Caro Article
 

Hi everyone:

I was at the Wynn poker room earlier today and picked up a Bluff magazine. I couldn't notice that it had a Caro article that began as follows:

[ QUOTE ]
In poker math is meaningless and psychology is paramount. There, I finally said it... and I'm glad. Each time I got close to uttering those words, I lost courage and choked back the sounds. Out came silence, only silence. What made me afraid to speak the truth? Oh, I guess it was mainly a couple poker people to whom mathematics is sacred. If you dare define the real power of psychology in poker or point out the limited role of mathematics in the heat of poker combat, they lash out publicly, insanely, desperately. The hate to hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious, does anyone know who he might be talking about? Obviously it can't be David or myself since Two Plus Two has published two poker psychology books with another one -- Poker Psychology Essays by Alan Schoonmaker -- on the way.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Caro Article
 

mason, do you get the feeling he is joking? I dont see how he could be serious, but maybe I am giving him to much credit.

Re: Caro Article
 

well he IS a MAD GENIUS

Re: Caro Article
 

Hi Mason,

As someone who has read virtually everything written by both Caro and 2+2 authors over the years, I really don't see how Caro can be referring to anyone other than you and David. When you reference Dr. Al's excellent book though, I believe that you are talking about psychology in a different manner than Caro. Dr. Al's book talks about differing psychological types of poker players and the mistakes that they make and how a TAG can exploit them if they are in fact making mistakes. However Caro is talking about psychologically manipulating opponents both in the game as a whole and during a particular hand. In fact in one of his essays he called psychology the field where money grows wild.

My own view is that full-handed limit poker is more about math, but that short-handed limit and big bet poker when confronting good players is mostly about psychology. Of course I mainly only play online now, but Caro has also talked a lot about how what you say on a live table can add to your earnings if done correctly in eliciting desired folds or calls.

So overall I would say his statement was too broad in not delineating which types of games and structures can be best exploited via mathematically correct moves or psychological ones.

Re: Caro Article
 

Hi Mason.

Sorry to go off the point here, but was just wondering when Dr Al's new book is coming out.

PJS

Re: Caro Article
 

The problem I have with statements like the one quoted is that psychology has a large dependance on math. The actual science is a science in that it depends on statistical analysis (as it employs the scientific method). What most poker players think of when they talk about psychology involves a lot of conditional probabilty behind the scenes. Sure you can steal a pot from someone who is weak tight, but the way you know they are weak tight is from the way they have played. Tells, also, depend on statistics. If you see someone scratch his nose 10 times before he raises and you think that means he's bluffing, it makes a big difference if he showed down a bluff 2 times or 8 times.

Basically, I think when people go on about math not being important, what they are really saying is "I am not aware of the math, but I do fine anyway." But not being aware of it only increases the probability of error. People are bad enough at figuring probability and making decisions in general (read anything by Khaneman and Tversky or their contemporaries to see strong support of this notion). I could ramble on about this topic for a long time, but I guess I should be glad most people don't think rationally.

Also, I don't think Caro is really ignorant of the mathematics of psychology. There is this idea that "mathematical players" only know things like pot odds and risk of ruin. If one stars with with such a pedestrian definition of math, a lot of what they say on the subject is just going to be wrong. Caro, I think, is just aiming at the lowest common denominator who has no real clue about math beyond adding, subtracting, multiplying, and possibly dividing.

Re: Caro Article
 

They seemed so nice to each during that made for TV poker author tournament awhile back. Was funny cause any time a math percentage problem came up they always deferred to David for the exact value.

The part where they talked about 23 year old chicks was edited out of the broadcast sad to say.

L8r... BB

Re: Caro Article
 

I lost respect for Caro long before this, and this magazine article doesn't surprise me that much. Caro has an overly sensationalist style of writing, and his marketting is nakedly similar to get-rich-quick-scheme sloganeering. Maybe he learned this stuff back when he used to be a sports writer. In any event, we know for a fact that he doesn't even believe his own words here.
Examples:

1. the 50 pages of poker stats in the back of supersystem

or

2. His many many comments on how you need a much stronger hand to overcall than you do to call and then the probabilistic argument he gives to support it, i.e. if you are 10 percent to have the first bettor beat, then you are 1 percent to have them both beat, etc.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
They seemed so nice to each during that made for TV poker author tournament awhile back. Was funny cause any time a math percentage problem came up they always deferred to David for the exact value.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they always deferred to DS for the exact value. But I was also very shocked that DS was way off on some of these.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
I lost respect for Caro long before this, and this magazine article doesn't surprise me that much. Caro has an overly sensationalist style of writing, and his marketting is naked rich quick scheme sloganeering.

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh* I used to take stuff like this [rantings of other authors] semi-personally or let it get me frustrated. Now I ignore it (well, as of the end of this post, I ignore it).

Not to toot my own horn, but over the last few months, I can't count the number of people who have told me a story like:

"Before I read SSH, I was a struggling $2-$4 player. Then the books and forums turned my light bulb on, and I started tearing up. Now I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars and play in the biggest games on the internet."

This is player after player. Probably twenty or more that I've met recently share this story... all struggling two years ago, now devoted 2+2ers and enormous winners.

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. No one can convince me that what I do is wrong when so many who have been so successful have told me, one after another, how right it has been for them.

Re: Caro Article
 

Personally, I love playing against players who have no idea about the math. They may suck out on me from time to time, but over the long run it's +EV for me!

But, I think Caro is being disengenuous. From what others have said (since I'm playing micro limits and NLHE MTT), I'd have to say as the limits increase, almost everyone has an intuitive grasp of the math involved and playing the player (or psychology as Caro puts it) becomes much more important. I think there was loads of this type of info in Theory of Poker.

edit: I'll also be honest and admit I can never finish any book by Caro. I do have his book of tells on my shelf, but havent read it yet. I've tried to read two others and put them down rather quickly. So maybe I'm biased.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Before I read SSH, I was a struggling $2-$4 player. Then the books and forums turned my light bulb on, and I started tearing up. Now I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars and play in the biggest games on the internet."

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't it suck that you only got like 10 bucks for this? you should start a university, in competition with caro, that charges a hefty tuition + text book fees.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Before I read SSH, I was a struggling $2-$4 player. Then the books and forums turned my light bulb on, and I started tearing up. Now I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars and play in the biggest games on the internet."

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't it suck that you only got like 10 bucks for this? you should start a university, in competition with caro, that charges a hefty tuition + text book fees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh.. I did ok from the books. I ain't complaining. Besides, I'm going to make my millions in saline testicle implants for neutered pets.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, I'm going to make my millions in saline testicle implants for neutered pets.

[/ QUOTE ]

need a partner?

Re: Caro Article
 

Hi PJS:

Nothing is guaranteed since we are just beginning to work with the manuscript and our other printing requirements will also influence the publiction date, but my best guess is February.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Caro Article
 

Perhaps writing style has a lot to do with whether or not he means what he says or simply overemphasising his point. I have a hard time believing that someone like Caro doesn't think odds/math matter.

I like some of Caro's material and his cheesy marketing strategy, it's amusing. He should know that the psychological vs. math factor in poker is weighted more on one particular side depending on the situation. That's why poker is so hard, you have to figure out the right mix of concepts to use.

Yet another reason most of these poker magazines are bad, I suppose. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Caro Article
 

I'm so glad you opened my eyes to neuticles. It's my new favorite word. I actually call people neuticles now.

Re: Caro Article
 

I never know if I should take Caro verbally or look for a deeper meaning behind his words.

Sure, if two players play a mathematical game to perfection they can't beat each other. Another factor has to decide and that's either the cards on a given day or psychology over the long run. If you see it like that, then he could be right. On the other side, every deviation from perfect math should show a loss over time, so he could be wrong.
Maybe he was simply talking about no-limit, where you can set up an opponent by making countless bad plays over the night to trick him to lose all his money in one hand. Sure it takes a fool to fall for that, but that's what psychology is all about - using intellectual dominance to manipulate someone.

If his comment can be interpreted as an insult or a personal attack on David and Mason, I don't know. Actually I wouldn't take it that serious. Caro likes to display himself as some sort of mad genius. Just book stuff like that under madness and you should be fine.

Furthermore I doubt that statements like this will hurt 2+2 sales. Caro is too much of a freak to appeal to the more analytical type of reader and those are the folks who buy 2+2 books after all. Just watch the Caro poker video and you can see what his target audience looks like. It's the type of guy who finds Hellmuth too complicated to read.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
If his comment can be interpreted as an insult or a personal attack on David and Mason, I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read the whole article today in Borders. There's really no question that he's talking about David and Mason.

Re: Caro Article
 

Mad or not he has some good points in his book of poker tells. But this book should be used as a supplement to books like SSH, HOH 1+2, TOP etc

sunek

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
well he IS a MAD GENIUS

[/ QUOTE ]

He's needs to lay off the mad magic powder or whatever dust that has turned the man retarded. He is way off the mark and totally wrong. Sure psychology is pretty important at the high higher limits or against damn good players (levels of thinking, he-knows-u-know etc.)...but imo, that is built from a good foundation that are dependant on numbers/odds/probablilities..etc (also the many concepts that are important and found in many of the books u study).

Re: Caro Article
 

I wonder if he is stupid enough to include Hi Lo, Lowball, Multi tabling small games online, and preflop all in decision making.

Re: Caro Article
 

As the following post made by Tom Weideman at RGP several years ago shows, there is no such thing as "math poker" vs. people poker". It's all math based.

Tom's wonderful post starts here:

I'll say it one more time: Unless you know how to "use a math formula to determine whether or not to call", you are in no position to to claim that acting in another fashion is better. Hint: the "people poker" you speak of
is a method of gathering numbers to plug into the s00per seekrit math formula, but the formula is ALWAYS there. These skills are not mutually exclusive of each other.

I'm experiencing deja vu, as I've had a similar discussion with Badger some time ago. Maybe I should just give up and let people go on believing there are two distinct ways to play poker. Sigh, let me try one last time with a
simple example of a different game:

Let's say I offer you 4-to-1 odds on a $1 bet that you can't guess the number I am thinking about between 1 and 10 (I'll write it on a sheet of paper if you don't trust me). Here are the two schools of thought that we have to choose from:

I. Math egghead - "Hmm, I have only a 1-in-10 chance of guessing right, so my ev in this case is:

ev = 0.1*(+$4) + 0.9*(-$1) = -$0.50.

I stand to lose 50 cents on this bet, so I will decline."

II. People player - "Well, I remember one time when Tom was talking to someone I overheard him say that in these situations he ALWAYS picks one of the endpoints, because guessers never seem to guess the endpoint. This
means I'm 50-50 to guess right if I guess either 1 or 10, and with him offering 4-to-1, this is a good spot, and I will accept."

Sound about right? WELL, THIS IS FALLACIOUS DICHOTOMIZING. (Is this verb really a word, Geary? Never mind, too many letters for you to know, heh.)

What I mean is, one is not given a choice between these two options and told to select one. Though it is hidden the way I wrote it above, there is a mathematical formula in option II, just as there is in option I. The ONLY
difference between these two options is the information gathered. The information in the second case leads to the following ev calculation:

ev = 0.5*(+$4) + 0.5*(-$1) = +$1.50

The ev is positive, so you play the game. If you look at the two ev equations, you'll see that the only changes are the 0.9 became 0.5, and the 0.1 became 0.5, and this changed the sign of the ev, and therefore changed
the decision made. What changed these two little numbers? The INFORMATION you gathered with your "people skills".

So you see, the game is ultimately mathematical, because the only thing that matters in your decision making is which choice provides the greater ev, and this requires a calculation in the end. But the numbers plugged into the
calculation can be altered by using your people skills, so using that as a method of gathering information, followed by the math calculation is what makes you a good player. This all becomes interesting (to me) to discuss when someone THINKS they are making the correct decision based on the information they have, but in fact they lack the math skills to determine which decision really is proper.

Oh, and btw, this is all part-and-parcel of what is known as "exploitive play". This means that you are a better information gatherer than the other players, and you are able to use this and the math that underlies it to make
better decisions. But there is another type of play, known as "optimal", defined by playing game-theoretically correct, in which you can ignore all of this information gathering and just play purely mathematically. If
anyone was capable of doing this, they would beat every game in existence, no matter how good the opponents are at "people poker". [The current World Champion of Poker Chris Ferguson is actually one of the world's leading
experts on this subject (as applied to poker). I don't mean to imply that he knows all the game theoretically correct decisions to make at every turn, but he can approximate them, and if he feels an opponent can be exploited, he certainly shifts into that method, as it provides more ev.]

So please, let's hear no more nonsense about how we have to choose between "math poker" and "people poker".

Tom Weideman

Re: Caro Article
 

And here I thought no one paid any attention to what Mike Caro writes anymore.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, I'm going to make my millions in saline testicle implants for neutered pets.

[/ QUOTE ]

need a partner?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you offering to put them on?

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, I'm going to make my millions in saline testicle implants for neutered pets.

[/ QUOTE ]

need a partner?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you offering to put them on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, nice Nip/Tuck copy.

Re: Caro Article
 

i basically agree with caro that psychology is by far most important.

of course math is important, but that's implied. i'mean a good player isnt gonna chase a pot unless he knows he's roughly getting good overall odds on the situation.

and if i calculate something to be 55% in my favor, and in reality it's 45%, i think the luck factor cancels it out anyway. lord knows i've lost more than my share of 22-1 shots. as a favorite.

Re: Caro Article
 

Does Caro even win at poker? I can't remember the last time I saw him deep in a tourney. He's obviously cashing in on teaching poker and not playing.

Indy

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does Caro even win at poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many consider Mike Caro to be one of the best players in Five Card Draw Poker ("real poker"). I'm sure sure exactly how good he is in other games, but I guess it's safe to say that he's no donkey.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does Caro even win at poker? I can't remember the last time I saw him deep in a tourney. He's obviously cashing in on teaching poker and not playing.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

He may not be primarily a tournament player. Brunson asked him to do chapters in both <u>Super Systems</u>, and he generally asked very strong players to do that.

I don't think Caro plays in the biggest cash games or most major tournaments currently, but that doesn't mean he is not a successful mid to high limit player.

Your average pro is not a final table regular. A lot of people make an OK living sitting around cardrooms playing 40/80 or 10/20NL, or multitabling 100 SNGs on Party.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
i basically agree with caro that psychology is by far most important.

of course math is important, but that's implied. i'mean a good player isnt gonna chase a pot unless he knows he's roughly getting good overall odds on the situation.

and if i calculate something to be 55% in my favor, and in reality it's 45%, i think the luck factor cancels it out anyway. lord knows i've lost more than my share of 22-1 shots. as a favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

tell you what, i'll take all the 55 percents, you take all the 45's, and we'll see who comes out ahead. The Caro article is wrong, plain and simple--just because psychology is important doesn't mean math isn't as well.

Re: Caro Article
 

Thanks for the repost skp. I had never seen it put that way before.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does Caro even win at poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many consider Mike Caro to be one of the best players in Five Card Draw Poker ("real poker"). I'm sure sure exactly how good he is in other games, but I guess it's safe to say that he's no donkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty remarkable since he went broke playing that game in the early days in Ca.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
In poker math is meaningless and psychology is paramount. There, I finally said it... and I'm glad. Each time I got close to uttering those words, I lost courage and choked back the sounds. Out came silence, only silence. What made me afraid to speak the truth? Oh, I guess it was mainly a couple poker people to whom mathematics is sacred. If you dare define the real power of psychology in poker or point out the limited role of mathematics in the heat of poker combat, they lash out publicly, insanely, desperately. The hate to hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think math is meaningless, that's silly. But I do think that psychology is more important than math, however.

There have been countless threads that ask, "any reads on the players?" or "take off the training wheels! Preflop charts are for beginners!" In poker, math helps people stay on the right track. It helps ensure they play sound poker and stay out of trouble. Psychology, though, allows people to grow out of a dependency on mathematics. Math is still relevant to poker (crucial!), but whom you are playing against truly matters much more.

The psychological aspects of poker are more important that the mathematical because they define who you are playing against. This old adage helps to illustrate the importance of knowing your opponent: "poker is a people game, played with cards; not a card game played with people." A good player can adjust to whom he is playing against.

Hold'em for advanced players is a book designed for players who play against tough, thinking, usually tight opponents. This "target" of opponents is founded on psychology - mainly how they play, how they think, and what they are likely to do in any particular circumstance. Math is still critical here, but this book is designed to improve your game against thinking opponents. It is designed with this specific goal in mind, a goal in which psychology plays a critical role.

On the flipside, Small Stakes Hold'em is an excellent book on beating loose games. Loose games are filled with loose players that make many mistakes, and Dr. Al has shown us the psychology behind why they play the way they do. Those are psychological criteria defining the style of those players. To play against these players and WIN, we have to know what mistakes they usually make and we have to know how to the psychology in order to successfully exploit those mistakes. Each of the 4 major player classifications (LP, LA, TP, TA) has strengths and weaknesses. Each of those classifications are delimited by elements of psychology, not math.

Other 2+2 poker literature suggests things like:
<ul type="square">[*] don't bluff bad players, they call to often[*]value bet more against players that call too much[*]play more marginal multi-way hands from late position in large pots against loose passive opponents[*]don't fold for one bet on the river with decent hands[*]to defend against a semi-bluff, you should semi-bluff raise. The original semi-bluffer will be forced to fold[/list]These all have to do with psychology. Math is still important for many reasons, but the sentences above illustrate the importance of knowing who your opponents are and how they play

I think a hand like K2s should be mucked in a tough high-limit game, not because of the mathematics, but because of the relative ability of the players at the table. As the players get better, good players are are very careful in selecting which speculative hands they are going to play. In a very loose game, we should play K2s in late position because we know that we can outplay our opponents after the flop. We know how they behave, we know their habitual tendencies, and we know that we can exploit the mistakes they are most likely to make. K2s is not usually a (very) profitable hand, but in a game with certain kinds of personality profiles (player types), it can become a profitable hand worth playing.

In no-limit hold'em, the implied odds often make a call correct even if the immediate pot odds don't warrant a call. This suggests the importance of psychology in no-limit. If you have a medium pocket pair (9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]) in the hole and face a bet on a flop of 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], a good knowledge of psychology can often swing a fold to a call. If you and your opponent have deep stacks ($1500) and he bets $50 into a pot of $50, and you know he's so loose that he'll pay off if he has a big Ace (for example) then a call is certainly profitable here because your implied odds are so huge. You'll invest 50 to win 1500 (plus whatever is in the pot). You implied odds are 1500:50 or 30:1 making the call profitable in the "long run". You made the correct decision because you understand the tendencies of your opponent.

*NOTE: I’m not much of a NL player, but I do believe that this shows the importance of psychology AND math, and not math alone.

Further more, psychology can be of significant use in a live card room, and can dramatically boost one's bankroll. Paying attention to people's tells is a subsection of psychology. These tells can reveal very important and profitable information about an opponent's hand. Proper interpretation of (and reaction to) these tells can add a considerable amount to your bankroll at the end of the year. Caro has also written things about how to play the players, how to act like a "wild one" and make opponents somehow think you play every single hand! I think at high(er) stakes these tools can generate a lot of money. This extra income comes from a mastery of both psychology AND math.

The math aspect of poker is critical and without it most poker players would lose in the long run (most poker players already do!). Some players seem to think they can play by intuition alone. Some of them probably succeed without a deep fundamental understanding of the underlying aspects of gambling, statistics, and probabilities. Nevertheless, they do use mathematics when making their decisions, because if they didn't, they would surely lose just like roulette players do all over the world. They may not know that the chance of hitting 4 outs in hold'em after the flop is exactly 10.75 to 1 against, but they know that they need a fairly large pot (or great implied odds) if they are going to continue playing. They also know that chasing gutshots without enough money in the pot is bad news. They are using their intuition and their poker experience to influence their decisions. But these decisions are correct because they are mathematically sound, whether they know it or not. I think psychology is the most important aspect of most, if not all, of the games of poker because they establish the kinds of opponents you are playing against. Once we have that information, we can use mathematics to perform the basic arithmetic necessary to make decisions which always produce the positive highest (or least negative) mathematical expectation.

Psychology influences the decision you make throughout the entire session, or throughout a whole range of limits (for example $10-$20 to $40-$80, or .5/1.00 to $3-$6). Math affects decisions throughout the course of a single hand. Mathematical calculations begin when the cards are dealt and they end immediately after the cards are revealed at the showdown. But psychology spans much more than that. It has an overwhelming presence everywhere, and at every moment.

Felipe

Re: Caro Article
 

i lost respect for caro when i read his 12 days to holdem success thing, and how he says you should never raise from early position in limit holdem, but i like his chapter of supersystem

what i dont get is i always thought he was a very mathematics orientated player, didnt brunson say something like when he first met him he had a bunch of statistics on a crumbled up piece of paper?

plus theres the whole statistics chapter of super/system, it seems like hes contradicting himself with this quote

Re: Caro Article
 

Uh, there is no such thing as luck. If you are actually 45% to win, you are 45% to win. You will win that hand 45% of the time. Thinking luck will make up for a rather large error on your part.

No amount of minor tells you pick up, especially online is going to make up for the fact you are putting too much money into the pot when you calculate your odds 10% to high.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mason,

As someone who has read virtually everything written by both Caro and 2+2 authors over the years, I really don't see how Caro can be referring to anyone other than you and David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check the batteries in the old sarcasm detector, chief.

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well he IS a MAD GENIUS

[/ QUOTE ]

He's needs to lay off the mad magic powder or whatever dust that has turned the man retarded. He is way off the mark and totally wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if he could be exaggerating to stir up controversy and make a point.

Naw, that would be crazy, just MAD. Even GENIUS perhaps.

But who are we kidding, I'm sure he's completely serious.

-g

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mason,

As someone who has read virtually everything written by both Caro and 2+2 authors over the years, I really don't see how Caro can be referring to anyone other than you and David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check the batteries in the old sarcasm detector, chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't being sarcastic. Just who do you think Caro was talking about then?

Re: Caro Article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mason,

As someone who has read virtually everything written by both Caro and 2+2 authors over the years, I really don't see how Caro can be referring to anyone other than you and David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check the batteries in the old sarcasm detector, chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't being sarcastic. Just who do you think Caro was talking about then?

[/ QUOTE ]

He means that Mason was being sarcastic and that you need to check the batteries in your sarcasm detector. It is clear to everyone that he is refering primarily to Sklansky and Malmuth in his article.