Probabilities/Statistical Mastery v. Natural Skill

[dana33]

Yes. I didn't mean to dismiss these other skills. I just wanted to emphasize that players who do their homework beforehand -- as the best ones do -- need not perform "600 calculations per hand" at the table in order to know what the odds are.

[Bluegoose75]

Agreed, of course when I stated '600 calculations per hand' I was exaggerating for effect. Of course they do their homework before hand (it would be fairly impossible for them to break out the factorials at the table now wouldn't it?). What I'm saying is that there are a helluva lot of things you could in theory 'memorize' prior to going into the casino/card room. You could theoretically memorize every possible hand combination or study how 2-3 off suit faired against a short handed table with 5 callers while you were under the gun with 2 players TAG, 1 player LAG and 2 players LPassive, then contrast with 1 Player TAG, the rest passive (and so on and so on).

My point was then and is now that it is possible to memorize all this before hand, but it's not practical to know ALL OF IT. So, I ask, what is the practical level of knowledge / memorization / recall to be considered very very good.

For the sake of argument please do not account for the fool that knows none of the odds or the Rain man that knows every single possiblity. There has to be a middle ground of proficiency.

[Isles]

Using your fool and rainman analogy. If a fool were a 1 and a rainman were a 10 on a scale of 1-10, I would say you can get away with a 5-6 for no limit and still be a very exceptional player, IF, you have a very high level of natural talent. For limit, I would make it higher, at least 7-8.

All of the odds are worthless without the natural reading ability, if you can't put them on the correct hand numbers don't matter [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

In high stakes NL I rely much more on reads with the numbers as additional data, rather than the other way around. It's just a piece of the puzzle, one of the latter pieces...

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was then and is now that it is possible to memorize all this before hand, but it's not practical to know ALL OF IT. So, I ask, what is the practical level of knowledge / memorization / recall to be considered very very good.

[/ QUOTE ]
42

(Seriously, what sort of answer would satisfy you?)

[Bluegoose75]

Well, it's a general question so any sort of answer would 'satisfy me' that answered the question. Since the responses were fairly constistant with the 'well the more you know the better' mentality, that's not really answering now is it? The question was - Given that you can't know everything, at what point do most people think you'd be considered very good.

Now, the response given by ISLES for instance is along the track of what I'd like to see discussed. Again, we'd have to do some qualification on what a '5-6' would really mean but it's at least a response worth talking about. It's like asking how much money do you need to be considered rich, then having everyone say 'well the more money you have the better!!'. That's not even a response you can discuss. But if someone says 'I think you need 15 million dollars to be considered rich' you could then discuss how they came about this number and why THAT is the number they chose. Hence....a discussion.

[Bluegoose75]

I completely agree that NL requires more 'natural ability' (in the context of this thread at least) as compared to Limit which requires more number crunching.

Given that you answered 5-6 in order to be very good at NL - in your words what does this entail. Does it mean that you'd have to know the starting EV of all hands given relative position then know how to compute pot odds on the flop, turn and river. Does it mean you'd have to also be able to compute implied odds? Does it mean more?

That then begs the question about what's more important knowing A) the exact probability you'll draw the correct cards and the probability that your opponent will not be helped by it or B) knowing little more than how many outs you have but analyzing position, stack size, blind structure, player tendencies, risk tolerance, fold equity (ties to player tendencies and risk tolerance)

[Isles]

Here's a general scale to start with, but I only came up with a scale of 1-8. So I would think an exceptional player would need to be at least 4 for NL, 5 for limit. Some would probably argue you need to be at least a 5 to be exceptional for NL. I am probably aiming a bit low because I have an extremely hard time shoving all of those numbers in my head [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

The scale only applies to the numbers part of the equation, and makes the assumption the player is highly skilled at the other "natural abilities".

1 Amatuers completely unaware of pot odds much less percentages between two different hands.
2 Amatuers who have a grasp of pot odds, but don't apply them much.
3 Experienced players who also possess a general knowledge of EV percentages between possible combinations, but in real time do not have the ability to apply them much.
4 Experienced players who also possess a general knowledge of EV percentages between possible combinations, but in real time only apply the more common scenarios, but in tough situations can take the time to analyze more vague combinations.
5 Experienced players who fully understand a large percentage of EV scenarios and apply them fairly well during realtime play.
6 Experienced players who fully understand all EV scenarios and apply them very well during realtime play.
7 Experienced players with an extreme knack for EV percentages in real time scenarios and can apply them almost instantaneously.
8 Your idiot savant [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Something along those lines?

[johnc]

You're not going to find an concrete answer, it's too open ended. It's not really possible to draw a clearcut correlation betweeen good skills such as memorization, etc and natural ability. Take for example two world class players : Chris Ferguson, & Stu Unger. Both are incredible and share combined talent but each has relied more (not entirely) on different approaches to the game. Ferguson's inhuman abilty to memorize every concevable combo, outcome, probability, and odds scenario at the table is has brought him much of his success, whereas Stu Unger placed much more emphasis on his ability to read players and put them on cards, and even accurately predict their actions. So, my point is, there really isn't a specific formula or guideline to follow to success in poker. If there was, there would be little reason to play, because everyone could be "good".

[Isles]

John,

I think Goose is asking a very specific question that can easily be answered. The tricky part is what is your opinion of that answer?

Using your example, if your assessment is accurate, Stu has shown the ability to succeed very well without as much of a grasp of the numbers. Which strengthens my opinion [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

As a side note, "math geeks" tend to be more left brained, while the natural skills such as reading players and psychology tend to be more right brained. Which is probably why you rarely find someone extremely exceptional at all aspects and most people tend to lean one way or the other.

I don't know about limit, but for NL I would probably prefer to lean more to the right [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[johnc]

To be precise, the answer to the question alludes to a kind of plug and play type of way to become sucessful at poker. Your personal approach to evaluating these two important aspects of poker skills vs natural ability vs application, is an excellent way to show the contrast between knowledge and its application at the table. This is precisely why poker is so damn tough. It can't simply be taught in a didactic fashion to anyone and expect great results everytime. There's no books to teach natural ability. It's not so difficult for people to believe that they'll never be able to hit like Barry Bonds or dunk like Jordan, but when it comes to poker, too many delude themselves into believing they're the next Moneymaker, or Fossilman if they just could find the "How to be Sucessful in Poker" instruction manual.