The Bottom Line For Me

[David Sklansky]

Here is where I am coming from as precisely as I can put it.

I have for many years felt that I owe my father the responsibilty of persuading as many people as possible that being good at and/or studying math and logic will help you in more fields and to a larger degree than what most think. It is the reason I started writing poker books in the first place. The fact that the more I succeed with this persuasion, the greater it will benefit me, is of secondary importance.

By math and logic (ML) I do not mean merely simplistic arithmetic or naming fallacies. What I do mean is not relevant to this post though. That can be discussed elsewhere.

Of course most people admit that ML is critical for a few endeavors and somewhat helpful in a few others.
Where they differ with me, my father, and others, is not realizing that ML can help alot in many fields and help a little in almost all fields. Being a baseball manager is one of thousands of examples. But again this post was not written to argue my agenda. Only to state it.

Someone posted that they ageed being or getting good at ML will help you become a success but the same can be said for other things such as athletics or music. The problem with that comment is that athletics or music talent is almost worthless to your success unless you are truly superb at it. That is not the case for ML. Going from poor to fair, from, fair to good, or from good to great, will help you regardless, in many endeavors. That is my stance anyway.

A good analogy to ML and myriad endeavors, is exercise and sporting endeavors. Both ML and exercise will help you somewhat, but both are no guarantees of success by itself. Many people become successful without them. In fact so many people are successful without them, and so many people are unsuccessful with them, it clouds the fact that doing ML or exercise nicely increases your chances for success. Trotting out counterexamples to refute this point are misleading and in fact a perfect example of arguments by people weak in ML. Its a Bayes' Theorem error that I won't go into here.

Poker is an example of a field where ML is of rather strong importance, especially limit poker. The average player thinks it is of mild importance. Thus it is one field where my agenda fits. Make people realize that it is more important than they think. If I can persuade them about poker perhaps they will more readily accept the same point about other things. (Put succinctly by my father "If you really know math well, you can be good at almost anything." Or more recently on a TV show for kids about math, one 25 year old girl says "That kid Johnny who usually had his head in a math book, what is he doing now? Other girl answers "Whatever he wants.")

Depending on the endeavor and the degree to which you understand ML the greater you increase your chances of success. In some fields you may go from 2% to 4% in others it may be from 0% to 10% (eg physics). In almost all fields I believe the increase is higher than most people think. But again it is no gurantee. To be a better major league baseball manager than one who you are much better than in ML, you must be only very slightly worse than him at recruiting, understanding pitching and handling people. Most ML experts don't meet that criteria. But some do, or could learn to. I believe that those few could win more games than any manager presently out there.

Nowadays, at least 40% of the best 200 poker players are proficient at ML. While only maybe 5% of those who try to make money at poker are. It is a sad commentary that so few see that as strong evidence of my position, at least as far as poker playing is concerned.

When it comes to poker writng the effect is even stronger. Now it is almost impossible to be good at the field without strength (natural or learned) in ML. I would think that would be obvious. But apparently it is not. Usually I give poker playing the most emphasis in pursuing the agenda that I owe my father. Because that's my specialty and that's where most pay me mind. Sometimes I use other examples. Such as Barry Switzer's criticized but correct decision to go for it fourth and two from his 27 with the scored tied and 1:45 to go on the clock. I wish obvious examples like this in sports and other fields were presented to me more often. They are not.

What is presented to me once in a while however is a chance to tout ML when it comes to the field of poker writing. To argue that lack of ML must almost certainly result in a flawed book. But to make that argument I must first assert that the author is in fact weak at ML. I cannot simply criticize the book. I must clearly identify the author as someone who has the temerity to believe that he is qualified to write poker books without good ML and to point out that THAT is most likely WHY the book is flawed. I owe my father and the world at large that. And IF (and only if) being a bit rude (up to a point) increases my chances of succeeding, I will do it (without guilt, but not gleefully either).

[Sully]

David, you really should find something to become passionate about.

Kudos.

[Jake (The Snake)]

Undoubtedly, your cause is a noble one.

However, I beleive you do come across as arrogant in some posts and that some statements could be avoided while still sending the same message.

If you beleive that you [ QUOTE ]
must clearly identify the author as someone who has the temerity to believe that he is qualified to write poker books without good ML and to point out that THAT is most likely WHY the book is flawed

[/ QUOTE ] then that is fine. However, there is a stark difference between CRITICIZING somebody, and RIDICULING somebody. Sometimes I think you cross that line.

[ QUOTE ]
And IF (and only if) being a bit rude (up to a point) increases my chances of succeeding, I will do it (without guilt, but not gleefully either).

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I do not understand how being rude will increase your chance of succeeding?

[astroglide]

i generally agree with your post, to the point where it's actually motivating. clearly thought and well-presented for the most part. but stuff like

[ QUOTE ]
Nowadays, at least 40% of the best 200 poker players are proficient at ML. While only maybe 5% of those who try to make money at poker are. It is a sad commentary that so few see that as strong evidence of my position, at least as far as poker playing is concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

seems to pop up too frequently in your posts. what is with the hollow statistics about successful poker players?

i don't intend to derail the thread with this because i think your post is excellent but i feel i have to bring up this point.

[David Sklansky]

i generally agree with your post, to the point where it's actually motivating. clearly thought and well-presented for the most part. but stuff like


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nowadays, at least 40% of the best 200 poker players are proficient at ML. While only maybe 5% of those who try to make money at poker are. It is a sad commentary that so few see that as strong evidence of my position, at least as far as poker playing is concerned.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



seems to pop up too frequently in your posts. what is with the hollow statistics about successful poker players?

I't my estinate; based on experience, observation, and deduction. I would have thought that was obvious.

[astroglide]

it is obvious that you base it on those things, just as anybody else does. i wasn't asking where it came from, i was pointing out that you seem do it more specifically and in my opinion often needlessly. i also haven't seen that specific position stated by you elsewhere or seen the "sad" result of it. i do buy your position, but i think it stands to reason that if they don't buy your position then your own statistics wouldn't help convince them very much.

[David Sklansky]

What I meant was that it was sad that more people don't realize that if 40% of the best players are ML saavy that is OVERWHELMING evidence of its importance. Ironically even the endeavor of trying to determine what traits make for a good player (something a reporter might do, as well as aspiring players), is an endeavor hampered by weak ML skills.

[Lawrence Ng]

David,

I strongly agree that ML have extraordinary implicit benefits to help people in other fields, such as poker to say. It is with my deepest regret that I did not pursue game theory and study a higher level of intermediate statistics and mathematics while I was in university. I can only imagine now how beneficial it would have been to my current poker game as well as other facets of my career.

However, I do not agree with you stating that such activities as excercise and music are worthless to one's success unless one excels upon it. Being able to run faster, or play an instrument better offers an intanglible benefit of confidence which is vital is most of what we do everyday.

Having read a lot of your posts David, I can see how passionate you are about your field and how strongly you defend it. But how can you critize an author who has wrote a book that has no doubt been beneficial to many low limit poker pokers even though the author has a lack of ML understanding?

[jdl22]

I find your post very interesting.

I got a Bachelors degree in Mathematics, Economics and Spanish from the University of Oregon last year. I just finished my first year at the University of Pittsburgh in Economics. I mention the schools because they are in basically the same category reputation wise and that is relevant to the discussion. The Oregon math and Pitt econ departments both rate near the bottom of the upper echelon of schools in those respective fields of study. That is they are about 30th or so - they tend to make the top list but are near the bottom of it.

Less relevant to the point I'm trying to make (and will eventually) I consider myself sort of in the same group as far as intelligence and reasoning. That is, I'm one of the top students, but at the bottom of this group. I'm actually relatively much better in Economics though which is the primary reason I'm studying that.

Now I'll get to the point. By far the most important course I will ever take was Real Analysis (taught out of baby Rudin like every analysis course). The reason for this has to do not with the material itself but with learning the thought process behind the problems. The professor was excellent and I learned a tremendous amount more from him than I would have with other professors. The key was that every week he would ask us a few of us in the class to write a proof from the homework on the board. Then together we would walk through the proofs line by line. This was great because it demonstrated flaws in the thinking and demonstrated well how one should approach problems in general. That course was the most important for me because it quite literally taught me how to think. That should essentially be the goal of any institution of learning but sadly that's not always the case.

On a sidenote that's what I like about your book TOP. It seems to me to be more about telling me how I should approach various poker situations and is less of the "this is what you should do in this situation" style than other books including those written by you.

Since taking this course I have discovered that a large percentage of the population doesn't have the ability to think in a sound logical manner. What drove this home was when I went to Pitt for grad school. Like I said before Pitt is considered to have a reasonably good program and I've also heard people say that it is a more "math intense" program than many others. When I got there I expected everyone to be more or less as prepared as I was. I knew I would have taken many more math courses than others had (topology for example) but figured overall they would have no issue doing proofs and such. I could not have been more wrong. Thankfully there is a math summer course that goes through truth tables and such basic principles because otherwise I don't know what they would have done in Micro, which smells a lot like a math class. Even still, there were several times during the second semester when we were studying game theory where I was helping classmates just a day or two before an exam and it was pretty evident that their entire thought process was way off.

The problem is that these students don't have training in what you are calling ML. As a result they are not really able to approach problems in the right way and tend to approach them using a nonsystematic method that while it does work sometimes also sometimes does not. They try to emulate what the professor does in class because they are not able to grasp what is going on behind what the professor does in class. Will these students make it? Some will and some won't. The majority of those that do will be those that are able to understand and apply ML. Others perhaps will choose an applied field where these skills would help them surely, but not having them will not prove impossible to overcome.

Economics is a mathematical field. While there are some branches of Econ that are not mathematically rigorous, others particularly Micro and GT (which I am studying) are. I agree strongly that the value of ML is high in other not directly mathematical areas. Pretty much anything that involves planning or problem solving it is extremely helpful. Simply understanding that A => B is not equivalent to B => A and other logical fallacies is quite useful.

I think an analogy can be made with regards to ML and reading poker books. For example, suppose 2 people A and B are beating 5/10 online multitabling for 50 bucks an hour and are satisfied with this rate. A revolutionary loose games book hits the market place and player A reads it. Player B doesn't notice a difference in his win rate, after all most players don't read books, and hence is still satisfied with his win rate. Player A now makes $60/hr and is obviously much better off. To me this is the way ML applies to most environments. You have a group of people that are able to get by just fine according to them but would be much better off if they had some reasoning skills.

Since I believe this is still in response to the responses you got in the Ed vs Lee thread I would like to make a very brief (we'll see if you believe that if you've read this far) comment on that. I had a few problems with it. Firstly, you were overly rude when Lee seemed only to want civilised debate on the issues. If Lee had come in in attack mode I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Another thing that puzzled me is that I would have expected you to be better at arguing the points themselves and hence wouldn't need to resort to the tone you did. While now I better understand where you were coming from it was still unnecesary.

As far as your goal of teaching the world that being good at ML is good for more fields than people think, your goal was set back by the comments you made in the thread. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, the harsh tone that you used is what 99% of the readers of the thread remember, not what you were saying. I think most people left that thread saying "wow Sklansky is an arrogant prick" and not "you know Sklansky is right, Lee's lack of competence in ML should lead people to question his works more." Secondly, because of that your word is not as valid in the future. Suppose I write a crappy, logically flawed book in the future. I post here saying "here's where my book disagrees with what S&M wrote, comments?" When you respond, as you should, and point out the flaws in my book people will read that and think "there he goes again thrashing another author" and are likely to miss the valid points you make and certainly miss the more subtle ML theme.

[bigpooch]

I generally agree with your position, but it's obviously a
biased one! I agree that ML/concrete analysis are important
not only in poker, but in trading and any other endeavors
that might interest an INTP/INTJ personality type; physics
seems to be the most obvious example you cite.

The average winning player doesn't think as concretely or as
precisely as a winning player who is strong in ML/analysis.
The fundamental question for people that gamble for a living
or trade for a living is this: how big of an edge do you
have? It's natural for ML-INTJ/P types to ask or answer
that type of question immediately and that is probably why
it is with relative ease that so many of them are successful
in poker or other fields. The average player probably makes
decisions based on experience, literature and advice rather
than on concrete analysis. Someone having strong ML skills
can determine if the literature or advice is incorrect and
also has the confidence to determine independently answers
to questions that have many groping in the dark.

I know there was a post about Ed Miller's ability to analyze
versus Lee Jones' and I would argue that it's not even
necessarily ML skills, but rather clear thinking. OTOH, it
is very natural that someone with strong ML skills to think
with clarity and some would even argue that this should also
lead to clarity in writing.

The biggest reason that ML/analysis seem to be downplayed is
that unfortunately, the vast majority are weak in ML or
concrete analysis and therefore shy away from mathematics or
logic. On the other hand, you do seem to occasionally make
some unusual statments even in your books, such as the one
about being able to calculate the combination of hands in
TPFAP (remember? :-) ) where someone who is weak in ML may
be a bit offended (I thought it was sort of a joke, even
though I'm quite sure many 2+2ers would be able to make that
calculation in a few minutes!).

It does seem disappointing that there isn't more written
about the technical/mathematical/analytical side of poker
but I know that writing such a book has a very limited
audience. For example, when will someone step up to the
plate and write something concrete about NLHE SNG's?

[steamboatin]

This is a great discussion but how does a regular guy, like me who should have payed more attention at school, get better at math?

I don't have a college degree or the fundamentals to understand the higher math. So were do I begin?

[RydenStoompala]

David:

Interesting post. As a person who owns all of your published work, maybe I can give you a perspective from the other side.

I suck at math. It has always been a struggle and it has definitely been the weakest part of my poker game. Just as I did when I was in high school and then university, I attacked the weakest part with the most agression. Whenever I got a B in math, I felt like I had defeated a monster. In high school, I played chess against the math heads just to absorb, via osmosis, the logic. While the average university educated science major likely needs about two minutes to absorb a key concept from one of your books or essays, I usually have to read it a few times. But, then it sticks.

My point is that I don't care if my friends or family think I go a little overboard on the homework. It's just something I need to do to get onto the same field as other competitors. It has allowed me to work my way up to middle limits limit poker, both hold'em and stud, and play against good players with confidence and success.

I found I enjoyed travelling through Mexico and other Latin countries quite a bit more once I mastered basic Spanish. Other travellers, many of them more experienced, dont know a word of a foreign language and seem to enjoy the experiences just as much as I do. To each his own, but in poker, I found that taking a lot of the mystery out of key decisions was a lot more important than I first assumed.

Oh ya...I dont give a darn about your attitude. If I want a friend, I'll get a dog. Just do the math.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a great discussion but how does a regular guy, like me who should have payed more attention at school, get better at math?

I don't have a college degree or the fundamentals to understand the higher math. So were do I begin?

[/ QUOTE ]
and for people like myself who are planning to take some classes in math just because, what would be most beneficial to our "hobby"(poker)?

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Firstly, the harsh tone that you used is what 99% of the readers of the thread remember, not what you were saying.

[/ QUOTE ]


i think people that can't see past the tone of a post to the meaning are precisely those not strong in ML.

[digdeep]

Mr. Sklansky and/or any other ML expert:

What are some good resources of which to take advantage if one is anxious to improve his/her math logic skills?

[David Sklansky]

My "rudeness" was not designed to increase the chances that someone will agree with my ideas. It was to incresase the chances that someone will read it.

The two courses that are most important for ML are probably logic and probability. Definitely not math where there is a lot of formula memorizing.

[ewile]

David,
For starters, I just wanted to say that your books, TOP and HEPFAP and these forums have taken me from a micro limit Hold'em player to a 3/6 player and I forsee myself playing this game for many years to come so thank you.

I followed the whole Lee Jones thing in Books &amp; Software. Now you've started two threads in the Psychology forum. You've come to the office so-to-speak. So here goes...(note that I'm a little apprehensive to post this but I've been thinking this for a little while now).

If you were in my office at this point I'd ask you something like, "So what's the deal with this debt to your father?"

My reason is this: you mention it alot...this thing that you owe to your father. Now, I'm not an expert in mourning (I am assuming he is deceased) but to me the end result of that process is greater freedom. You internalize the deceased person at the end and move on with a new relationship with that person and with a feeling of freedom and great possibility knowing that they will always be with you, will in some way influence everything that you do and by extention touch everyone who you touch. It's a really happy and liberating thing.

However, to me, and obviously this is only my perception from a few internet posts, there's something that seems un-liberating about your mission. I guess for starters that it in some way binds you to your father. The goal of development, of the separation and individuation that occours in adolescence is to become un-bound from ones parents...to take in what your parents have given you while finding your own road and your own identity, so I guess this "owing, debt" thing raises an eyebrow for me.

The other part of it is this. You effect people in a certain way. Descriptors range from, "prick" to "arrogant" And I have to admit that I agree. My own perception lies somewhere between those descriptors. I thought that your treatment of Lee was rude and could have been much better handled. It seems like this mission, this thing that you owe your father leads you to act this way... to sort of alienate others...and that I feel is grist for the mill. It seems self defeating and limiting to me.

Without knowing any more about you and your "non-internet" life I can't say any more. Obviously, I can only comment on what's transpired here.

Those are my thoughts. Thanks.

[adios]

Dave wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I have for many years felt that I owe my father the responsibilty of persuading as many people as possible that being good at and/or studying math and logic will help you in more fields and to a larger degree than what most think.

[/ QUOTE ]

jd22 wrote in response to Dave:

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, the harsh tone that you used is what 99% of the readers of the thread remember, not what you were saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

You responded to jd22:

[ QUOTE ]
i think people that can't see past the tone of a post to the meaning are precisely those not strong in ML.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't the ones who are precisely not strong in ML the one's Dave is trying to reach? So if people "can't see past the tone," indicating that they're weak in ML, isn't this showing the flaw in Dave's approach?

[Ulysses]

Two books that perhaps help illustrate some of David's points:

Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809058405/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/102-7905820-1395304?v=glance&amp;s=books&amp;st=*) by John Allen Paulos. I also enjoyed his other books (Beyond Numeracy, A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper, etc.).

True Odds : How Risk Affects Your Everyday Life (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1563431149/qid=1090187377/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7905820-1395304?v=glance&amp;s=books) by James Walsh.

[steamboatin]

I understand I need more math, but where do I start? Head for college and ask for a bunny class? buy a book?

[doggin]

just a thought

[doggin]

David; What are your thoughts on instincts?

Some of these guys on WPT seem to have incredible
instincts or whatever you want ot call it, on
reading their opponent.
Most recent is the young player from England who
snapped up 17 pots in a row at the final table.
That is an incredible amount of consecutive wins
which would go beyond just a good run of the cards.

Thanks for reading.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
The two courses that are most important for ML are probably logic and probability. Definitely not math where there is a lot of formula memorizing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Statistics and Probability classes in college only use one or two weeks covering probability formulae. The majority of stat classes are hypothesis testing and thus, basic variations on the standard deviation formula. I know that us Math people don't need to memorize formula as we know the reasoning behind them, but most who take these classes so that they can learn ML or basic math principles are not going to be good at learning the logic and reasoning behind formulae (sp?) or they would have been in higher math classes earlier in their education and thus, would probably need to resort to formula memorizing.

[12AX7]

So inother words...
,
"If you can't measure, you can't manage."
,
and...
,
"If you can't describe it in mathematical terms you don't really understand it."
'
Wasn't it someone like Newton that said that second one?
,
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that all events in the universe are the grand sum total of the interactions of every force and particle therein...all of which can be described my ML of a sufficiently advanced level.
,
The practical problem is, we all aren't gifted at it. And yet, man *has* survived. `Personally, I say, let's solve the basic problems of existance first. Then [after a likely period of hedonism] we can use all the time and energy freed up to pursue higher things. I.e. let's get food and shelter for *everyone* figured out, at a price that leaves plenty of free time to pursue things like a cure for cancer, practical fusion, travel to other solar systems, ML etc.
,
Seems like an awful lot of time and energy and life is wasted by the economic/resource allocation millieu as well as a f*ck of a lot of warring, fighting and killing.
,
But then I suspect the probability that man is about to ascend a level is near 0.
,
Seems Dave, you're posting more philisophically lately. Any chance you're grappling with you mortality and thus thinking of your legacy?

[12AX7]

[ QUOTE ]
What I meant was that it was sad that more people don't realize that if 40% of the best players are ML saavy that is OVERWHELMING evidence of its importance. Ironically even the endeavor of trying to determine what traits make for a good player (something a reporter might do, as well as aspiring players), is an endeavor hampered by weak ML skills.

[/ QUOTE ]
,
Perhaps I'm being a moron here...but if 40% ARE ML literate... the mjority...ARE NOT...
,
So unless the upper 40% are the ML literate player...you seem to be suggesting there's also some other way to be a top player that's even more prevalent than ML.
,
So perhaps one can be a top player without all the ML "overhead"??? What might that be?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand I need more math, but where do I start? Head for college and ask for a bunny class? buy a book?

[/ QUOTE ]
The books El Diablo mentioned may help.

"Bunny classes" in colleges tend to focus on exactly what you don't want: Mindless manipulations of symbols. Better would be a slow introduction to real analysis or number theory. These courses focus on the axiomatic logic that was supposed to be covered in high school geometry but wasn't. They spend some time deriving things that you might accept as obvious, such as that the product of two negative numbers is positive. It's good to get in the habit of being able to justify the things you believe.

[SumZero]

I think if you find a course that the syllabus covers that contains phrases like "random variables", "independence", "probability density function", "cumulative distribution function", "conditional probability", "Bayes theory", "variance", "correlation", "causation", etc. then the class covers the right material. Now if it covers it clearly or well, that is a different story.

That doesn't get to the logic part, but does hit the math. IMO probability, and conditional probability in particular, are the two math concepts that people tend to have trouble with, or tend to have a poor approximation ability.

And I've never been as big a fan of axiomatic proofs as an important part of learning. I mean I agree entirely that learning that A =&gt; B does not mean B =&gt; A is an important thing for people to understand (and likewise how to use and transform the modifiers "for all" and "there exists"). But line by line geometry proofs or basic number theory proofs and derivations aren't, IMO, the best way to teach that.

My favorite two simple conditional probability problems are:

1. Your friend proposes the following game: He'll roll two (normal, fair, six sided) die simultaneously until at least one dice shows a six. If the dice show double sixes at this time, he'll pay you $8. If the dice don't show double six, you owe him $1. Who is getting the best of it, and by how much?

2. On a certain Island there are 100 taxis, 95 are yellow and 5 are green. Eyewitnesses abilities to correctly determine the color of a car in an accident is determined to be 80% (and in the 20% where they are wrong they'll say the other color on the island). An eyewitness sees an accident and claims the taxi involved was green. Is it more likely the taxi is green or yellow and what is the exact probability that the taxi actually was green? How does this change if there are two independent witnesses who both claim the taxi was green?

[Zeno]

The elements by Euclid. It was still used as a textbook up into the 20th centaury. It's now passé. It is after all very, very, old stuff. Obviously worthless drivel written by a stuffy old man long, long dead. Young people would be advised to stay away from it least it pollute their minds. Check out the links below for some information.
The Elements (http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/toc.html)

Bio of Euclid (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Euclid.html)


PS. El Diablo did recomend some good books to purchase.

[pzhon]

"[Abraham Lincoln] studied and nearly mastered the six books of Euclid since he was a member of Congress. He regrets his want of education, and does what he can to supply the want."
--Lincoln's Autobiography (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/mind/)

As a mathematician, I feel that the plane geometry of Euclid was almost trivial. (The facts discovered are not tremendously deep or powerful, and they didn't even know about circle inversion and the geometry of the complex plane.) The goal is not knowledge, but to acquire a habit of precise thought. This is why Lincoln studied Euclid so much.

[Zeno]

I was, perhaps, being TOO facetious. A bad habit of mine.

[ QUOTE ]
The goal is not knowledge, but to acquire a habit of precise thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fully agree. Well Said.

-Zeno

[carlo]

The idea that a stastistical analysis can and should be a predicter of future activity is bogus and a great insanity in our present age. Statistics can present the "fire within" but to use this activity in a predictive manner displays a loss of pure appreciation of the forces at work in the specified endeavor. To say"anything can happen in the future" and then state "statistics can predict the future" is a contradiction in terms--all based on "not enough events to make a decision". "God does not roll the dice"--I'll duck after this quote--guess who? Mathematics is certinly a good discipline for the mind but does not define reality--those who attempt to stuff reality into a mathematical marble cake are hunched over and do not see the world--eyes down, fearing to look up. Experiential knowledge can certainly improve a person and perhaps take him away from an endeavor such as poker--the experience of art,music,mathematics,etc. does and will improve a persons perception, even in poker.Take up painting,sculpture, music and round yourself off and watch your improvement in all activities--one becomes whole in these activities and it can't hurt. Starting to ramble-sorry-its a big subject.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that comment is that athletics or music talent is almost worthless to your success unless you are truly superb at it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree strongly with almost everything in your post except the remark about athletics.

I think a fireman, policeman, soldier, or 110 lb hospital nurse would say that a little athletic ability is a big professional help.

Athletic ability is also an enormous benefit to anyone any time physical danger is present: avoiding a speeding car, breaking an attacker's grip and sprinting away, catching a falling item before it breaks, not falling on ice, stopping a foul line drive from hitting a child ... the list is endless.

[AJo Go All In]

i agree in general with what you are saying, but:

[ QUOTE ]
What I meant was that it was sad that more people don't realize that if 40% of the best players are ML saavy that is OVERWHELMING evidence of its importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm no expert, but this seems to show a correlation, but not a causation.

[David Sklansky]

i agree in general with what you are saying, but:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I meant was that it was sad that more people don't realize that if 40% of the best players are ML saavy that is OVERWHELMING evidence of its importance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i'm no expert, but this seems to show a correlation, but not a causation.


I was alluding to a previous post where I said that I believed that about 5% of aspiring poker players are highly ML skilled yet they comprise 40% of the best players. So you are, if these statistics ate true, eight times as likely to succeed at poker with these skills. Part of that may be indeed because of pure correlation rather than causation. Because for instance you are more likely to read books if you are ML skilled. But common sense says that most of the correlation is because you are more likely to UNDERSTAND books and concepts. Remember that I did not say that the 40% figure PROVED anything I said it was overwhelming evidence.

[Gabe]

“I have for many years felt that I owe my father the responsibility of persuading as many people as possible that being good at and/or studying math and logic will help you in more fields and to a larger degree than what most think. It is the reason I started writing poker books in the first place. The fact that the more I succeed with this persuasion, the greater it will benefit me, is of secondary importance.”

Will persuading the masses to study math and logic improve your father’s lot in life, if he is still living, or his rewards in the here after, if he is not? Will it make you feel better about having spent your life gambling and not helping find the unified theory? If the answer to the first question is no and the second is yes, you will be the primary beneficiary of the your success in your endeavor, not the secondary one.

“Someone posted that they ageed being or getting good at ML will help you become a success but the same can be said for other things such as athletics or music. The problem with that comment is that athletics or music talent is almost worthless to your success unless you are truly superb at it.”

Convincing others of the importance of math and logic will help you succeed in overcoming your fifty-something regrets about not accomplishing all you could have. So will some aerobics and listening to Sinatra sing “My Way.”

[elysium]

hi mr. sklansky

you didn't mention chess. you know, i don't think that you play chess. surely if you did, you would have mentioned it in this post. chess is perhaps the game that ML would improve ones ability at the most. poker, however, is a close second, if in fact chess is first. both games have many similarities but diverge in areas revolving around opponent knowledge and psychology, although both games require a level of understanding in these two areas.

successful poker though is much more heavily influenced by sound opponent knowledge and psychology than is chess. i think bobby fischer is a good example here. bobby would make the worlds worst poker player. in 10 minutes, bobby would have everyone running away from the table, scared for our lives. the table would be upended, security would be rushing to the scene, and that would be bobby fischer hold em. however, bobby fischer is a master of ML proper. maybe the best in the world. a bloody genius.

i play chess at a level that requires someone having at least a lot of amateur level experience before any expectation of winning can be realized. however, with just slightly better ML and experience, a player can humiliate me on the chess board; but with just slightly less, and now he's the total fool.(that's the real rating standard applied by all chess players. either you are utterly humiliated, or your opponent is a total fool. there is no in-between here.) i'm rambling on again i know. i'm g.e.d. here. this is how i get by in the world. i'm not college. anyway, the truth is, i'm usually an utterly humiliated chess player against even simply reasonable competition. yeah, it's all relative, but i'm pretty yucky still at chess. now that's my arithmetic side of ML as i rate it.

in poker, on the opponent knowledge and psychological ML side, requireing less arithmetic ML than chess, i apparently excel drawing from real life experience in combination with formal poker education in these areas. as i see it, when i sit down at the table, i'm there to take the money. and that's what will happen. i have no psychological problem with that. the thing is, i'm such a lousy chess player. and i've put more into chess than i have poker. i hate to admit it. i know if i had better mathematic ML, i would be that better chess player. then, i wouldn't be so perplexed as to why it's so easy to dominate the poker table, and so hard to even achieve mediocre status at the chess table. every time i hear the word 'check', i get bifurcated a little. at first i think 'great!', then i think 'oh no!'. this happens to me even at the chess table.

am i correct in assuming that until i get my chess up to an acceptable level, that i'll never really be an acceptable poker player? can someone with low ML in mathematical ventures, nevertheless have a high ML in ventures that are less mathematically oriented? and yes, i hear you mr. sklansky. no. poker and chess do not require the same math level ML. but there is a strong coorelation between the two, and this is what troubles me. it's partly the reason i'm home writing now, instead of playing. i keep thinking,'i can't be that good in poker, i'm not that good in chess.', even though when i put together a few a sessions in poker, if anyone is taking home more than i am at the 20-40 limits, where are they? where are the players who whip me so badly in chess? aren't the two games still heavily ML oriented? mr. sklansky, if i were playing professiomnal chess players, i'd be busted out every night.

[Easy E]

I MUST HAVE YOU! TAKE ME NOW, DAVID, YOU SPEWING FOUNTAIN OF ML LUSTFULNESS!!!!

YES!! YES!! YYYEEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!

[MMMMMM]

"Convincing others of the importance of math and logic will help you succeed in overcoming your fifty-something regrets about not accomplishing all you could have. So will some aerobics and listening to Sinatra sing “My Way.”"

Don't you think it might also help make the world a bit of a better place? I believe many human problems would be averted if only people were more logical.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
My "rudeness" was not designed to increase the chances that someone will agree with my ideas. It was to incresase the chances that someone will read it.


[/ QUOTE ]

That reminds me of the George Carlin joke about cats running full force, face first into sliding glass doors, staggering, looking around, and then walking away looking like they're trying to say, "I did that on purpose. I've been practicing for weeks!"

[tolbiny]

you missed the point-
if 1,000 people do something success fully, but only 50 of them do it one way, who would care? Except if 40 of those 50 were in the top 100 of those 1,000.

[tolbiny]

Hey Ely,
to play chess you HAVE to learn way more than to play poker. Even badly- if the only thing you know about chess is how to move the peices you will never get anyone to play with you- far to dull. In poker, if the only thing you know is that a two pair beats a pair, ect. then you will have no problem finding a game.
Because of this your competition at poker is much much lower than at chess. Where does this leave you? With confidence... tons of confidence. Confidence will improve your game immensely in almost anything you do.

[Blarg]

You might find it more difficult to think in terms necessary to decode your opponents' options and resultant likely moves in chess than in poker, too. You may not have a knack for things like "areas of influence" or some other specialized skills in board games, and because of that be unable to discern why your opponents might be making certain moves that would seem to have a low value to you, or see that those moves can actually be a great danger to you.

Or it may be that there are just fewer "plys," or layers (think of "plywood") of thought and logic -- steps ahead, basically -- to work through in a great many poker, as compared to chess, decisions in the first place, and that's what makes poker easier for you. There is simply less pure thinking involved in poker than in chess. Chess-playing computers have often been described in terms of how many plys they can calculate -- that is, how many moves ahead they can figure out.

The math can become fairly mechanical in poker once you have it down, and sometimes people have a very limited range of behaviors they'll exhibit in poker, too. In poker, you don't have to think through terribly long chains of "if he does this, it will affect the game on multiple levels like that, leaving my options like this," and then do the same for a huge number of other optional plays. You either bet, call or raise. And there are generally only 1 bet and 3 raises possible, and a limited number of streets, and that's the end of the hand.

In chess or Go, you have to think quite a few moves into the future, both on the immediate small scale, tactical level and on the strategic level over the long term of the game. And you have to have those layers of possible moves coherent enough in your mind that they're easily accessible when you're considering, say, one or two options and comparing them to one or two more. You can't be constantly stopping and starting, going back to the beginning over and over again. To be able to work through a large number of plys and access and judge them quickly, takes a lot of skill and practice, and definitely some intelligence. Something similar in a physical way might be a juggler keeping more and more items up in the air at once. If he drops even one, the magic is over. The ability to actively keep many things going on in one's mind at once without losing coherence, bringing them all to bear on a problem at hand, is a great skill in both poker and chess, but it is simply needed much more in the latter than the former.

One quick example from poker: some people don't like to play 7-stud because it helps a lot to remember the cards that have been folded -- as well as the cards you THINK have been folded. That helps you compute your odds and determine what hands you might be facing, too. It's a big edge if you can do it, but it's just too much for most people to work much on and they don't want to play in a game in which they know they lack an advantage. Similarly in blackjack, most people would rather lose, perhaps copiously, than master even basic strategy, and very few can run through multiple matrix tables in their heads rapidly during the play of the hands like card counters can. The ability to keep actively thinking and coordinating layers of thought helps a great deal in gaming, and is necessary if one wants to become an accomplished player. Some games require more or less of this type of skill, but those without ability or who don't work on their games will give up a lot of advantage.

That poker is less reliant on a solid refinement of this type of skill and depth of thinking before the average player's skills become acceptable to him and the game becomes a fun but not overburdening challenge is one of the reasons that poker is so much more popular than chess. Chess comes closer to most people's definition of work, and most people play games for fun.

Of course, in poker, most people lose.

[12AX7]

I've been into music since I was about 12. I'm 42 now. So I do agree that equation level math is not the be all end all of fine living. I was just saying that once you areable to describe something in that way, you probably have a real understanding of it.

Clearly it's not neccesary or even desirable to apply ML to everthing.

However, I do think the process of trying to clarify you thoughts enough to be able to describe things in an ML way can be a path to understanding. Of course, if the problem is sufficiently complex, I suppose analysis paralysis can result.

I'll be the first to admit, sometimes it just isn't worth the aggravation to do that level of analysis.

Clearly things aimed at emotions, like art may fall into that category. (But there are mathematically describable under pinnings to be sure. Consider octaves of A440...at 880...1760 etc. Or the math of proportion and perspective. Neccesary to know those things to do impactful art? Probably not. Useful as tools of understanding the "bits and bytes" quite possibly!)

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Gimme a break. If you aren't proficient in the ML aspects of poker, you'll be screwed, especially if you play limit hold'em. The psychological aspects are more important in no limit, but are still basically secondary in overall importance.

In other fields, or just life in general, ML skills ARE a big plus. It's just that overall I think you're overstating the obvious here. The fact that many still won't get what or why you are stating it just shows how really non-proficient the average American (or person of any nationality) is. The fact of the matter is that MOST people lack even the most basic understanding of ML, let alone proficiency in the aspects of it that apply to gambling and poker.

al

[David Sklansky]

My dad is still alive. And he would be very pleased if I accomplished his agenda. I have no regrets that I'm not a world class physicist or mathmetician. My goals, related to, but outside pure math (or poker) are still well within my reach.

[steamboatin]

Now that I am convinced it is important, how does a High School educated person improve his/her skills at ML. Where do we go to learn?

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The two courses that are most important for ML are probably logic and probability. Definitely not math where there is a lot of formula memorizing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Statistics and Probability classes in college only use one or two weeks covering probability formulae. The majority of stat classes are hypothesis testing and thus, basic variations on the standard deviation formula. I know that us Math people don't need to memorize formula as we know the reasoning behind them, but most who take these classes so that they can learn ML or basic math principles are not going to be good at learning the logic and reasoning behind formulae (sp?) or they would have been in higher math classes earlier in their education and thus, would probably need to resort to formula memorizing.

[/ QUOTE ]
so, what are you saying?

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think it might also help make the world a bit of a better place? I believe many human problems would be averted if only people were more logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you believe this is true?

Regards,

T

[MMMMMM]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you think it might also help make the world a bit of a better place? I believe many human problems would be averted if only people were more logical.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"What makes you believe this is true?

Regards,

T"

Because many human problems are caused by irrational thinking?

[steamboatin]

Many great human achivements are the results of irrational thinking. Blessing and a curse but it keeps life interesting.

[MMMMMM]

"Many great human achivements are the results of irrational thinking."

Such as? (note: by irrational I do not mean merely artistic, for example, which is not "anti-rational". I assume we are using the word "irrational" to mean "anti-rational" or "demonstrably erroneous").

"Blessing and a curse but it keeps life interesting."

Irrational thinking is more curse than blessing IMO.

[steamboatin]

If you don't believe artists are irrational, you have never tried to sell them a house.

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
My goals, related to, but outside pure math (or poker) are still well within my reach.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm interested. Lately these forums are all about the world's foremost poker theorist, so what are they?

[Wayne]

[ QUOTE ]
My goals, related to, but outside pure math (or poker) are still well within my reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might even physically excite a woman one day.

[busted_player]

well what you say is true. and why? because (we dont know why exactly, but for some reason) ML helps us humans accurately describe the universe. its descriptive.

but for some reason most people are normative (eg, my pocket aces *should* have held up, etc.).

and a large subset of people actively want to get away from reality, not fine tune their perception of it.

i'll let others elaborate. (julian jaynes, perhaps /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[Blarg]

Probably most people simply believe whatever makes them most happy, no matter how irrational, or whatever fits easiest into the social structures they are born into. And many probably don't even know what they believe because they've never spent any time seriously asking themselves. And not asking keeps them happy too.

[12AX7]

[ QUOTE ]
Gimme a break. If you aren't proficient in the ML aspects of poker, you'll be screwed, especially if you play limit hold'em. The psychological aspects are more important in no limit, but are still basically secondary in overall importance.

In other fields, or just life in general, ML skills ARE a big plus. It's just that overall I think you're overstating the obvious here. The fact that many still won't get what or why you are stating it just shows how really non-proficient the average American (or person of any nationality) is. The fact of the matter is that MOST people lack even the most basic understanding of ML, let alone proficiency in the aspects of it that apply to gambling and poker.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Practically speaking on the M side of ML, would it be possible, or perhaps even advantagous to just memorize, or have a quick calculation method for odds the 10, 20, or even 100 most common poker situations, such as "over pair v. under pair preflop" and "flush draw vrs. 3 opponents post flop" and Over pair vrs. 3 draws post flop" etc. etc.?

As for the L side, perhaps a little harder because it's ging to involve reading an opponent. But even so, shouldn't we be cataloging reading methodologies and common opponent plays?

Seems like there are some folks in this thread that believe they should go back to college and take some Probability courses to be successful poker players...Should that really be neccesary? Or should we collectively be trying to *reduce* the mental overhead so that we can play more hours successfully, and thus increase our earn?

(Point being that the knowledge the wannabe pro *must* know cold should be flat out summarized in a useful form. Geez, even chemists have te Periodic Table. Telling someone to go back to school seems like suggesting they go re-invent the wheel.)

P.S. If people don't get what Dave is writing, you are probably correct that they don't have the requisite background... BUT... I think the popularity of Lee Jones' and Gary Carson's book underscores that 2+2 books are written in a difficult to follow style.

I read the excerpt from Ed Miller's book and found myself saying, "Here we go again...State your operant principle clearly...then the examples. I find it painful to read..."With hands like XX, except sometimes blah blah blah."

Hands like *what*, exactly?

For starters, explicitly identify the characteristics of the hand. State, "Suited Connectors between the range of XX and YY, blah blah blah..." So I don't have to guess what characteristics and ranges are the important ones to the discussion.

In any event, both parties have a responsibility...The author to be able to elucidate the material to the learner...And the learner to bring some effort to the table.

One thing that might be helpful to noobs is something you see in the front of most IBM manuals...A section called "REQUISITE MATERIALS" wherein manuals you should be familiar with before *this* one are listed.

[Cpt Spaulding]

Mathmatics- as I have, I hope, made clear- are a good servant to the poker player but a bad master.
Hubert Phillips

I find my observational skills paired with my ability to read people like a book better serve me in my game than math. I do use math to a point, but don't make choices based on it alone...

[steamboatin]

I still haven't read a post that tells me how to get better at math. You have me convinced that I need more math but where do I go to get it?

[Cpt Spaulding]

[ QUOTE ]
I still haven't read a post that tells me how to get better at math. You have me convinced that I need more math but where do I go to get it?

[/ QUOTE ]

School

[BBill]

If you are serious call a local college or 2 year college and tell them you want to take a math evaluation test. You can not fail it, it just tells them what course you should start at. You might have to review arithmatic, if you know that you have to review algebra, Trig and geometry. Then you can take PreCalculus and Calculus I. Then you will have a good math foundation and you can take the probability and statistics type courses.
I found math fun when I went back to school at around 30. just take one math course a semester and you should do fine.