Probability and my desk calendar

[reecelights]

From my daily Poker Desk Calendar:

"If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability."

--Vannevar Bush

Discuss.

[Ixnert]

Vannevar Bush wasn't playing sit'n'goes. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
From my daily Poker Desk Calendar:

"If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability."

--Vannevar Bush

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was back when people thought that poker was about body language and the "poker face". Fact is, those elements are all but elimnated, especially online for obvious reasons. Math and probability are still used anyway. When I have a "read" on someone being Laggy, or raising with air, or not having the "4" for the straight, I still have to consider the mathematical implications on the hand. If someone Is a lAG, her hand range is wider, and hence my 2-1 to call looks better than if if they were super tight.

People that say they don't use math to play are either:

1. not winners/bad
2. so good and experienced that the math aspect has become so innate, that it seems as though they don't have to think about it to achieve success. (See Phil Ivey's recent WSOP comment)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From my daily Poker Desk Calendar:

"If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability."

--Vannevar Bush

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was back when people thought that poker was about body language and the "poker face". Fact is, those elements are all but elimnated, especially online for obvious reasons. Math and probability are still used anyway. When I have a "read" on someone being Laggy, or raising with air, or not having the "4" for the straight, I still have to consider the mathematical implications on the hand. If someone Is a lAG, her hand range is wider, and hence my 2-1 to call looks better than if if they were super tight.

People that say they don't use math to play are either:

1. not winners/bad
2. so good and experienced that the math aspect has become so innate, that it seems as though they don't have to think about it to achieve success. (See Phil Ivey's recent WSOP comment)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, is anyone else amazed about how doyle brunson almost completely ignores the math in all of his section of super system?

This kind of follows my +ev post? While basic odds calculations are important I think people go overboard with what is considered a +ev play in SNL. Ie you may get 4 to 1 on your 3 to 1 draw but don't lose sight of your position if you loose the hand. Even with +ev pot odds you hit this draw 1 out of 3 times. Did you cripple yourself in the two tourneys in which the draw missed? Even if the one hit wins you a tourney (which is rare) you wont go far with a 1 of 3 ITM. Calculating true +ev play in tourneys is much trickier then calculating +ev for ring games.

[fnord_too]

I often find people who say things like "there is a lot more to poker than math" often have a narrow definition of math. Sure, psychology is a huge component, but in my defintion, that just affects the probabilities. (e.g. P(X|Player A is steaming) ).

[Nicholasp27]

that's what ICM is for

and normal itm for a winning player is about 40%, but 1/3 is fine if u have a good proportion of 1/2/3s

15% 1sts, 8% 2nds, 10 % 3rds = 8% roi for example

but yeah, look into ICM on the board...that is what we use, more than pot odds, to determine the ev of a play

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]


Yeah, is anyone else amazed about how doyle brunson almost completely ignores the math in all of his section of super system?

[/ QUOTE ]

But he also mentions running out thousands of hands in his spare time on the road to get an idea of how hands played against each other hot and cold from various points in the hand. Pre computer Monte Carlo's, gotta love it.

I think in the overall system he uses for no limit, folding equity dominates the equations so a lot of the probaility work is moot. (Also, there are some game theoretical aspects to things like "giving action to get action.") Basically, I think that a lot of deep stack no limit is insensitive to probability analysis. That is, re aranging the weights of holdings will not affect most decisions. For instance, you are on the river facing a pot sized bet with a good but not great hand. You have to have villain beating you more than 2/3 of the time to make this a fold, and you have to be beating villain a lot to make this a raise since you are not as likely to get paid off by worse hands*. (This is not really true in games that feature players who make big overbets with a wide range of hands, not just very strong hands or air.)

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
I often find people who say things like "there is a lot more to poker than math" often have a narrow definition of math. Sure, psychology is a huge component, but in my defintion, that just affects the probabilities. (e.g. P(X|Player A is steaming) ).

[/ QUOTE ]

What i was saying...much better put.