Caro Article

[HatesLosing]

[ 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.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There were so many bad players around that making the best mathematical play would actually win less than exploiting their specific weaknesses in other ways.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a semantic problem, because any true mathematician would claim that the best plays mathematically are those that win you the most money. Game Theory, which strives to define the optimal strategy one should take when involved in a game of some sort, is a subfield of mathematics, not psychology, even though certain mathematical models must necessarily incorporate psychological aspects in order to yield an optimal strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game theory shows the optimal play against an optimal opponent. That's not always the play that makes the most money against a complete idiot.

Simple example for this is a rock/paper/scissors-tournament. Players who randomize their decisions will usually end up in the middle of the pack. You always have a 50:50 chance against them, not better - not worse.

Whatever.

Ok, whatever you say.

[I am fish]

I was rereading the Game Theory section of Theory of Poker and thought of Annie Duke with the dollar bill randomization strategy for rock/paper/scissors.

[HatesLosing]

[ QUOTE ]
Game theory shows the optimal play against an optimal opponent. That's not always the play that makes the most money against a complete idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Classic problems in game theory often like to treat the problem of what the optimal strategy is when facing an opponent playing optimally. This is only a small subset of game theory though.

Game theory deals with the optimal strategy for any game, whether players are playing sub-optimal or not. We often use the concept of "bounded rationality" (Google it), but this is not the only concept that is used.

Actually, "Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox" by Gigerenzer and Selten, as well as "Modeling Bounded Rationality" by Rubenstein are good references on this topic.

[HatesLosing]

I should make it clear that much of what I'm talking about is highly motivated by online play where you have a computer and a wealth of observed hand histories handy.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
I was rereading the Game Theory section of Theory of Poker and thought of Annie Duke with the dollar bill randomization strategy for rock/paper/scissors.

[/ QUOTE ]

She was "just lucky" to get that far in the competition. All within the statistical expectation.

[I am fish]

Of course, everyone playing that had to get lucky. It's freakin' rock paper scissors. But one time on Conan, he had a guest who really was supposed to be the the best rock paper scissors player in the world. Maybe he was just good at picking up opponent's patterns. So, against him, Game Theory would take away his edge.

That is, unless he has a good eye and can tell from the clenching of your fist, or your movement what you're going to pick. Then even Game Theory can't even stop him. If he really is that good though, he should pick up poker.

So that brings up the age old question... Is Math or Pyschology more important in Rock Paper Scissors??

In an interview, Graham Walker, the managing director of the World Rock Paper Scissor Society and Co-author of Official Rock Paper Scissors Strategy Guide had this to say...

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it's primarily a game of chance or skill, and at what point in competition does it become primarily about psyching the other guy out?

The game is not random chance because humans are really bad at approximating randomness. There is always something that motivates people to make a certain throw. The trick is being able to force your opponent into making a predictable move. At the higher levels of the game, gamesmanship and psyching out your opponent reins supreme. There is a saying in RPS that the game itself is simple, but it is the gamesmanship that makes it complex.


[/ QUOTE ]

So that moves me to a more important question...
Is Rock Paper Scissors a Sport???

[timmer]

well... when you consider the wealth of good poker information out there and the fact that at least 90% of all poker players are still losing then you might summize that a players attitude and fortitude (both psycological attributes) are "near" the forfront of the "required" list.

I do agree a winning method (discipline) as well as a "heapin helpin" of statistical reality is prerequisit for even meager success, a fair degree of intuition (gained through experiance) and its integration into the "method"
(through thinking about the game) linked to a positive attitudinal philosophy Is a major part of what is required for greatness and longevity

As always a good rounded knowledge base and a superior attitude will provide the seeds for greatness.

timmer

PS when can we expect Dr. Als book to become avalible ?