Probabilities/Statistical Mastery v. Natural Skill

[Isles]

John,

Very good point, but I don't think his question has to do with whether or not he could become the best player, he is asking more about the specific skills involved. Does one weigh more heavily than another?

To use your Barry Bonds example, someone might ask the question: Is Barry's super ability based on his strength or his hand eye coordination?

They know they can't be Barry Bonds, but they might recognize their tendency towards one skill or another.

Back to BG's question, I think in NL the "natural abilities" are more important than pure EV analytical abililties. And in Limit I think the analytical abilities, while still not quite as important as natural abilities, definitely carry a little more weight.

To break it down further, exactly what is BG's goal in poker? Is it tournament play? Is it recreational full ring play? Or is it that he aspires to be a really successful short handed cash game player?

I think in the first two the EV analysis would be more useful, but in the latter it would not, simply based on the way the games are played.

In short handed or HU high stakes EV equations are almost thrown out the window, while being able to identify and capitalize on your opponent's betting patterns become increasingly important.

At least early on in tournament play, or in full ring games, most successful players are not trying to be overly tricky. They are playing at least some form of general strategy. This allows you to put them on hands easier, and therefore the EV calculations come more into play.

But you go heads up with a tricky high stakes opponent who raises the button every single time, and EV calculations are practically worthless. Especially when you are playing two heads up tables at once (Mahatma), and most decisions are instantaneous. Sure you are still making general calculations, but there is no time for a range of hands with full EV analysis.

[Bluegoose75]

Isles has understood my question completely. I'm not asking 'what do I need to do in order to be a great player', rather, I'm asking what characteristics factor into making a great player. I'm also attempting to qualify that by seeking to give a given weight to these characteristics.

That being said, I would think that if there were some lengthy discussion that really brought forth some of the 'answers' that Isles puts forth that it would indeed give an idea to what one might aspire to in order to become a better player.

Please do not confuse my stance. I am one of the people that think that great players are born not made. I think that no matter how hard you trained, how many roids you shoot up, or how much batting practice you take, you just can't be Barry Bonds. There is a degree of natural 'talent' (although that is an elusive word to define as well) that some people have in given professions that others do not. Everyone approaches the game slightly differently so there is no 'right' answer per se, however I think there is a skill set that lends itself to being on the 'more likely' to be successfull than not likely to be successfull.

I look at the game with a more overall tone than many, my belief (right or wrong) is that while 'data mining' is important, it's just a means to an end. The end being able to make good decisions. In the end, to me, a computer that could computer every possible combination would NOT be better than a natural like Stu Unger because poker is so much more subjective than pure math. Now, that may be the minority opinion here on 2 + 2 given the level of statistical discussion that abounds.

What I'm really trying to discern is what people's real beliefs are regarding the nuances and other factors rather than analyzing PT data over and over.

Isles, your example of hand-eye coordination vs. strength is PRECISELY the type of discussion I'm referring to.

In poker terms for instance - Who is a better player Phil Helmuth or Doyle Brunson? **p.s. I know it's impossible to say, it's just for the sake of discussion** Because I have no doubt in my mind that Phil is far superior at calculating odds, but I also have no doubt that Doyle is far superior about playing 'poker' based on the players around him.

[Bluegoose75]

Nice.

I think based on your scale you'd need at least 4+ to be considered a 'tough opponent' at the table but a 5+ to be a good oppononent, with 6+ to be the 'favorite' at the table in most scenarios.

I personally think that if you can master 4+ you can be a winning player **meaning you actually make some money on a regular basis** in most instances.

To be a player that relies on his Hold'em income to support his lifestyle you'd need to be a 5+ in NL and 6+ in Limit play over 5/10. Again playing conditions would vary greatly given live, online, regular v. unknown players however I think this would be a rule of thumb.

[Dov]

You guys have wandered way off the mark. It is important to learn the math to the extent that you understand exaclty what your two cards mean, both individually, and as they relate to each other, the board, and the cards your opponent is likely to be holding.

In addition, you must understand the nature of randomness and basic probability to fully comprehend the correct play and to recognize an error in an opponent's play when you see it.

The math will tell you why something is right or wrong. The psych will tell you how to apply a given concept in a given situation.

Some of the things that for example the 'natural ability' guys know instinctively are which hands play well all in, whether a hand should be played multi way or short handed, how the table is playing in general, whether the other players are better than him or not.

Some of these are math related, some are not. There isn't really a point of diminishing returns if you are studying the game seriously.

This is because you are always looking for answers to specific development issues. You don't just wake up one day and decide to learn the probability of getting a spade straight flush draw. You wake up and go "How the hell did I dump 2 racks last night in THAT game?" Then you start analyzing your play, your opponent's play, etc.

Example:

When you first start playing you find out that you are playing too many hands.

Then you tighten up and find out that you are still playing too many hands. So you want to know which hands should I still throw out?

If you don't keep solving the problems as they arise in a sensible order, you won't help yourself, you'll just repeat the same mistakes.

Poer isn't about trivia. It's about understanding the game better than your opponents and having the discipline to play correctly and always improve in a meaningful way.

Otherwise you'll just be fishfood for someone who keeps advancing...

Hope this helps.

Dov

[Isles]

Since you asked if Phil is better than Doyle, I'll assume you mean today's tournament atmosphere. In that case, I would give Doyle and his natural reading abilities the edge.

As you can see from watching Phil, too many times he has been busted for the very thing you are asking about. He tries to analyze what the player should have and plays according to that, but when the cards are flipped over he can't believe his opponent played a completely off the wall hand in that fashion.

If you watch him on TV, how many times have you seen him say something like "You went all in on a gutshot?" "Congratulations, you knocked me out with runner runner."

He is always chiding his opponents when they beat him. He definitely does not seem to be reading and adjusting to the more sporadic play of the "amateurs" who are entering the tournaments.

Doyle seems to have better reading skills and I believe he has made it further in most of the tournaments they have entered together recently. Like last years WSOP main event. I could be completely wrong on that though.

[Bluegoose75]

Agreed.

I would suspect that in LIMIT games that Phil would probably dominate. NL doesn't seem like it (but you can't argue against his 9 or 10 WSOP Braclets either...)

It was more rhetorical than anything, again not because of the answer someone gives but their logic derived at that answer.

P.S. Isles, you and I seem to have similar views on playstyle/players hopefully we're both RIGHT! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img](to avoid flames, that was a joke)

[Isles]

Dov,

Excellent summarization, I agree completely. However, I don't think BG's question or my answer is way off the mark. He is just trying to quantify the math aspect.

Bottom line is for really successful players, math is an important part of the equation, but I think except for certain tough situations, it pretty much becomes second nature over time for the reason you mentioned, analyzing your own game, especially your mistakes...

[Isles]

Goose,

Phil won most of those bracelets "back in the day". I think he has been trying to get that elusive tenth bracelet for years.

He has not been nearly as successful against today's players. However, he is still more successful than most. He made a final table last year and was absolutely blistered by bad beats. Couldn't fault him there.

As a side note, despite my reference to the WSOP, I can't stand it [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] You have to suffer through all of the drama queens just to watch a little poker.

[Bluegoose75]

True. The WSOP drama is all about TV. For instance when Fossilman won the tourney quite a few people said that he was lucky or whatnot, however when you realize that a very small percentage of the hands played are shown on TV, you realize that for every 'bad beat' there are other hands that player has played representing either good or bad decisions.

When Raymer had his special on the WSOP final table where he was the commentator he eluded to this and how the hands shown on TV represent such a small portion of the ones played that you get false impressions about players. He said in fact that he like the Aria guy and that the 'prick' image given to him by the media wasn't all that well deserved. But, it's TV for ratings so I can't really fault them.

ON a side note, one thing that the WSOP or other programs impress upon me, is the amount of 'mistakes' that happen. You of course see everyones hole cards so you instantly become an expert where the players are still in the dark, but you really do get the idea that the % of the time that players make mistakes is much higher than you think.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I've often heard of professtional poker players that he / she has 'natural ability'. I'm assuming this means

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it can mean whatever you want it to mean. I am sure most people have got a different definition.

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm curious about is to what extent do you believe all the math guru's probabilities of 'odds of flopping middle pair at a short handed table' really matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Understanding the mathematical fundamentals of poker is the most important part of playing poker well. Some people can muddle through playing blindfolded, but its much easier with the blindfold off.

[ QUOTE ]
To what extent does it really improve your game to have to run through 600 calculations per hand trying to figure everything out?

[/ QUOTE ]

A fair bit, unfortunately humans are not quite that good, they have to do most calculations away from the table and use data retrieval techniques while playing.

[ QUOTE ]
But does this new information make you a better player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
Does it just give you 'tired head' more often, creating the tendancy to need more breaks in playing or cause you more mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess that depends on the individual.

I find that not only does having online information on players help when I am playing online, it also helps when I am playing live. In getting use to using all the available statistical data when available gets me use to thinking the right way about the game, so that when the information is not explicitly available I can still make intelligent estimates and precede from there.