Hello! Hmmm.. Instinct, A "Feel "For The Game...Hmmm..

[SittingBull]

Some players have developed highly accurate decision skills that are not based on "logic" or "mathematics".
These players frequently arrive at correct decisions each step of the way by playing which seems to be "instinctively".
They seem to have a "feel" for the game.
Yet their decisions are very often mathematically correct.
Can one logically account for this unusual ability?
Just wondering,
SitttingBull

[Ulysses]

Can one logically account for this unusual ability?

Sure, I think the bulk of this is just an ability to synthesize a bunch of factors pretty quickly and make a decision based on that.

What might look like great intuition/feel at times is often just basic pattern recognition.

[Softrock]

Hey Sitting Bull - You know we all do things in our daily lives that become "overlearned" such that we don't even think about them. When you first learned to field a ground ball you probably had to think about what you were doing but after years of play you fielded instinctively. This applies to many sports and I use this analogy because I think it's easier to relate to. Do you not have things in your work where you know the task or job so well that you can make a decision without having to think through all the variables? Most of us do.

When I first started playing Holdem I had to think about starting hands and as I got proficient at that could think about starting hands in relation to my position at the table. Now most of the decisions regarding what hands I can play in what positions are automatic and I'm thinking of more esoteric things or watching my opponents.

The individuals you are talking about have often evolved to a higher level where the decisions you and I have to logically think through they can perform pretty automatically. That's all.

Hey, five people in the pot and you flop a flush draw with no pair on board - are you getting odds to call? You kn ow the answer without having to think through the variables, right?

This is why I advocate paying attention to everything you can at the poker table because whether you know it or not you are improving your data base and this will eventually payoff.

[Jedi Poker]

Those of us who are able to play this way are playing at the level of "unconscious competence", which is level 4 of the five levels of skill development. The first level is "unconscious incompetence" - you don't know what you don't know and may also not know that you don't know. The second level is "conscious incompetence" - that is, you know that you don't know and begin to know what you don't know. Next level up (the 3rd level) is "conscious competence". This is where you accumulate enough knowledge about what to do, why to do, and how to do it but you still have to keep reminding yourself what to do and how to do it. Then there's level 4, "unconscious competence". Doing it is second nature to you. For example, when you walk or use a fork when you're eating or drive your car you no longer have to think about it. You just do it. You now have developed "intuition" for doing it and can do it almost unconsciously. All you have to do is pay attention to what's going on and somehow the right answers just flow without you having to go through all the alternatives. In fact, your first guess is often right. You do something because it "feels right" and you're right.

[TheArtist]

Great response!!!

TheArtist

[SittingBull]

[SittingBull]

constantly absorbing knowledge that's then transferred into our subconsciousness? If so,do u believe that there is a limit to the knowledge that our subconscious mind can absorb? or do u believe that it's an "infinite" amount?
Do u care to speculate?
HappyPokering, /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif
SittingBull

[SittingBull]

chapters in "Zen and The Art Of Poker".
It was interesting that the chapters coincided with your ideas. Hmmm..
HappyPokering, /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif
SittingBull
BTW,Do U really have kinetic powers??
just wondering..Hmm

[Jedi Poker]

I have only browsed thru Zen and the Art of Poker at the bookstore and found it somewhat interesting. I have a question. Are the unconscious incompetence, conscious incompetence, conscious competence, unconscious incompetence distinctions discussed in that book? Thanks.

[Joe Tall]

Can one logically account for this unusual ability?

I think yes. These decisions may not be consciously based on mathematics or logic, however, how often would good play defy them? My answer is: never. In turn, these decisions come from the inate reactions learned through experience and knowledge thus giving one a 'feel' for the game. The good player acts and reacts in the flow of the game as it changes about him, making the correction decisions according to the information presented to benefit his outcome.

Interesting post, Bull, thanks.

[SittingBull]

[SittingBull]

[Joe Tall]

Yes I have the read the Zen book, however, I've studied eastern thought before my serious poker days (which are only 5 months strong). I gave you the link when the Zen book was mentioned in this forum before, I assume you have recieved it. Interesting application, I like the book, it's a change from the text-like books that I own, however the text-like books are essential.

Thought provoking post, keep up the good work, Bull!! /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I have been playing poker for money for 26 years. This gives me lots of experience reading hands and making bets. I'd like to think I have a good "feel" for the game, lots of "heart,", and good "instincts." Many people don't have what I have when it comes to poker. Others possess this innate skill as well. However, without the application of math, I'd be nothing but a loose aggressive player who could read hands pretty well.

al

[jim grass]

This is my strongest area. I would say that i`m correct 99% of the time in my decision making when I fold.
I beleive its through the fact i grew up very much street wise and you had to be people wise in order to survive.
Even when the pot is laying astronomical odds I know when i`m beat and confidently fold.
I would suggest that those left brainers among you try to hone your inner intelligence.
I also reccommend the " Zen Of Poker ".

[Softrock]

Strictly speaking it would have to be finite because the human brain has limits. On the other hand have you ever encountered anyone who has stopped learning? Does a person who is 102 years old not add something to his mind by living through another day? Practically I don't think you can ever saturate your mind. From a poker perspective I would worry if I ever got to the point that I thought I knew all there was to know.

Different thought, if we are talking about people and understanding their poker play, I have been with my wife for 24 years and am still learning things about her. Additionally, as soon as you think you know an opponent he/she is going to respond to what you do and you have to "know" what he is doing to react optimally.

Hope this isn't too heavy but I do think it has practical implications for poker players.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I agree that the brain can keep absorbing information in a manner that in all practicality is unlimited. This means that you can always learn more, no matter how much you know about poker. And I do believe that we are constantly absorbing info while we are playing. Everyone can learn something during every session of playing, reading, or otherwise thinking about the game. Even top experts sometimes make mistakes, and learn from them.

[SittingBull]

his"inner intelligence"?
Hmmm
just wondering,
SittingBull

[SittingBull]

years,don't U have a good feel on what to do in many situations without having to really think about the mathematics?? If so,then the latter is now second nature to your more important "reading' and "instinctive" skills.
Hence,wouldn't U agree that u really do not need to think very much about the mathematics at your developed level.
I would think that the novices and intermediate players would rely more heavily upon the mathematics since they probably have not developed into a Level 4 player yet--unconscious competence.

Just wondering...Hmmm..

Hmmm
HappyPokering, /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif
SittingBull

[SittingBull]

[SittingBull]

who have been playing poker for several years but still have very little poker experience. The reason is that they might play 2 or 3 times per month-- 4 or 5 Hrs. per session.
Similarly,one can be married for 30 years,but not know his spouse well enough because he has to be away from her for a great deal of the time.
Let's assume a typical day.
8 Hrs. work ,7 Hrs sleep,3 Hrs --other activities without the wife.So that leaves 6 hrs. u and wife are together/day.
Hence u see her about 25% of the time.
So if u were married for 24 Yrs. ,U really have about 6 Yrs. of experience"knowing your wife".
Hence,it seems reasonable that u still have some learning to do concerning her. 6 years is just not enough time to know someone well.
HappyPokering,
/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif SittingBull

[Howard Burroughs]

"Even when the pot is laying astronomical odds I know when i`m beat and confidently fold."


Well that might work for a top player like you but when the pot is HUGE and I'm the last man standing (calling for a single bet on the river), I'll almost always call if I think I'm beat.


As Howard Lederer said in July of 2001, "In limit poker, DON"T take fine reads and make big laydowns at the river".


I think he's right. In very big pots, it's a no-brainer in an unprotected pot IMHO.


Hope to see you in that fantastic Mesquite poker tournament this week Jim.

Best Wishes

Howard

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Yes, in many situations I don't have to think about the math. However, there are times when I have to count and calculate when deciding what to do, tho they are infrequent.

A novice SHOULD be heavily reliant on the math if they want to succeed, as their hand reading skills are not going to be that good, and you can't possibly succeed if you're not following the math.

"Unconscious competence" is a good phrase to describe an experienced player who reads hands well and doesn't have to think much about the math.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Calling on the river is one area where math is much more important than unconscious competence. If there are 9 bets in the pot, and it costs me one to call, I need to be MORE than 90% certain that my read is correct in order to be right to fold. Anything over 90% and I pretty much automatically call, because beyond that, I think it's just impossible to be THAT certain (unprotected pots). And I HATE finding out that I lost a pot because I folded to one bet on the end. So again, this is one area of the math that I am always thinking of.

al

[jim grass]

JT I understand your point of view completely my friend.I`m simply stating that I have such confidence in my decision that second guessing is not a consideration.
I do know as well however almost 99% of time i have gone against my laydown and called that final bet I have paid the piper. In other words dont mess with the zone.
I believe every player has quite strong areas of play in one way or another. Just as some games are better suited for different personalities etc ,so it is for the various aspects as well.

jim

[rharless]

So, what is the fifth level of skill development?

[Jedi Poker]

Conscious Competence of Unconscious Competence is the fifth level. Most people at level 4 tend not to be able to explain how they do it. They'll just attribute their skill to "talent", a "gift", "gut instinct", "feel", "ESP", "intuition". Fifth level people not only can do it intuitively, they can also go meta (that is, detach and go above their skill) and explain step-by-step precisely how they do it. Thus, they can replicate their unconscious competency consistenly over and over again. They can also teach their unconscious competence to others. Intuition has a structure. Talent has a structure. To be able to DO it intuitively and to also be able to know how precisely one does it is called "meta-cognition", another term for the 5th level.