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