Musing on Shania while bicycling

[Phat Mack]

Those of us who were awake for portions of our high-school biology classes can remember that the human brain, as well as most of the human being itself, is composed of individual cells. It is these individual cells that, when acting in concert, give our brain its oomph.

Not to dart about too much, but for a long time it was thought that insects were stupid (or, to be more precise, that they lacked intelligence), despite the marvelous achievements of certain members of the phylum Bugs-- most notably, ants and bees. Bees, for example, can wag their tails and communicate complex navigational instructions at the same time. Ants can wage war and operate complex municipal waste disposal systems. (I know, we could debate whether waging war is a sign of intelligence. Let's not.) A theory was posited, some time ago, that while individual ants and bees might be dunces, collectively their hives and hills might display intelligent behavior. Hence, when seen as a group, just as human brain cells can be seen as a group, they possess "collective intelligence." (There's been some interesting things published about collective intelligence by our entomologist friends, as well as some dreck published by new-agers offering the next solution to the world's problems--but, I digress. (I don't know why I worry about digressing. Does anybody really read this crap?))

Anyway, as I was pedaling along this morning, I was thinking about Shania as it pertained to individual players, and I was thinking about Shania as it pertained to "found" ad hoc committees of collusively-entangled players, and then, finally, I began to wonder if there could be an observable "Collective" Shania for an entire poker table, when such poker table was viewed as a whole. It seemed to me that there could. (While the number of pokerists at a table is generally fewer than the number of bees in a hive, and fewer than the number of ants in a hill, a poker table could remediate its deficiency of population through, perhaps, one means: the individual intelligence of its players. If we are willing to accept the idea that many poker players are, as individuals, more intelligent than a given bee or ant, then perhaps we could accept the idea that there could be a collective intelligence at a poker table equal to that found in an insectarium.)

How would individuals at a poker table provide input to, and receive the instructions of, Queen Shania? For all I know, it could be through pheromone messaging or figure-eight dances . But probably not. More likely through cultural means such as body language and vocal utterances; and through what Mr. Delaney, my junior-high principal, succinctly called "peer pressure."

Then I wondered, "OK, so what?" A Table's Shania would not be just a repertoire of starting hands, but of accepted strategies, and of accepted reactions to unacceptable behaviors. And while the Shania of an individual might be aimed at maximizing profit or enjoyment, the Shania of a table would not be so. It would disregard the needs of the individual in a quest to meet the needs, and promote the survival, of the Table as a whole. This might be in conflict with the goals of more selfish players. For such persons, an awareness of, and perhaps a contrarian attitude towards, Table Shania might be in order.

Then, as I was putting my bike up, I wondered if there was a collective Shania for the poker community at large, or perhaps one for the 2+2 community itself.

[xxxxx]

I don't know who Shania is, but yes a poker table can be thought of as an adaptive neural network. Each player adapts his playing style to the style of the group around him. Who in turn modify their play to account for the difference in his play. And on and on and on and on.

[Dov]

Interesting post. I think that the collective table dynamic can certainly affect the individuals playing. That's one of the reasons why you will find distinctions between playing in a loose game, or against a loose raiser.

I think that it is important to be aware of your image as it fits in with the rest of the table's partcipants and the general flow of the game in order to maximize your profits.

I guess, in short, I agree with most of your post.

I think I disagree with this, however:
[ QUOTE ]
If we are willing to accept the idea that many poker players are, as individuals, more intelligent than a given bee or ant

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that it matters at all what the intelligence is of the other players. As long as you are aware of their abilities and the way that their playing styles will impact your EV, then you will be in tune with Shania for that game.

By the way, for those who are unaware of Shania, do a search in the archives. It was a great discussion and you won't be disappointed.

Dov

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know who Shania is

[/ QUOTE ]

Shania

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


And while the Shania of an individual might be aimed at maximizing profit or enjoyment, the Shania of a table would not be so. It would disregard the needs of the individual in a quest to meet the needs, and promote the survival, of the Table as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

An individual's Shania is not necessarily good for that individual. Shania can be ignorant, sadistic, self-destructive, etc.

Similarly, Table Shania can be good, bad, or indifferent. It can also be different things for the different individuals at the table.

[ QUOTE ]
If we are willing to accept the idea that many poker players are, as individuals, more intelligent than a given bee or ant, then perhaps we could accept the idea that there could be a collective intelligence at a poker table equal to that found in an insectarium.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible that the collective intelligence at a poker table is less than the sum of the whole. Take an average mix of low limit players, add a drunken maniac, and stir well. You suddenly have 4 or 5 testosterone-driven morons reraising each other with rags. Something happens, like the maniac leaves or a TAG rakes a huge pot, and the table reverts to normal. Collective, yes; intelligence, no.

[ QUOTE ]
This might be in conflict with the goals of more selfish players. For such persons, an awareness of, and perhaps a contrarian attitude towards, Table Shania might be in order.

[/ QUOTE ]

No "might" about it. If you are looking for a good time, Table Shania can be a cheap thrill. If you are looking for an edge, you need to slap her around and empty her purse.

[ QUOTE ]
I wondered if there was a collective Shania for the poker community at large, or perhaps one for the 2+2 community itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both, but neither are the one for me. As W.C. Fields said about women, they are like elephants, nice to go visit, but I wouldn't want one around the house.

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And while the Shania of an individual might be aimed at maximizing profit or enjoyment, the Shania of a table would not be so. It would disregard the needs of the individual in a quest to meet the needs, and promote the survival, of the Table as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

An individual's Shania is not necessarily good for that individual. Shania can be ignorant, sadistic, self-destructive, etc.



[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I was trying to bring out this point by the qualifier: "profit or enjoyment." I try to avoid judgements as to whether an individual's Shania is 'good or bad' from my point of view, since I believe such judgements obstruct my attempts to discern said individual's Shania. I merely want to know what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, Table Shania can be good, bad, or indifferent. It can also be different things for the different individuals at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good observation. I was going down the path of thinking that a Table's Shania must work towards the preservation of the Table--some sort of half-baked Darwinian interpretation, I suppose. This is probably wrong, especially in the world of poker as it exists today. Thinking of a Table's Shania as the synthesis, or perhaps merely the aggregate, of all its player's Shanias might be a better approach. In fact, thinking that a Table's Shania serves any purpose at might be a mistake. I'll have to give this more thought.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we are willing to accept the idea that many poker players are, as individuals, more intelligent than a given bee or ant, then perhaps we could accept the idea that there could be a collective intelligence at a poker table equal to that found in an insectarium.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible that the collective intelligence at a poker table is less than the sum of the whole. Take an average mix of low limit players, add a drunken maniac, and stir well. You suddenly have 4 or 5 testosterone-driven morons reraising each other with rags. Something happens, like the maniac leaves or a TAG rakes a huge pot, and the table reverts to normal. Collective, yes; intelligence, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of the collective intelligence being less than the sum of the whole is a good one. I think we both agree that viewing all poker players as working towards identical goals is a mistake, and that thinking they do is a costly mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wondered if there was a collective Shania for the poker community at large, or perhaps one for the 2+2 community itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both, but neither are the one for me. As W.C. Fields said about women, they are like elephants, nice to go visit, but I wouldn't want one around the house.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might be the correct punch line for the thread. Thanks for your thoughtful response.