's not trying to win a hand, he's trying to win over the course of an evening or a year.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I've see the play and I've seen the movie, but I haven't read the script for either. The film has wonderful visual additions over the play production that I saw.

So, I'm a big fan of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead but I'm having difficulty remembering the part you're talking about.

Heads....

[abostick59.livejournal.com]

Heads.... heads.... heads....

Re: Heads....

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Bingo! Thanks, that jogs my memory.

[nerdrockray.livejournal.com]

that was an amusing entry. poker is so silly, as i have wasted many a night/dollar on it. however, i am drawn back to that table every time, and at least i always start out with a smile on my face.