[fnord_too]

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.