Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Books and Publications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-28-2005, 10:46 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Caro Article

But in essence, the bad publicity in this case comes from your competitor, so, one would consider the source. However, if that causes people to buy your products, once they've done so, they would be able to come to their own conclusions and realize who's literature is the best. You and I both know the answer to that.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-28-2005, 03:34 PM
Zygote Zygote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 693
Default Re: Caro Article

[ QUOTE ]
In poker math is meaningless and psychology is paramount. There, I finally said it... and I'm glad. Each time I got close to uttering those words, I lost courage and choked back the sounds.

[/ QUOTE ]


has anyone read any of his articles in the past? He is incriminating himself just as much as David and Mason. All of his past work attempts to be mathematically supported or justified AND, like mason points out, he claims to be the foremost math and statistics authority. He is basically saying much of his life's work is meanlingless and everything he's written in the past has credibility no more; including his reputation.

i'm just amazed he's trying to convince the reader that he spent most of life applying math to poker just because he was afraid that David would call him bad names or kick his ass.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-30-2005, 04:40 PM
PokerHorse PokerHorse is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19
Default Re: Caro Article/ cant escape the math

This is fun since i was summarily beaten by the extremists who thought I didnt understand probabilities.
When we think of math in poker, we think of the math of probabilities, yet the bayesian stuff is what applies imo.
The good news is that our brains are so good at recognizing patterns that we learn through experience and think in bayesian terms without knowing it.We are wired this way. So yes pot odds and probabilities have limits but many of the situations that are termed "psychology", are really complex bayesian type problems that we use to decide for example the texture of a hand that an opponent is playing, or is he/she bluffing in this spot etc.
The math and psychology are tied together and there simply nothing we have to do except get alot of experience
playing, and learn to trust our guts.But many of us have problems with our decisions regardless of the math/psych
2 great articles in "Card Player", by Barry Tannenbaum about prospect theory will help many. check them out.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-30-2005, 05:57 PM
MicroBob MicroBob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: memphis
Posts: 1,245
Default Re: Caro Article/ cant escape the math

those who disagreed with your ideas about online-multitabling were hardly 'extremists'.
I don't know if these are the extremists you were referring to or not though.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-30-2005, 06:20 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Caro Article/ cant escape the math

"yet the bayesian stuff is what applies imo."

"think in bayesian terms"

Huh?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-30-2005, 11:11 PM
HatesLosing HatesLosing is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: Caro Article

If you read the entire article carefully, I believe his underlying argument is that psychology rules over odds because people like himself and those at 2 + 2 have done all the math for us and the math is pretty easy for anyone to grasp after enough play/experience. I think his argument is that since it's harder to master the social and psychological aspects of poker (at least for some of us, myself included when it comes to live games), that it is in that area where most of the profit truly lies and is where you can "stand out" from everyone else who knows the percentages and odds just like you do (didn't say I agree or disagree with him yet, just said what I think his underlying argument is based on my interpretation of the entire article).

Now maybe "Crazy Mike" has some hidden cheapshots in there too (shame on him if that's the case), but I don't read this article as literally saying that math is meaningless. After all he, says:

"Now what you’ve just read is very close to the words I chose in the coffee shop. As you can see from the reconstruction, I got carried away in the concept. So, I forced myself back on track with, “And in poker, to answer your question, the math doesn’t really matter at the table. Sure, there are a few times when it’s wise to count the pot, know the odds of making a hand, and gauge your decision relative to those ‘pot odds.’ But, mostly, it doesn’t matter. People like me are obsessed with statistics. We analyze poker for you, and we use what we discover to recommend what hands to play, when to raise, when to fold. So, why would you want to use complex math at the table? We’ve already done it for you.” "
[end Caro quote]

Of course, one thing he is overlooking here is that there isn't more complex mathematics than he has NOT dealt with that takes into account your image, your opponent's image, whether you believe you opponent's image is "real" or "projected", and so on. Poker is a highly nonlinear interaction between human beings, and there is more to the mathematics of poker than simply calculating odds and raw statistics... I think this is the flaw in the article. Caro seems to use the term "mathematics" to mean basic calculations dealing with the cards only, and not the particular opponents.

If I know that an opponent who perceives me as a maniac will bring the hammer down on me in a NL game with a big re-raise if he's in the BB and I make yet another 2.5 x BB raise from the CO and he holds a range of hands X, Y, Z, but if he perceives me as a tight wad he won't make that play unless he holds a range of hands X, Y, then I can couple my mathematical calculations with the psychological aspects that are going on at the table. Furthermore, I can say "I believe there is a 70% chance that I have successfully portray the image of a maniac to him", and so on.

Another thing is that "Crazy Mike" always likes to begin an article or a monologue/lecture with something that is very catchy and will make people want to read on or listen... he is very good at that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

(Definately *not* one of his better articles/bits of wisdom IMO, even if I interpret it a little bit different than some of the other people here)
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-01-2005, 02:53 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Caro Article

I cannot completely agree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, one thing he is overlooking here is that there isn't more complex mathematics than he has NOT dealt with that takes into account your image, your opponent's image, whether you believe you opponent's image is "real" or "projected", and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's purely psychological.

[ QUOTE ]
If I know that an opponent who perceives me as a maniac will bring the hammer down on me in a NL game with a big re-raise if he's in the BB and I make yet another 2.5 x BB raise from the CO and he holds a range of hands X, Y, Z, but if he perceives me as a tight wad he won't make that play unless he holds a range of hands X, Y, then I can couple my mathematical calculations with the psychological aspects that are going on at the table. Furthermore, I can say "I believe there is a 70% chance that I have successfully portray the image of a maniac to him", and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would have to be an extremely passive player. He could reraise you out of the BB with absolute garbage if he feels you're putting a play on him. If he's observant, has you pegged as a maniac because you're trying to steal the blinds too often, he may just be putting a play on you. One of the reasons not to steal the blinds too damn much in a cash game. If you do it every single time it's folded to you on the button, don't be surprised to see that play made by the BB with air. What does that do to your math? Not much, but it does tell you about the players psychological make-up; he's not as passive as you thought he was, or he's more observant of what you're doing than you thought. I've yet to see a tight-passive player that I could consistently steal his blind without him having to have the nuts to reraise me. If you keep slapping at a man, eventually he'll slap back. It's human nature, not math.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-01-2005, 07:42 AM
Shandrax Shandrax is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 141
Default Re: Caro Article

I think Caro's statement is close to the John Fox philosophy on Draw Poker in the 70s. 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. Basically Caro is not totally overboard with this, it's just a different school of thinking and not a bad one.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-01-2005, 10:21 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Caro Article

[ QUOTE ]
Caro always mentions that he's the world's foremost authority in poker statistics. If that has no value, then why mention it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

To take this one step further, why would a man who is the engineer of the first widely recognized poker calculator now state that the mathematics is irrelevant? Either he spent a large portion of his life working on a project that he thought was worthless or he's just using this article as an opportunity to take a shot. Personally, I think it's the latter.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-01-2005, 12:54 PM
PokerHorse PokerHorse is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19
Default Re: Caro Article/ ok micro quick rehash

micro, i probably shouldnt re-hash here but ill clarify. During that thread i was told that I didnt understand probabilities because i said that playing 100,000 hands in 1 or 2 months wasnt relevant. Then i read post after post about how i didnt understand the probabilities etc. when what i was talking about was not the amount of hands but how long a person could actually do it without tilting. thats why i said that the guy who posted his 3-6 results werent releavant.Its not the math its the ability to actually doit day in and day out for a long period. as more info is coming out we're finding out it is actually difficult to do for a period of years.THERE ARE VERY FEW OF YOU WHO ARE SUCCESSFUL MULTITABLING PERIOD. But of course, it doesnt mean that it cant be done.
I read a post about some kid playing 12 tables of no limit in order to play ed miller's short stack strategy. How long will he last?
as far as bayesian processes , our brains, it turns out actually naturally problem solve this way. To train fighter pilots they are shown patterns(formations etc) over and over and gradually the pilots learn to react automatically when they see a particular set-ups.Also adding stress helps to speed the learning curve.They are using these findings in trading and other areas as well. So, what im saying again is that we problem solve using these processes naturally, so beyong the basic math of the game ,we are still using math to make decisions. its simply how we are wired.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.