Re: Caro Article
If you read the entire article carefully, I believe his underlying argument is that psychology rules over odds because people like himself and those at 2 + 2 have done all the math for us and the math is pretty easy for anyone to grasp after enough play/experience. I think his argument is that since it's harder to master the social and psychological aspects of poker (at least for some of us, myself included when it comes to live games), that it is in that area where most of the profit truly lies and is where you can "stand out" from everyone else who knows the percentages and odds just like you do (didn't say I agree or disagree with him yet, just said what I think his underlying argument is based on my interpretation of the entire article).
Now maybe "Crazy Mike" has some hidden cheapshots in there too (shame on him if that's the case), but I don't read this article as literally saying that math is meaningless. After all he, says:
"Now what you’ve just read is very close to the words I chose in the coffee shop. As you can see from the reconstruction, I got carried away in the concept. So, I forced myself back on track with, “And in poker, to answer your question, the math doesn’t really matter at the table. Sure, there are a few times when it’s wise to count the pot, know the odds of making a hand, and gauge your decision relative to those ‘pot odds.’ But, mostly, it doesn’t matter. People like me are obsessed with statistics. We analyze poker for you, and we use what we discover to recommend what hands to play, when to raise, when to fold. So, why would you want to use complex math at the table? We’ve already done it for you.” "
[end Caro quote]
Of course, one thing he is overlooking here is that there isn't more complex mathematics than he has NOT dealt with that takes into account your image, your opponent's image, whether you believe you opponent's image is "real" or "projected", and so on. Poker is a highly nonlinear interaction between human beings, and there is more to the mathematics of poker than simply calculating odds and raw statistics... I think this is the flaw in the article. Caro seems to use the term "mathematics" to mean basic calculations dealing with the cards only, and not the particular opponents.
If I know that an opponent who perceives me as a maniac will bring the hammer down on me in a NL game with a big re-raise if he's in the BB and I make yet another 2.5 x BB raise from the CO and he holds a range of hands X, Y, Z, but if he perceives me as a tight wad he won't make that play unless he holds a range of hands X, Y, then I can couple my mathematical calculations with the psychological aspects that are going on at the table. Furthermore, I can say "I believe there is a 70% chance that I have successfully portray the image of a maniac to him", and so on.
Another thing is that "Crazy Mike" always likes to begin an article or a monologue/lecture with something that is very catchy and will make people want to read on or listen... he is very good at that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
(Definately *not* one of his better articles/bits of wisdom IMO, even if I interpret it a little bit different than some of the other people here)
|