Probabilities/Statistical Mastery v. Natural Skill

[Bluegoose75]

I've often heard of professtional poker players that he / she has 'natural ability'. I'm assuming this means the ability to read opponents, to notice betting trends and/or prevent himself/herself from playing into predictable patterns etc.

What I'm curious about is to what extent do you believe all the math guru's probabilities of 'odds of flopping middle pair at a short handed table' really matter? Clearly it's important to understand pot odds, implied odds, odds of drawing a flush or flopping a set etc. To what extent does it really improve your game to have to run through 600 calculations per hand trying to figure everything out?

I guess my point is that with the advent of pokercalcs and online hand monitoring people can break down the game statistically better than the 'experts' could ever have using raw data. But does this new information make you a better player? Does it just give you 'tired head' more often, creating the tendancy to need more breaks in playing or cause you more mistakes?

What are your thoughts...

[CCraft_42]

I have wondered the same thing, have read good players change the way they play similar hands and adjust there play to match the game. How do stats help in these situation. Sorry, not answering your question but would like to see some responses.
thanks

[Bluegoose75]

No problem. I'm interested in other people's responses too. My experience is that it's very easy to analyze any particular hand in hindsight, even to disect it and offer it up for review from other people that make their own judgements. To me however, given that you have to analyze position, betting patterns, stack size, number of players in each pot and of course the size of the pot even BEFORE you take into account the cards themselves (all this done in a matter of seconds naturally), I wonder what level of 'probability' you really need to succeed.

One of the things I enjoy the most about live games is the table experience over online gaming (luckily I live in an area where live gaming is plentiful). I consider myself fairly good at the aforementioned 'decision factors' but I couldn't tell you the odds of catching middle pair on a 7 person table with 4 callers and the subsequent odds of being beaten with runner-runner heads up if starting under the gun and with suited connectors on the fly or whatever either.

[TStoneMBD]

the players who have a mathematical understanding for the game are much better off than those that dont. no limit is a game of psychology, while limit is more mechanical. the no limit players can get away without knowing the math as well as limit players, but in the long run numbers matter. by the tone of your question, i assume that you are basing your inquiry with the players on television lingering in the back of your mind. just because someone makes a final table in a tournament, or wins it, doesnt mean they are a good player. there are many famous tournament players who are flat broke, because they were bankrolled to play in the event that they won and therefore kept a small percentage of the profit. math is everything, and the best highstakes players understand it better than anyone.

[jason1990]

I would guess that all poker experts know the math. They know, at least roughly, what the odds of everything are, whether through experience or prior calculation. They then go a step further by allowing their decisions to be based not only on the odds, but also on other (sometimes psychological) considerations. I think it's a matter of having to know the "rules" before you know when to break them.

[Bluegoose75]

Well maybe I didn't pose the question clearly enough. I do agree that having the ability to 'know the odds' is superior to not having this ability. I guess what I'm asking is at what point do you reach a severe level of diminishing returns on the amount of time/study it takes to know the odds on the very strangest possible hand probabilities. By that I mean that there are clearly sets of probable hands/outcomes that everyone should know (much like the starting hands a beginner would want to play in early position). However, as you progess you want to incorporate more information / probabilites in your repetoire to then move up to another level of play. At some point though, the extra bit of information you could add would be so obscure that the time it took to figure out/master would not be worth the effort. In poker terms, the expected payoff would not justify the price.

Here's an example of what I'm asking in a baseball analogy. Lets say a high school pitching prospect has a dominant fastball. This is great. He crushes the competition with his 97 mph fastball. But that's all he's got. He gets to college, finds he can't get by on that pitch alone and develops a nice slider. He crushes the competition. He gets to the Majors and finds he needs more. Lets say he develops a third and fourth pitch. He can surely be successful now. But is it worth his time to develop a 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th pitch? In baseball terms, no. It's just not worth it. So my question is at what point in Hold'em is knowing every single possible probability not as worth while when you could spend your time/effort on minimizing your mistakes, or gathering more information about how your opponents play or whatnot.

As for the question about me looking at the players on TV and wondering what 'natural talent' they have or whatnot, not really. I guess what I'm saying is that there is alot of information to analyze in a very short period of time. Given that most of us have finite skills to analyze data in a given time frame, I think that at some point analyzing other factors takes precedence over obscure probabilities, at least that's what I'm asking anyway.

[That guy]

The more probabilites and odds-scenarios I learn, the more I feel I understand the game. But it does seem that the assumptions in making a mathematical decision are pretty shaky... how do you estimate accurately the chance that someone is bluffing or would play X hand that way?... you can do some weighted avg summations and come up with a mathematical answer but there is a point of: 'gabage in, garbage out'... Also, there are plays to make which simply have no (near-term) mathematical justification.

It seems to me that the more math you understand, the better off you are... but this is BECAUSE of the fact that you understand enough to know that the math might be very close much of the time and whether something is slightly +EV or slightly -EV depends on a few shaky estimations for inputs... add to that the fact that often you simply must call a slightly -EV situtation to 'show you can't be run over' and not a 'folder' and the result seems to be that many plays in poker really COULD be correct even if mathematically incorrect.

net net, math is huge... the players with 'natural ability' somehow find a way to do the mathematically correct thing without thinking about it mathematically... and they have the savvy to sniff out the right play to make rather than just rely on 'what is right in the long term, mathematically'...

[Bluegoose75]

Also to add to your question about players making the final table at the WSOP or whatever event is on TV. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE that makes the final table is a 2500+ person tournament is that lucky. They are all good players. Certainly some are better than others, but it would be such an anomaly (sp?)that I wouldn't consider it even feasible. There are just too many hands played in the tourney by the time you get to the final table to be lucky that often.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
To what extent does it really improve your game to have to run through 600 calculations per hand trying to figure everything out?

[/ QUOTE ]
The best players, I believe, spend a lot of time AWAY from the table running through various scenarios and calculating the associated odds. So when they are AT the table, any calculations they need to do are fairly simple -- the rest is just recall.

[johnc]

Knowing the math, thinking away from the table, studying, discussing, etc Isee as essential tools to be successful. The top pros have the best "set" of tools but, I firmly believe that much of the instinct or natural abilty - the seemingly uncanny ability to make the tough decisions on the fly under tremendous pressure (I dream I had) lies in their intellect. That being their mind's ability to automatically or maybe subconsciously process the data instantly and bingo call, raise, fold. That's the real magic, some people got it others never will no matter how much they study, crank out opponent data, or whatever else.

[dana33]

Yes. I didn't mean to dismiss these other skills. I just wanted to emphasize that players who do their homework beforehand -- as the best ones do -- need not perform "600 calculations per hand" at the table in order to know what the odds are.

[Bluegoose75]

Agreed, of course when I stated '600 calculations per hand' I was exaggerating for effect. Of course they do their homework before hand (it would be fairly impossible for them to break out the factorials at the table now wouldn't it?). What I'm saying is that there are a helluva lot of things you could in theory 'memorize' prior to going into the casino/card room. You could theoretically memorize every possible hand combination or study how 2-3 off suit faired against a short handed table with 5 callers while you were under the gun with 2 players TAG, 1 player LAG and 2 players LPassive, then contrast with 1 Player TAG, the rest passive (and so on and so on).

My point was then and is now that it is possible to memorize all this before hand, but it's not practical to know ALL OF IT. So, I ask, what is the practical level of knowledge / memorization / recall to be considered very very good.

For the sake of argument please do not account for the fool that knows none of the odds or the Rain man that knows every single possiblity. There has to be a middle ground of proficiency.

[Isles]

Using your fool and rainman analogy. If a fool were a 1 and a rainman were a 10 on a scale of 1-10, I would say you can get away with a 5-6 for no limit and still be a very exceptional player, IF, you have a very high level of natural talent. For limit, I would make it higher, at least 7-8.

All of the odds are worthless without the natural reading ability, if you can't put them on the correct hand numbers don't matter /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

In high stakes NL I rely much more on reads with the numbers as additional data, rather than the other way around. It's just a piece of the puzzle, one of the latter pieces...

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was then and is now that it is possible to memorize all this before hand, but it's not practical to know ALL OF IT. So, I ask, what is the practical level of knowledge / memorization / recall to be considered very very good.

[/ QUOTE ]
42

(Seriously, what sort of answer would satisfy you?)

[Bluegoose75]

Well, it's a general question so any sort of answer would 'satisfy me' that answered the question. Since the responses were fairly constistant with the 'well the more you know the better' mentality, that's not really answering now is it? The question was - Given that you can't know everything, at what point do most people think you'd be considered very good.

Now, the response given by ISLES for instance is along the track of what I'd like to see discussed. Again, we'd have to do some qualification on what a '5-6' would really mean but it's at least a response worth talking about. It's like asking how much money do you need to be considered rich, then having everyone say 'well the more money you have the better!!'. That's not even a response you can discuss. But if someone says 'I think you need 15 million dollars to be considered rich' you could then discuss how they came about this number and why THAT is the number they chose. Hence....a discussion.

[Bluegoose75]

I completely agree that NL requires more 'natural ability' (in the context of this thread at least) as compared to Limit which requires more number crunching.

Given that you answered 5-6 in order to be very good at NL - in your words what does this entail. Does it mean that you'd have to know the starting EV of all hands given relative position then know how to compute pot odds on the flop, turn and river. Does it mean you'd have to also be able to compute implied odds? Does it mean more?

That then begs the question about what's more important knowing A) the exact probability you'll draw the correct cards and the probability that your opponent will not be helped by it or B) knowing little more than how many outs you have but analyzing position, stack size, blind structure, player tendencies, risk tolerance, fold equity (ties to player tendencies and risk tolerance)

[Isles]

Here's a general scale to start with, but I only came up with a scale of 1-8. So I would think an exceptional player would need to be at least 4 for NL, 5 for limit. Some would probably argue you need to be at least a 5 to be exceptional for NL. I am probably aiming a bit low because I have an extremely hard time shoving all of those numbers in my head /images/graemlins/wink.gif

The scale only applies to the numbers part of the equation, and makes the assumption the player is highly skilled at the other "natural abilities".

1 Amatuers completely unaware of pot odds much less percentages between two different hands.
2 Amatuers who have a grasp of pot odds, but don't apply them much.
3 Experienced players who also possess a general knowledge of EV percentages between possible combinations, but in real time do not have the ability to apply them much.
4 Experienced players who also possess a general knowledge of EV percentages between possible combinations, but in real time only apply the more common scenarios, but in tough situations can take the time to analyze more vague combinations.
5 Experienced players who fully understand a large percentage of EV scenarios and apply them fairly well during realtime play.
6 Experienced players who fully understand all EV scenarios and apply them very well during realtime play.
7 Experienced players with an extreme knack for EV percentages in real time scenarios and can apply them almost instantaneously.
8 Your idiot savant /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Something along those lines?

[johnc]

You're not going to find an concrete answer, it's too open ended. It's not really possible to draw a clearcut correlation betweeen good skills such as memorization, etc and natural ability. Take for example two world class players : Chris Ferguson, & Stu Unger. Both are incredible and share combined talent but each has relied more (not entirely) on different approaches to the game. Ferguson's inhuman abilty to memorize every concevable combo, outcome, probability, and odds scenario at the table is has brought him much of his success, whereas Stu Unger placed much more emphasis on his ability to read players and put them on cards, and even accurately predict their actions. So, my point is, there really isn't a specific formula or guideline to follow to success in poker. If there was, there would be little reason to play, because everyone could be "good".

[Isles]

John,

I think Goose is asking a very specific question that can easily be answered. The tricky part is what is your opinion of that answer?

Using your example, if your assessment is accurate, Stu has shown the ability to succeed very well without as much of a grasp of the numbers. Which strengthens my opinion /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

As a side note, "math geeks" tend to be more left brained, while the natural skills such as reading players and psychology tend to be more right brained. Which is probably why you rarely find someone extremely exceptional at all aspects and most people tend to lean one way or the other.

I don't know about limit, but for NL I would probably prefer to lean more to the right /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[johnc]

To be precise, the answer to the question alludes to a kind of plug and play type of way to become sucessful at poker. Your personal approach to evaluating these two important aspects of poker skills vs natural ability vs application, is an excellent way to show the contrast between knowledge and its application at the table. This is precisely why poker is so damn tough. It can't simply be taught in a didactic fashion to anyone and expect great results everytime. There's no books to teach natural ability. It's not so difficult for people to believe that they'll never be able to hit like Barry Bonds or dunk like Jordan, but when it comes to poker, too many delude themselves into believing they're the next Moneymaker, or Fossilman if they just could find the "How to be Sucessful in Poker" instruction manual.

[Isles]

John,

Very good point, but I don't think his question has to do with whether or not he could become the best player, he is asking more about the specific skills involved. Does one weigh more heavily than another?

To use your Barry Bonds example, someone might ask the question: Is Barry's super ability based on his strength or his hand eye coordination?

They know they can't be Barry Bonds, but they might recognize their tendency towards one skill or another.

Back to BG's question, I think in NL the "natural abilities" are more important than pure EV analytical abililties. And in Limit I think the analytical abilities, while still not quite as important as natural abilities, definitely carry a little more weight.

To break it down further, exactly what is BG's goal in poker? Is it tournament play? Is it recreational full ring play? Or is it that he aspires to be a really successful short handed cash game player?

I think in the first two the EV analysis would be more useful, but in the latter it would not, simply based on the way the games are played.

In short handed or HU high stakes EV equations are almost thrown out the window, while being able to identify and capitalize on your opponent's betting patterns become increasingly important.

At least early on in tournament play, or in full ring games, most successful players are not trying to be overly tricky. They are playing at least some form of general strategy. This allows you to put them on hands easier, and therefore the EV calculations come more into play.

But you go heads up with a tricky high stakes opponent who raises the button every single time, and EV calculations are practically worthless. Especially when you are playing two heads up tables at once (Mahatma), and most decisions are instantaneous. Sure you are still making general calculations, but there is no time for a range of hands with full EV analysis.

[Bluegoose75]

Isles has understood my question completely. I'm not asking 'what do I need to do in order to be a great player', rather, I'm asking what characteristics factor into making a great player. I'm also attempting to qualify that by seeking to give a given weight to these characteristics.

That being said, I would think that if there were some lengthy discussion that really brought forth some of the 'answers' that Isles puts forth that it would indeed give an idea to what one might aspire to in order to become a better player.

Please do not confuse my stance. I am one of the people that think that great players are born not made. I think that no matter how hard you trained, how many roids you shoot up, or how much batting practice you take, you just can't be Barry Bonds. There is a degree of natural 'talent' (although that is an elusive word to define as well) that some people have in given professions that others do not. Everyone approaches the game slightly differently so there is no 'right' answer per se, however I think there is a skill set that lends itself to being on the 'more likely' to be successfull than not likely to be successfull.

I look at the game with a more overall tone than many, my belief (right or wrong) is that while 'data mining' is important, it's just a means to an end. The end being able to make good decisions. In the end, to me, a computer that could computer every possible combination would NOT be better than a natural like Stu Unger because poker is so much more subjective than pure math. Now, that may be the minority opinion here on 2 + 2 given the level of statistical discussion that abounds.

What I'm really trying to discern is what people's real beliefs are regarding the nuances and other factors rather than analyzing PT data over and over.

Isles, your example of hand-eye coordination vs. strength is PRECISELY the type of discussion I'm referring to.

In poker terms for instance - Who is a better player Phil Helmuth or Doyle Brunson? **p.s. I know it's impossible to say, it's just for the sake of discussion** Because I have no doubt in my mind that Phil is far superior at calculating odds, but I also have no doubt that Doyle is far superior about playing 'poker' based on the players around him.

[Bluegoose75]

Nice.

I think based on your scale you'd need at least 4+ to be considered a 'tough opponent' at the table but a 5+ to be a good oppononent, with 6+ to be the 'favorite' at the table in most scenarios.

I personally think that if you can master 4+ you can be a winning player **meaning you actually make some money on a regular basis** in most instances.

To be a player that relies on his Hold'em income to support his lifestyle you'd need to be a 5+ in NL and 6+ in Limit play over 5/10. Again playing conditions would vary greatly given live, online, regular v. unknown players however I think this would be a rule of thumb.

[Dov]

You guys have wandered way off the mark. It is important to learn the math to the extent that you understand exaclty what your two cards mean, both individually, and as they relate to each other, the board, and the cards your opponent is likely to be holding.

In addition, you must understand the nature of randomness and basic probability to fully comprehend the correct play and to recognize an error in an opponent's play when you see it.

The math will tell you why something is right or wrong. The psych will tell you how to apply a given concept in a given situation.

Some of the things that for example the 'natural ability' guys know instinctively are which hands play well all in, whether a hand should be played multi way or short handed, how the table is playing in general, whether the other players are better than him or not.

Some of these are math related, some are not. There isn't really a point of diminishing returns if you are studying the game seriously.

This is because you are always looking for answers to specific development issues. You don't just wake up one day and decide to learn the probability of getting a spade straight flush draw. You wake up and go "How the hell did I dump 2 racks last night in THAT game?" Then you start analyzing your play, your opponent's play, etc.

Example:

When you first start playing you find out that you are playing too many hands.

Then you tighten up and find out that you are still playing too many hands. So you want to know which hands should I still throw out?

If you don't keep solving the problems as they arise in a sensible order, you won't help yourself, you'll just repeat the same mistakes.

Poer isn't about trivia. It's about understanding the game better than your opponents and having the discipline to play correctly and always improve in a meaningful way.

Otherwise you'll just be fishfood for someone who keeps advancing...

Hope this helps.

Dov

[Isles]

Since you asked if Phil is better than Doyle, I'll assume you mean today's tournament atmosphere. In that case, I would give Doyle and his natural reading abilities the edge.

As you can see from watching Phil, too many times he has been busted for the very thing you are asking about. He tries to analyze what the player should have and plays according to that, but when the cards are flipped over he can't believe his opponent played a completely off the wall hand in that fashion.

If you watch him on TV, how many times have you seen him say something like "You went all in on a gutshot?" "Congratulations, you knocked me out with runner runner."

He is always chiding his opponents when they beat him. He definitely does not seem to be reading and adjusting to the more sporadic play of the "amateurs" who are entering the tournaments.

Doyle seems to have better reading skills and I believe he has made it further in most of the tournaments they have entered together recently. Like last years WSOP main event. I could be completely wrong on that though.

[Bluegoose75]

Agreed.

I would suspect that in LIMIT games that Phil would probably dominate. NL doesn't seem like it (but you can't argue against his 9 or 10 WSOP Braclets either...)

It was more rhetorical than anything, again not because of the answer someone gives but their logic derived at that answer.

P.S. Isles, you and I seem to have similar views on playstyle/players hopefully we're both RIGHT! /images/graemlins/smile.gif(to avoid flames, that was a joke)

[Isles]

Dov,

Excellent summarization, I agree completely. However, I don't think BG's question or my answer is way off the mark. He is just trying to quantify the math aspect.

Bottom line is for really successful players, math is an important part of the equation, but I think except for certain tough situations, it pretty much becomes second nature over time for the reason you mentioned, analyzing your own game, especially your mistakes...

[Isles]

Goose,

Phil won most of those bracelets "back in the day". I think he has been trying to get that elusive tenth bracelet for years.

He has not been nearly as successful against today's players. However, he is still more successful than most. He made a final table last year and was absolutely blistered by bad beats. Couldn't fault him there.

As a side note, despite my reference to the WSOP, I can't stand it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif You have to suffer through all of the drama queens just to watch a little poker.

[Bluegoose75]

True. The WSOP drama is all about TV. For instance when Fossilman won the tourney quite a few people said that he was lucky or whatnot, however when you realize that a very small percentage of the hands played are shown on TV, you realize that for every 'bad beat' there are other hands that player has played representing either good or bad decisions.

When Raymer had his special on the WSOP final table where he was the commentator he eluded to this and how the hands shown on TV represent such a small portion of the ones played that you get false impressions about players. He said in fact that he like the Aria guy and that the 'prick' image given to him by the media wasn't all that well deserved. But, it's TV for ratings so I can't really fault them.

ON a side note, one thing that the WSOP or other programs impress upon me, is the amount of 'mistakes' that happen. You of course see everyones hole cards so you instantly become an expert where the players are still in the dark, but you really do get the idea that the % of the time that players make mistakes is much higher than you think.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I've often heard of professtional poker players that he / she has 'natural ability'. I'm assuming this means

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it can mean whatever you want it to mean. I am sure most people have got a different definition.

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm curious about is to what extent do you believe all the math guru's probabilities of 'odds of flopping middle pair at a short handed table' really matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Understanding the mathematical fundamentals of poker is the most important part of playing poker well. Some people can muddle through playing blindfolded, but its much easier with the blindfold off.

[ QUOTE ]
To what extent does it really improve your game to have to run through 600 calculations per hand trying to figure everything out?

[/ QUOTE ]

A fair bit, unfortunately humans are not quite that good, they have to do most calculations away from the table and use data retrieval techniques while playing.

[ QUOTE ]
But does this new information make you a better player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
Does it just give you 'tired head' more often, creating the tendancy to need more breaks in playing or cause you more mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess that depends on the individual.

I find that not only does having online information on players help when I am playing online, it also helps when I am playing live. In getting use to using all the available statistical data when available gets me use to thinking the right way about the game, so that when the information is not explicitly available I can still make intelligent estimates and precede from there.