Reducing To A Math Problem

Lee Jones, Tommy Angelo, Jim Brier and others have made the point that even though a poker problem with all assumptions known can be reduced to a math problem, that doesn't usually matter. They point out that few poker situations are clearcut enough that you can be assured of your assumptions. Most people would like to believe this argument since they think they now have an excuse for not knowing how to do the math. But they are wrong. The following example shows why:


Suppose in a particular poker situation John's assumptions result in the mathematical conclusion that betting increases EV by $7. George's assumptions result in the conclusion that checking is better and is in fact $2 better than betting.


Now Sally comes along. She is a great instinctive player, but weak in math. By her incorrect calculations, John's assumtions, if right, make a bet $5 better than a check. She also miscalculates that George's assumptions make a check $5 better.


At this point she uses her superior judgement to assess that there is a 60% chance that the assumptions George makes about the other players is in fact the right one. So she checks. By doing that she costs herself $1.60 in EV despite the fact that she will have made the right play most of the time. Had she been able to do the math properly she would have bet.


Rarely can you be absolutely certain of your assumptions. So you must assign probabilities to them. But that doesn't mean that you should always pick the play that will more likely result in a higher EV. The point is that good judgement about what are the right assumptions can still lead you to the wrong conclusions unless you can do the math. The above problem is an example. So is the T9 hand.

"Most people would like to believe this argument since they think they now have an excuse for not knowing how to do the math."


So's you know, I'm not part of the "most people" you mention. I read your post three times, carefully, and I still have no idea how Sally came up $1.60 short. But y'know what? I don't need an excuse for being poor at math, just as I don't need one for my eye color.


At limit hold'em, numbers almost never enter my mind while playing. I don't track pot sizes, and I make no conscious calculations. Perhaps the reason I do okay is because the energy otherwise spent there is useful elsewhere. Or perhaps math really is overrated in its effect on results. I don't know. I'm not making an argument one way or the other, David. That would be futile, since none of this can be proved or disproved in a way that all must agree. All I know is that it's possible to win without doing math at the table, and the only reason I share this is to encourage those who share my affliction, in the same way that a blind person would show another blind person that it's still possible to play the piano.


Tommy

Tommy,


I'm not great at math but I'm not terrible at it either. However I didn't know where the $1.60 came up until I decided to overcome my typical mental laziness and really look hard at it. It took me a few minutes but then I saw that the 60% (chance of being right) times the $2 profit = $1.20, and the 40% (chance of being right) times the $7 profit = $2.80. So choosing the path Sally deemed to have only a 40% chance of being right would be actually more profitable than choosing the path she thought had a 60% chance of being right--actually, by exactly $1.60, because $2.80 - $1.20 = $1.60. But Sally wouldn't see this because she didn't know that one path, if right, would profit far more than the other path if right.


I think someone could win well at poker if they were good enough in other areas and in decent games even without math. If you can just tell a big pot from a small pot and figure rough outs that is a lot of the math right there. Hey don't you even count bets going into the pot (in limit)? I like that way as opposed to Jim Brier's way of figuring the $ in the pot, because to get the $ he has to multiply the number of bets by the bet size. Then to he has to divide to figure the odds he is getting;-) (If he has changed this recently congrats to him; I don't have a recent mag to see). That's how I used to do it, but now I avoid all the multiplying and dividing by just counting the bets themselves and presto I already know what odds the pot is laying me at any time.


Anyway I like your posts and perspectives quite a bit overall and your record as a player speaks for itself. But I am curious as to whether you even count bets or figure pot sizes in limit since you say you don't do math at the table.

Maybe you do math unconsciously. The math is pretty automatic after a while.


Like riding a bike - you don't try to balance... you just do.


~D