Re: Caro Article
[ QUOTE ]
For example, I may limp in UTG with KK if I know someone behind me will raise me so I can put in a reraise. Although, I don't always play it that way, I like to change it up a bit, I may just lead with it from that position. Usually if I flop the big full, I'll check it, give my opponent a free card before betting, however, not always, sometimes I'll put a bet out, especially if I think someone will interpret that as a sign of weakness and reraise me, then I can get their money in the middle. I'm not applying math, I'm applying psychology, i.e. what is my opponent thinking, what does he think of me? I'm not basing my decision on "well, he reraises continuation bets 100% of the time", I'm basing it on, "will he fall for my trap this time?" For that to happen, I have to make him believe something that is not true.
[/ QUOTE ]
And how does this have anything to do with what I was claiming?
You seem to be trying to argue that psychology is superior to mathematics. Well, why are you argueing with me then? I never said mathematics was superior to psychology. I never pitted the two against one another. I simply claimed that since it is possible to use mathematics to model certain psychological aspects of the game, or that you can tacitly incorporate psychological aspects of poker into a mathematical model, that one should not make a 100% clear cut distinction between psychology and mathematics. Yes, there are things that most of us would agree are well beyond mathematics and "purely psychological", while there are other things that we would agree are purely mathematical in nature, but there is also an area where the two aspects can play off of each other and provide feedback to one another.
|