Intuition, Premonition, and Mr. Carson

Browsing in Borders today, I saw Mason's Poker Essays III (and bought it.) Right next to it on the shelf was his, ahem, good friend Gary Carson's book, The Complete Book of Hold 'Em Poker. How could I resist?


Thumbing through Mr. Carson's book, I came upon this on page 258. The section is entitled "Use Your Intuition."


"I've actually had experiences at the table where images of cards flashed in my brain. An example is the time I had Ah-Kh, and the flop was 2h-4h-6h. I bet and was raised by a late-position player. When he raised, an image of the 3h-5h flashed in my head. I had a mental picture of those two cards. This was not a premonition or a fear [. . .] but something about that player and the way he made that bet put the picture of those two cards in my head. I knew he had that hand. Well, I didn't really know, so I didn't fold, but I did call his raise and I checked-called the next two betting rounds.


Intuition is not premonition. [. . .] Intuition is that sense of knowing what is--not knowing what will be. When I lost to that straight flush, I didn't have a feeling that he was drawing to a straight flush and was going to make it--that's premonition and it's based on superstition, not on reality. Intuition, however, is something subconscious, some clue that your subconscious brain has picked up and processed and told you the conclusion."


So, based on some sort of extra-sensory perception, an image that flashed in his mind, when an opponent raised on the flop (after, one would assume, cold-calling pre-flop when Mr. Carson raised with A-Ks), Mr. Carson put his opponent on 5h-3h and checked-called the rest of the way.


I probably wouldn't have put my opponent on 5-3 when he cold-called two bets pre-flop and I probably also wouldn't have put him on a straight flush when he raised on the flop, but maybe I'm missing something here.


And, yes, I have to admit it, I've been reading Carson before getting to Mason's book. Call it intuition.

Carson has lost it. When you have AKh on that flop and somebody raises you, an image of 53h will always flash in your head unless you are braindead.


I very well believe in intuition, but trusting it against the gigantic odds is stupid.


Angelina Fekali

Studying People Inc.

Ljubljana, Slovenia

http://www.fekali.com/angelina

Andy,


The excerpt feels strange to me, as if it might gain relevance if I knew the broader context of the chapter or subchapter or the whole book for that matter.


This is the first I've read from Carson, though I've seen many references to him. I think his intuition concept is interesting and worthy and real, though I think his sample hand was ill-chosen. I don't think it's a teachable thing, and if the purpose of his book is to teach, then he might be risking some credibility by delving into the flightiest aspect of our game, though I admire his courage for doing so.


Tommy

Auspicious occasion of such flops:


Sredni hears the pop of the wine cork, as bright fruity mist emerges from the bottle and wantonly rents the air. A dry, slightly sweet, chardonnay, haunted with crisp apple and whispers of unspoken spice fills Sredni's senses. Sredni's nose commands his eyes to a nearby grill where fresh ocean perch crackles above dancing fire. Fresh lemon sprinkled upon the tender, moist perch...


Before Sredni's lips reach the glass, the overtly robust human female poker player on Sredni's left continues to bark hurried inanities in a tone that could not be mistaken as friendly. Back to reality.


From behind Sredni's designer ferret shades, his eyes reopen, the action on him. It has been raised. For a sliver of time, visions of 3h5h trouble his sight, yet Sredni holds true.


While unhappy minds are tamed and subdued by images of misfortune, Sredni's mind is partaking of wine, song, fish, plans of action.


Sredni Vashtar too has lost it, but hopes that Angelina will forgive him, as the Fekalis are a softhearted people away from the baize. Sredni has no comment about the foxes and angelos.:)


S.V.


Sredni Vashtar went forth,

His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white.

His enemies called for peace, but he brought them death.

Sredni Vashtar the Beautiful.

It's from Carson's chapter 26, "Know Yourself", section of that chapter called "Maintain Your Competitive Advantage." subsection entitled "Use Your Intuition."


I agree with you that his intuition concept is interesting, but I disagree that it is worthy and real. Your designation of flighty seems more apt.


He says premonition is based on superstition, not on reality. That is, he didn't fear his opponent was going to catch a straight flush, this would be a superstitious premonition; he knew, or almost knew, he already had a straight flush, which was intuition and real. So the difference between intuition and premonition is that intuition is an extrasensory perception that allows one to know what cards are in a player's hand, whereas premonition is a false extrasensory perception that allows one to know what cards are coming up in the deck.


Hogwash.

Intuition is not "an extrasensory perception that allows one to know what cards are in a player's hand." Mr. Carson does not claim that it is, and makes an incomplete attempt to explain it.


Intuition is the outcome of subconscious (or unconscious - I'm no psychologist) processing of varied, and usually loosely connected , data.


In Carson's rather extreme example, the way the opponent bet, the fact that he raised, perhaps previous knowledge of the opponent, some mannerism or action that didn't make it to Gary's consciouness, ..., were unconsciously processed and the result was to assign a very high probability to the straight flush.


Eric

Carson says intuition is "some kind of gut feeling about a situation." So far, so good. Then he says, "I've actually had experiences at the table where images of cards flashed in my brain." He then goes on to give the 3h-5h example. He says images of these cards flashed in his head.


As Sredni so eloquently points out, when the flop is 2h-4h-6h, it would be natural for images of the 3h-5h to flash in one's head. But would it be natural to intuit that an opponent, who I assume had cold-called Carson's pre-flop raise (he says the opponent was in late position), and now raised on the flop, had a straight flush? Carson says "something about the player and the way he made that bet put the picture of those two cards in my head." Apparently the guy raises on the flop in a certain way when he has a straight flush after cold-calling a raise with 5-3 pre-flop.


With all due respect, this is hogwash. We've all had experiences where we've felt something was going to happen, and then it happened. But for every time this occurs, we have thousands of feelings that things will happen that don't happen.

In this case, the odds of his opponent having a straight flush were 1081 to 1. The odds of him having a straight flush among the hands he would have raised with are much less, so the odds of Carson having made a lucky, somewhat educated guess are considerably less than the chance that images of cards flashing in his brain flashed there because his opponent held them in his hand. This is because the chance of the latter happening is zero.


My dictionary has two definitions of intuition. The first is "knowing without the use of rational processes." This is what Carson is getting at. Such a thing does not exist. It is extrasensory perception. The second definition is "sharp insight." This does exist. But it is not what Carson is saying. Sharp insight would not have put the opponent on a straight flush.


Anyway, it's not very important as it is two paragraphs in a 313 page book. There's already been a post on the Books/Software forum and I've included a few other quotes from the book in a responding post there.

When I writer chooses to use certain words in a certain context, he has every right, even an obligation, to define those terms however he pleases. That his definitions might differ from standard usage is expected, because standard usage did not have the writer's specific context, or his specific original idea in mind. In other words, whatever Carson's definitions, there are right, simply because he's the one holding the pen that day.


Tommy

I've read the passage again. He doesn't actually define the term, he sort of describes it. And the way I'm reading his description, it's an extrasensory perception of what is. He distinguishes this from an extrasensory perception of what will be, which he describes as promonition, which is superstition, not reality. Intuition is reality. And this is hogwash by the dictionary definition or by Mr. Carson's.


A writer can indeed define words the way he or she wants to and then use those words in statements. The statements can then be "true" by the writer's definitions. I can say, for example, that the number I am using to define the sum of two pus two is "seven." I can then make a statement that two plus two is seven and, by my definition it is true.


The problem with this is that there is a generally accepted word, four, which is what we use for the sum of two plus two.

So when I write two plus two is seven, it will be a falsehood to all of my readers and confusing to them as well.


Carson can define intuition as he likes but knowing what someone has because visions of those cards flashed in his brain is simply a crock. I haven't read all of the book as yet but it worries me when an author claims knowledge of his opponent's cards by these means and advises others to heed such visions.

As usual you make a very good point, and make it clearly understood. The idea that you can get visions of others cards, or more importantly that you should heed them when/if they come, or that they should be a part of a legitimate strategy is precisely what you call it: hogwash.


Pat

I think Carson's mistake was the ludicrous example that he used. If it did really happen (which I doubt), it probably happened in his ten cent ante home game.


But I think the concept to which he alludes is not completely worthless. I believe there is some substance to the idea of being "in the zone" essentially as far as otherwise irrational intuition is concerned. Perhaps it simply involves a combination of knowledge and factors that your subconcious pieces together faster than your forebrain can understand.


There have been several times when a seeming blank has hit the board, and even though my opponent shows no reaction at all, something emanates from him that says that card helped him. Call it a tell that I don't really understand. Or call it what it is: intuition.


Have these feelings been wrong before? Sometimes, but I can honestly say that much more often than not, they are right, and I have certainly learned not to ignore these feelings.


Now this is a long way from envisioning 5h3h in your opponent's hand when you hold the nut flush and being correct. And I do agree that it is extremely dangerous for Carson to tell his readers to always trust their brain flashes over logic and experience. But I do believe that after many thousands of hours sitting and observing at a poker table, you do develop some intuition for situations that are very hard to explain in any rational manner.

Andy writes: "...it worries me when an author claims knowledge of his opponent's cards by these means and advises others to heed such visions."


Bob writes: "And I do agree that it is extremely dangerous for Carson to tell his readers to always trust their brain flashes over logic and experience."


Whenever this sentiment comes up it makes me lurch. Is there some mythical standard by which every word of every poker book is judged? And just who is on this panel? And who keeps track of the changes? And is a poker writer obligated to attempt to adhere to a shifting standard?


I feel strongly that a writer is under no obligation to conceal his true thoughts because of what the panel thinks. To do so is a precise formula for stagnation. It is exactly the opposite of the scientific method, a general process that fuels growth in all schools, rigid or otherwise.


The sentiment you express is one I've run into multiple times on 2+2, that simply because I've been granted a wee bit of authority, I'm all of a sudden supposed to not say what I think if someone else might think it is "extremely dangerous." That's an impossible condition to place on a blank page. I still applaud Carson's honesty.


Tommy

Andy,


"I can say, for example, that the number I am using to define the sum of two pus two is "seven." I can then make a statement that two plus two is seven and, by my definition it is true. The problem with this is that there is a generally accepted word, four, which is what we use for the sum of two plus two.

So when I write two plus two is seven, it will be a falsehood to all of my readers and confusing to them as well."


Your example is not fair because words like "four" are not anywhere close to the types of words that need and get defined. If I write about, say, altruism and selfishness, and my point requires a distinction between willful human altruism, and behavior among animals that simply looks to us like willful altruism but isn't, then I'd best define my terms, and I'd expect the reader to play along, despite what the word "altruism" generally means.


Tommy

Tommy,


I agree that "extremely dangerous" was an off-base characterization. And the majority of my post agreed with Carson's stance on the "intuition" concept. I would just be concerned that newcomers would put too much stock in it, ignoring other more important elements that should go into decisions at the table.


But you're absolutely right that there is too much easy critique of the more daring and unconventional theories that some writers propose, and that it is not up to us to determine what does and does not belong in another writer's work.

I do not respect or applaud honest writing because it is honest. Many people write horrible things but write them honestly, so what? (Hitler comes to mind in Mein Kampf. And I am not comparing Carson to Hitler, only using Mein Kampf as an example.) It's the content of what someone writes that is important to me.


Many times I've heard people say that they like this or that politician because "he stands up for what he believes in." Yeah, but what does he believe in? If what he believes in is reprehensible, the fact that he writes or speaks honestly about is not important to me.


Of course Carson can write whatever he wants. (And, by the way, now that I'm reading the book instead of scanning it, there appears to be much of interest and value.) My point was that the book is a book of advice on how to play and win. And to suggest that a person play a certain way, because of an extrasensory vision of cards in an opponent's hand, that the logic of the play of the hand would indicate the other player does not have, makes me less likely to consider the book of value than I would otherwise.


This is what I meant when I said it worries me. In no way did I mean that Carson must write what meets my standard of judgment. I don't think I have such a standard.

OK, a bad analogy. But Carson did not intend for the word intuition to be used in a different way than the commonly accepted meaning of the term, which is some kind of knowledge not based on rational processes. There is no such knowledge and I would be inclined to think less of the other thought processes of a mind that claimed that there is.


Let's look at the hand in question. Carson is apparently in earlier position than the man with the 5h-3h, who he says is in late position. So the action was:


Pre-flop: Carson raises with Ah-Kh, opponent cold-calls. (I am assuming this, there is no indication in the book.)


Flop: 6h-4h-2h. Carson bets; opponent raises; Carson calls.


Turn: (Blank?) Carson checks; opponent bets; Carson calls.


River: (Blank?) Carson checks; opponent bets; Carson calls.


(I am defining a blank as an apparently irrelevant card.)


Carson says he played the hand this way because of the way his opponent raised on the flop, the way his opponent looked, and the vision in Carson's head of the 5h-3h.


I wouldn't have put my opponent on the 5h-3h when he A) cold called my pre-flop raise; and B) raised on the flop. I certainly wouldn't have made a decision about how to proceed based on cards that flashed in my brain.


Regards,

Andy

The fox devoured Mr. Munro's elegant tale, ferret and all, and feels gratitude to Sredni for enlightening him. And now he must butter some toast, which he will never again be able to do with impunity nor without a smile.

I have had Carsons’ book on order a couple of times, haven’t managed to get hold of a copy yet though.


I am not sure about the example you quote, but intuition (or subconscious reasoning) certainly works. For instance when I am contemplating raising with a marginal hand before the flop, I often get this feeling which says 'Not this time’. When this occurs someone invariably comes wading in with a big hand. I still don't know exactly what it is that my subconscious mind is picking up on.

This is a very interesting thread that I can relate too not only in poker but in craps, a game I used to play before I decided to try to be a poker player and stopped to being just a gambler.


In craps, when there is a good roll and a die gets off the table, players will be yelling "same dice", takes off the place bets, throw a yo bet, etc., etc.... Is this premonition or superstition? Gamblers especially crapshooters are notoriously superstitious.


In my case, I have had several experiences when there is a hot roll and numbers are coming out left it right, there will be a sudden urge for me to take off my place bets, odds and throw a quarter for "any seven". Lo and behold seven comes, I saved my place bets and get paid 4 to 1. While this is not a very popular ploy as I could have been lynched or shot by the other players if it were legal, I feel that I had the intuition that the odds of a seven is about to catch up.


While I have made some good intuitive decisions in poker, I have become more of a logical than an intuitive thinker, probably because I am scientifically trained in numbers, probabilities, etc.


I hope I did not digress too much on the subject of poker but this discussion made me curious with Carson's book which I do not own and may buy soon. By the way, I just recall a quote from my HS Physics teacher on logic and intuition and he said" There are only two creatures on earth with the sixth sense - women and horses". I must be a horse in my previous life. LOL

Seven will come up, on average, one time in six. It will come up more than any other number. So the "intuition" or "feeling" a seven is about to come up is nothing more than logic. I also shoot craps. Many times I've "felt" a seven, or a hard 8, or a 6 was going to come up. Sometimes they did; most of the time they did not.


With all due respect, what you describe as intuition is merely superstition. I agree with you that gamblers are superstitious. I would think this comes from the fact that they are,to some degree or another, relying on luck, and also from the fact that numbers are so important to us that when a number is "good" to us we ascribe some supernatural importance to that number, as well as the opposite when a number is "bad " to us.


As for the "same dice", I would imagine this comes from A) superstition; and B) the feeling that, in the old days especially, if the dice were not falling favorably for the house, they would use the excuse of a die going over the rail to sswitch to a more favorable set of dice, i.e., cheat.