Keeping it simple

[trader77]

Scientist often say that if there is more than one likey explanation for a given phenominon (sp)that you should choose the more simple explanation. Does this same rule apply to poker in all games, certain games, or no games. Any comments?

[SheetWise]

If you are convinced that you have framed the question correctly, yes. In most games, poker in particular, framing the question correctly is the key. Most of the queries I read here are from users incorrectly using third party software and incorrectly defining the question.

BTW- The only thing worse than having bad information is elevating them to conclusions and acting on them.

This applies to ALL games. Frame the question correctly, and put the answer in the proper perspective.

SheetWise

[trader77]

Wow you went way over my head but thanks for the response. Restate in layman terms.

[trader77]

Thanks sheetwise, I read your response again and i think i get the jist of it. I think if i read u correctly u are saying that science can only take us so far?

[noggindoc]

The principle you are referring to is parsimony. And generally, yes, it applies to poker.

[kyleb]

Occam's Razor.

[mindflayer]

Occam's Razor.

This is occam's Razor; the simpler of the two explanations is usually correct, BUT in poker your opponent knows this and can calculate the correct bluffing frequency then you can NOT use the Razor to solve your problems.

In Jodi Foster's movie.. Contact,
they find information to create a space/time travel ship
In foster's mind she goes on an elaborate trip, but to everyone else watching she goes no where ..
the simple answer?? nothing happened and it doesnt work.

guessing why a kid who does not come to school one day..

a) had a cold.. stayed home
b) abducted by aliens experimented on.. broke free.. defeated aliens, saved the universe, learned the secret of intergalatic space travel.. travelled back to earth.

I would go with a)

in poker the razor could be applied to when a player checks/bets/or raises

lets take a raise on the river for example

a) has a hand
b) is bluffing

a) is the more simple explanation, BUT if the player can calculate correct bluffing frequency then a) and b) are in proportion to the pot size/the amount he has to bet/ and your folding frequency.

so If your opponent is a good player, then the EV of both hands are the same (or as close as he can guess, because he has to guess your folding frequency). even though the probability he has a hand is MUCH higher say 9:1.. he has to make you fold roughly 1 in 10 hands to make the bluff worthwhile.

[The Goober]

[ QUOTE ]
This is occam's Razor; the simpler of the two explanations is usually correct

[/ QUOTE ]

The key thing to remember here (as applied to poker) is that usually part. In poker, you shouldn't pick one thing and decide its true, but should find a range of possibilities and associate a probability with each one. Occam's razor can help decide which explanation is most likely, but you shouldn't ignore the other possibilities either.

A good example is when your opponent checks to you on the river. The simplest explanation is that he is weak and doesn't want to bet into you. The more complicated explanation is that he is trying to check-raise. For most opponents, he is more likely to be weak, but even if there is a 25% chance that he's going for a check-raise, you still have to consider the possibility.