What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?

[pzhon]

It sounds like you are overemphasizing bluffing.

It's common for casual players to imagine that poker is all about bluffing, and to imagine that bluffing is not mathematical. That's part of why playing against casual players is so profitable.

[ QUOTE ]
I use position well, which of course involves a lot of bluffing, but if my opponents know I am just "using" position not necessarily with a strong hand why do they respect it so much?

[/ QUOTE ]
Position does allow you to make some bluffs. However, it also allows you to get more value from your hands when you are ahead, and to lose less when you are behind. Many hands have to be thrown away OOP but can be played in position because you can expect to win more when your hand is good (or your draw hits) in position, and you will lose less when your hand is not good.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?

[/ QUOTE ]
Skills in games are correlated even more generally. It is important to recognize a strong situation. To play games of skill and chance well, you need to focus on making the right play regardless of the luck.

The doubling cube forces backgammon players to make judgements about the absolute equities, not just the relative equities. Backgammon players are used to accepting doubles knowing that they are significant underdogs, but not enough of one to pass, which is a lot like calling in poker.

The inferences bridge players make about opponents' hands from the past actions are crucial, and very similar to extracting information from the action in poker to fold or check behind with a strong hand or value bet with a mediocre hand. Bridge experts play for a particular contract or overtrick not because they are sure to be rewarded, but because the rewards justify the risks.

Playing chess well involves planning and evaluation, but another important skill some chess players have is the ability to recognize that they make many mistakes. Chess players also recognize that they can improve their game through study, and chess players tend to study more for each hour of play than in most other games.

[ QUOTE ]
To be more specific, why do so many good backgammon/chess/bridge players also make good poker players?

[/ QUOTE ]Some people are simply good at games. I suspect that someone who is good at poker or bridge could become good at gin rummy, for instance.

There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

I think there are a lot of thought techniques that carry over from bridge to poker. I play high level bridge (in the UK) and a lot of my bridge playing friends who move to poker take it up quicker than my non-bridge playing friends. I am still better at bridge than i am at poker, but compared to my friends who started getting into poker around the same time, i am far ahead of them. Some of the reasons i think are:

1) Like other people mentioned there are forms of bluffing in bridge, and the key to getting these to work is not to make a bluff (either a misleading bid or a misleading card) because you don't see any other way of winning, but to try and mislead your opponents itno thinking you have something different to what you have. In poker a lot of begginers bluff on the river, because they see no other way of taking the pot down, but playing bridge gives you this 'false picture' philosophy. You have to try and represent something with your bluff, not just bluff for the sake of it. Sometimes this means planning to bluff a few rounds earlier than you make the bluff.

2)Odds and percentages are built into you at high level bridge. Counting and analysing your chances come so quickly once you have practiced and played 1000's of hands. People who haven't done things like this before, stuggle with all the quick maths that poker throws up at you, and esp. playing online where you have a time limit. For example, someone goes all in post flop and everyone else folds to you. You first have to analyize what your opponent has (a skill needed in bridge too) and then decide what your chances of beating him are compared to the pot odds. You may have a flush draw and one overcard, and can deduce that from his all in that he hasn't hit a set, but best guess top pair.You now need to count your outs, work out the chances of hitting them and then work out the pot odds. Since you only have a limited time online, people who aren't used to processing odds and percentages quickly, or those people who can't assess thier opponents hands, will make more mistakes until they have developed these skills. Skills that playing bridge at high levels come naturally.

There aren't the only similarities, but they explain why most bridge players adapt to poker quicker than someone who hasn't aquired these skills.

Eggpie

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kit Woolsey is suddenly chopped liver? If he doesn't qualify, then your standards are absurdly high.

Being a lifetime chessplayer myself here is what chess brings over to poker

1. Being used to analysing the game, questioning decitions and studying the games of stronger players

2. Addapting to opponents .. When you are about to face a player first thing you ask is, what is his style, and what are his strenghts. And then you tailor your opening game and approch to him, so that you maximize the chances of him not playing his best game.


3. Desperado plays in lost situations .. you also bluff in chess

4. Using drawoffers as a psykological weapon .. and other mindgames

5. But most important .. In chess when ahead it is vital to keep applying pressure ... never give time for your opponents to relax, just keep pushing til they fall apart




But similarites between chess and poker IMO come down to The Psykology bit and being used to approching the game in a structured way while studying it. (And of course countless postmortems after playing a chessgame spills over to rethinking and reviewing your poker hands or tourneys after you have played them ... a sound thing to do, all the time questioning your own play ... always asking, where could I have played better ??)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kit Woolsey is suddenly chopped liver? If he doesn't qualify, then your standards are absurdly high.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think anyone seriously considers Woolsey a top 10 in the world bridge player. I don't know about backgammon. Eisenberg was once at that level (in fact, I believe he simultanously held world championship titles in both bridge and backgammon). Woolsey certainly doesn't measure up to that standard.

I was not aware that Harrington had won a world championship in backgammon. If that is true, I would consider him in Eisenberg's class.

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone seriously considers Woolsey a top 10 in the world bridge player. I don't know about backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kit Woolsey is almost certainly considered one of the top 10 backgammon players in the world, as well as one of the game's most recognized and trusted authorities, along with Robertie and X-22. Don't know about his abilities in bridge, although he's certainly very good.

[ QUOTE ]
I was not aware that Harrington had won a world championship in backgammon. If that is true, I would consider him in Eisenberg's class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not the "World Championship" (Monte Carlo) per se, but the "World Cup" (Dallas), which is considered by backgammon aficionados to be much tougher to win than the world championship (in the championship flight, EVERY MATCH is best 3-out-of-5 matches to 11 points, and even the consolation and last-chance flights are matches to 29 and 25 points, respectively). Robertie and X-22 have both won the Monte Carlo event (Robertie's won it twice), while Harrington has won the Dallas event (Robertie and X-22 may also have won it, can't remember off the top of my head).

Speaking of Magriel, where is he in this conversation? One of the greatest backgammon players of all time, indisputably, as well as a very good-to-great tournament poker player, and a chess master as well.

--Scott

[ QUOTE ]
Kit Woolsey is almost certainly considered one of the top 10 backgammon players in the world, as well as one of the game's most recognized and trusted authorities, along with Robertie and X-22. Don't know about his abilities in bridge, although he's certainly very good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Woolsey is a notch below world class/top 10 type in bridge. He's very good -- has won national championships -- but not quite amongst the elite in the world. Like in backgammon, he is a trusted authority and valued author. Perhaps not labeling him as great in both was overly harsh.

His wife, Sally, is also quite good at both bridge and backgammon, isn't she?

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan Harrington is certainly a great poker player, and the fact that he's won the World Cup in Backgammon (the most important tournament in the game, one that, according to Robertie, no one but a top world-class pro has -ever- won due to the extreme length of the matches required to win it) I think qualifies him as a backgammon great as well. As for his chess abilities, USCF Master rating certainly qualifies him as very, very good, but probably below what would be termed "great" in that game (GM rating or so). Still, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

--Scott

--

[AlanBostick]

The connection between poker and the other games is that poker provides an opportunity for dedicated game-players to earn something resembling a steady income. Anyone with half a brain can learn enough about poker to beat the locally available games. It's a lot tougher to make a living hustling at chess than poker. I imagine it's tougher to make a living at backgammon, too. I have no idea if it's even possible to make a living playing bridge.

A player who is devoting her life to her game and needs to make ends meet, working flexible hours, earning perhaps enough to get by rather than needing middle-class comfort, could play poker for a night or two each week and spend the rest of her time focussing on the game where her real passion lies.