Who's better at playing poker on average?

[kramer733]

A person with a masters in probabliity and or statistics. Or a physicist who specializes in string theory?

 

[DR13]

A person with a masters in probabliity and or statistics. Or a physicist who specializes in string theory?

All things being equal (ie poker face, ability to read opponent) the masters in prob and stats will be better.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is this in the Academic Guidance forum?

Are you set on being a pro poker player and simply want to know what career will be best as your mild-mannered secret identity?

 

[JaredJames]

I'd go with someone with a good memory.

Card counting style. Don't need to know much stats. Just need to be able to remember what has come out and what hasn't been shown yet and then be able to make a rough judgement about what others may have.

Just because you have a masters in the above mentioned subjects, doesn't make you good at the mental arithmetic. I'd say processing the large amount of data simultaneously on-the-fly during a poker game with the pressure on you at that time comes down to the individual and isn't a given ability by simply having that degree.

Personally I see poker as a game of luck more than anything. It takes a lot of effort to start working the odds, particularly in your head. I don't think many poker players are capable of doing such calculations themselves and are more likely to be able to recognise good/bad hands etc. If you watch them play they just weigh up whether or not they think they have a good hand and how the others respond (do they bet? do they react to your own bet? and so on).

 

[DR13]

I'd go with someone with a good memory.

Card counting style. Don't need to know much stats. Just need to be able to remember what has come out and what hasn't been shown yet and then be able to make a rough judgement about what others may have.

Just because you have a masters in the above mentioned subjects, doesn't make you good at the mental arithmetic. I'd say processing the large amount of data simultaneously on-the-fly during a poker game with the pressure on you at that time comes down to the individual and isn't a given ability by simply having that degree.

Personally I see poker as a game of luck more than anything. It takes a lot of effort to start working the odds, particularly in your head. I don't think many poker players are capable of doing such calculations themselves and are more likely to be able to recognise good/bad hands etc. If you watch them play they just weigh up whether or not they think they have a good hand and how the others respond (do they bet? do they react to your own bet? and so on).

He is talking about poker. You cannot card count in poker. The cards go back in the deck after every hand. And I don't think you watch much poker if you think that it is luck. To steal a quote from the movie Rounders, "Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker EVERY YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?" The guys who are good can do the odds calculations. They know their hand, read the other guys, then can do the math. They then compare the pot odds to the odds they win. The best players are like human calculators and good at reading others.

 

[JaredJames]

He is talking about poker. You cannot card count in poker. The cards go back in the deck after every hand. And I don't think you watch much poker if you think that it is luck. To steal a quote from the movie Rounders, "Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker EVERY YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?" The guys who are good can do the odds calculations. They know their hand, read the other guys, then can do the math. They then compare the pot odds to the odds they win. The best players are like human calculators and good at reading others.

I was under the impression they didn't re-shuffle after each hand. If not, then I'll retract the counting issue.

However, as I said in my previous post I think it comes down to recognising good or bad hands and they can judge reactions. I've seen all those late night poker shows and it always comes down to two or three people who have "good" hands. Those hands are obvious to me that they are preferable and it doesn't take much to realize this.

To be a good poker player, personally I see it as being good at masking your own reactions (your poker face), noticing reactions (however small) of other players and recognising if your hand is fairly good and worth betting on. So far, I've seen nothing from professionals that make me believe otherwise. I've routinely watched them bet on hands which the computer (and commentators reaction) is showing as a poor hand.

http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Makes-a-Good-Poker-Player?&id=103449

I'm only posting this as I think it outlines what I feel. Not saying its proof or anything, just that it doesn't say you need to be a human calculator and I don't think that is an important factor (although no doubt it can help).

So what if the same five people make it there each year? Just means they're the best at what they do.

 

[disregardthat]

Having master in probability or statistics is hardly an advantage. They would have the same potential as anyone of becoming a good poker player. Being able to do quick and easy calculations and being aware of the importance of the expectancy value of your game (which requires no college education) is common for all good poker players.

I don't see what string theory has to do with this.

 

[DR13]

I was under the impression they didn't re-shuffle after each hand. If not, then I'll retract the counting issue.

However, as I said in my previous post I think it comes down to recognising good or bad hands and they can judge reactions. I've seen all those late night poker shows and it always comes down to two or three people who have "good" hands. Those hands are obvious to me that they are preferable and it doesn't take much to realize this.

To be a good poker player, personally I see it as being good at masking your own reactions (your poker face), noticing reactions (however small) of other players and recognising if your hand is fairly good and worth betting on. So far, I've seen nothing from professionals that make me believe otherwise. I've routinely watched them bet on hands which the computer (and commentators reaction) is showing as a poor hand.

http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Makes-a-Good-Poker-Player?&id=103449

I'm only posting this as I think it outlines what I feel. Not saying its proof or anything, just that it doesn't say you need to be a human calculator and I don't think that is an important factor (although no doubt it can help).

So what if the same five people make it there each year? Just means they're the best at what they do.

Oh yeah. Poker for sure is a lot of reading people, poker face, and guts (and some luck). But one cannot ignore the mathematical element. This is especially prevelent in online poker where literally all one can do is play the odds.

 

[JaredJames]

Oh yeah. Poker for sure is a lot of reading people, poker face, and guts (and some luck). But one cannot ignore the mathematical element. This is especially prevelent in online poker where literally all one can do is play the odds.

If by that you mean deciding whether your pair of twos is worth taking a risk with, then yes, I agree. But I don't see much in the way of 'maths' going on. It's an educated gues at best, based on what you're holding.

"Is my hand worth betting on or not?". No more to it than that (obvious player reading and guts aside).

 

[Gokul43201]

A person with a masters in probabliity and or statistics. Or a physicist who specializes in string theory?

There was something on NPR yesterday about a string theorist poker player. I missed most of it, but I guess it's what spurred this question. Can you tell us what it said?

 

[Anonymous217]

If by that you mean deciding whether your pair of twos is worth taking a risk with, then yes, I agree. But I don't see much in the way of 'maths' going on. It's an educated gues at best, based on what you're holding.

"Is my hand worth betting on or not?". No more to it than that (obvious player reading and guts aside).

I think you have a limited knowledge of poker. You have to take in for account pot odds and etc. For example, if you have a crap hand that has a 1% chance of winning in a 1 on 1 and person goes all-in with 50 more chips while there are 1000000000000 chips in the pot, obviously you should call simply because of pot odds. That is, the 50 chips you pay is a very small fee compared to your potential earnings, even if you would probably lose. Obviously, this is an exaggeration but you can see how this comes into play as the numbers are closer and it's all based on how you view your chances on winning are (factors which include reading hands, what can come up on the river, etc.).
What can come up on the river is also important. If you can recognize someone's hand, and you know what specific cards you need to win, you can calculate a more accurate probability of winning for you which comes into play for pot odds.

 

[JaredJames]

Naturally, I understand all of that, however for the pot to get to a stage such as that you (with your crap hand) would have had to have been bluffing and you could easily argue that 50 more isn't that much of a risk if you also believe the opponent to be.

 

[Galteeth]

I would love to have you all at my next poker game.

 

[alt]

The best poker player is he who can;

- Read his opponent the best
- Bluff the best

That's it, IMO !

 

[JaredJames]

The best poker player is he who can;

- Read his opponent the best
- Bluff the best

That's it, IMO !

Precisely.

 

[turbo]

@OP: You left out one important skill-set. Retired sheet metal mechanic. My father is 84 and he is a pretty consistent winner at the poker table. His group meets once a week, and all their games are bet in increments of a quarter, so minimum antes, bets, and raises are all 25 cents and can be much higher, depending on how the dealer calls the game. He saves his quarters in coffee cans and he weighs them to determine how well he did. Periodically, he takes a few cans to the bank and has them machine-counted and deposited.

He'd probably love to have a string theorist or a statistician sit in, so he could get a chance at separating them from their money.

 

[Dembadon]

A person with a masters in probabliity and or statistics. Or a physicist who specializes in string theory?

In my opinion, their degrees are irrelevant.

Which one plays more often? How many games has each of them played up to this point, and at what level were those games played? Does either of them have any uncontrollable issues that arise when they get nervous or feel pressured (i.e. sweating profusely, nervous "twitch", biting nails, fidgeting, etc.)?

In other words, there are elements that play a much bigger role in success than one's field of study.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A person with a masters in probabliity and or statistics. Or a physicist who specializes in string theory?

I'm nor sure whether someone with a masters in probablility would do better or worse than someone with a masters in statistics. But someone with a masters in probability and statistics would do better than either one of those. When you say "a physicist who specializes in string theory", I have to assume that you mean someone with a masters in physics. It wouldn't be fair to compare a masters with a phd, or a masters with a bachelors right? Physics is about as difficult as probability or statistics, but I might lean toward the person who had both probability and statistics. However, the specialization in string theory part is the key here. Ed Witten said:

String theory is poker.

And he's right. Consider, for instance, 26 dimensionial bosonic string theory. That's a full house if ever I heard of one. And what about supersymmetry? That gives the physicist the edge with red cards (fermions) and black cards (bosons). There are open strings which represent face cards and closed strings for rank cards. What is the standard model on intersecting D6-branes if not a royal flush?

 

[caljuice]

Well I'd say school is irrevelent to poker, it requires a different mind set. But i'd say master in probability because it' has concepts that can apply to poker. A physicist I think will be more result oriented, making him less suitable.

 

[Evo]

A person with a masters in probabliity and or statistics. Or a physicist who specializes in string theory?

They'd both probably be bad since poker is in a great part psychological. You can win with nothing in your hand, it's not about the cards you hold as much as it is about psyching out those with better hands. Math doesn't work in poker. You don't see what anyone has until the end. You don't have any idea what has been dealt or what is in the deck. There is nothing to calculate or memorize.

 

[loseyourname]

I've seen quantitative analytical methods applied to poker, but they're not that advanced, certainly not master's level. High school algebra will suffice as a pre-req if you want to seriously study the expected values of different combinations of hands and bets.

You can learn to beat a computer pretty easily doing this. But playing the strategy of only laying a bet when there's a good chance you'll come out with a hand that has a low chance of being beat doesn't work so well when the other players realize you're doing that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Math doesn't work in poker. You don't see what anyone has until the end. You don't have any idea what has been dealt or what is in the deck. There is nothing to calculate or memorize.

Math works quite well in poker from what I understand. Though as LYN points out the math isn't exactly all that complex. Hold Em is the more popular game and math is probably more usable here than in most other types of poker. Though you may not be able to see your opponents hands until the end you can see the "community cards" and determine the likelihood that your hand (based on those cards) will beat any other hand (based on those cards). The variables are limited to the 52 card deck. You know what you have and what is on the table. There are other variables to take into account as well such as the number of people playing, how many have bet, how many have called, and how many have folded. If you are at a table with nine people and you are the first to bet you are going to need a stronger hand than if most everyone has folded and there is only you and two other people. Even bluffs and "psychological" plays need to be backed up by math. A crap hand is a crap hand no matter how you play it. Despite what you see in the movies your most common "bluff" is what I call a "soft bluff", the person has decent cards but there are too many people in on the hand so they bet high to get people to fold and increase their chances of winning. The "hard bluff", or "I don't have **** but I am going to bet high anyway", is silly hollywood BS. People who do this are usually either desperate or stupid. You can not play a purely psychological game, you will either get bit by the numbers or the players will see what you are doing and respond accordingly and then you will get bit by the numbers.

 

[Evo]

Math works quite well in poker from what I understand. Though as LYN points out the math isn't exactly all that complex. Hold Em is the more popular game and math is probably more usable here than in most other types of poker. Though you may not be able to see your opponents hands until the end you can see the "community cards" and determine the likelihood that your hand (based on those cards) will beat any other hand (based on those cards). The variables are limited to the 52 card deck. You know what you have and what is on the table. There are other variables to take into account as well such as the number of people playing, how many have bet, how many have called, and how many have folded. If you are at a table with nine people and you are the first to bet you are going to need a stronger hand than if most everyone has folded and there is only you and two other people. Even bluffs and "psychological" plays need to be backed up by math. A crap hand is a crap hand no matter how you play it. Despite what you see in the movies your most common "bluff" is what I call a "soft bluff", the person has decent cards but there are too many people in on the hand so they bet high to get people to fold and increase their chances of winning. The "hard bluff", or "I don't have **** but I am going to bet high anyway", is silly hollywood BS. People who do this are usually either desperate or stupid. You can not play a purely psychological game, you will either get bit by the numbers or the players will see what you are doing and respond accordingly.

Math can't tell if the person across from you has a pair of Jacks one a club and one a heart, the other 3 cards are clubs. He decides to discard one of the Jacks hoping to get another club and end up with a flush. Or maybe he holds onto the Jacks and discards the three clubs, he might get 3 of a kind, 4 of a kind, or a full house. Maybe he ends up with nothing. Maybe he just holds onto the pair and does nothing. You're going to tell me that math can predict what the opponent is going to do as well? Multiply that by the number of players.

 

[JaredJames]

Math can't tell if the person across from you has a pair of Jacks one a club and one a heart, the other 3 cards are clubs. He decides to discard one of the Jacks hoping to get another club and end up with a flush. Or maybe he holds onto the Jacks and discards the three clubs, he might get 3 of a kind, 4 of a kind, or a full house. Maybe he ends up with nothing. Maybe he just holds onto the pair and does nothing. You're going to tell me that math can predict what the opponent is going to do as well? Multiply that by the number of players.

Exactly, the key is psychology. Bluffing your opponents and if you're really good leading them to believe you are going to do something your not (fake a tell that they'll recognise and use it to your advantage).

From what I've seen on the TV games, the majority of betting occurs during the first deal. Where there are no community cards on the table. Most fold, two or three will stay in and bet. Eventually, assuming no one goes all in, then they go for the community cards and bet on them.
A good player will have a rough idea about the strength of the other players cards based on how they bet initially, although as I said above, a good poker player will use this to his advantage and 'bluff' it.

 

[D H]

I've routinely watched them bet on hands which the computer (and commentators reaction) is showing as a poor hand.

Yeah, it's called a bluff. If you can't pull off a bluff you cannot be a good poker player.

 

[FredericGos]

This is a funny thread. But alas, it's a pretty good example of why most people think that poker is gambling.

All of you stating that math doesn't help in poker are so wrong. Poker is a game of probability and combinatorics. Especially online. Period. The fact is that if you continuously make +EV decision in poker, you end up winning money. In the long run.

In each situation, you can calculate the EXACT probability of 'making your hand' (whatever hand that is). You can also calculate the probability of your opponent making a better hand. Given that, and the pot odds you are laid, you can calculate the EV of each of your possible moves. Hence, if you allways do this correctly, you win money. The fact that this can be very hard to do isn't relevant. It's possible, and the better players are better at it. They treat the game statistically and stay on the +EV side.

So, before making rather stupid comments on math and poker, I would advise you to actually study the damn game and figure out WHY people say it's a game of skills. Math skills.

And btw, I thought that this forum didn't allow personal theories and speculation? ;)

 

[JaredJames]

Yeah, it's called a bluff. If you can't pull off a bluff you cannot be a good poker player.

Precisely.

 

[Evo]

This is a funny thread. But alas, it's a pretty good example of why most people think that poker is gambling.

All of you stating that math doesn't help in poker are so wrong. Poker is a game of probability and combinatorics. Especially online. Period. The fact is that if you continuously make +EV decision in poker, you end up winning money. In the long run.

In each situation, you can calculate the EXACT probability of 'making your hand' (whatever hand that is). You can also calculate the probability of your opponent making a better hand. Given that, and the pot odds you are laid, you can calculate the EV of each of your possible moves. Hence, if you allways do this correctly, you win money. The fact that this can be very hard to do isn't relevant. It's possible, and the better players are better at it. They treat the game statistically and stay on the +EV side.

So, before making rather stupid comments on math and poker, I would advise you to actually study the damn game and figure out WHY people say it's a game of skills. Math skills.

And btw, I thought that this forum didn't allow personal theories and speculation? ;)

Ok, prove it. I have a poker hand. And I dealt you a hand. You have a pair of 3's, a 2 of spades, a 10 of hearts and a 6 of hearts. What do I have? It's just the two of us playing to make it as simple as possible.

And we're assuming we've already either drawn or held.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Ok, prove it. I have a poker hand. And I dealt you a hand. You have a pair of 3's, a 2 of spades, a 10 of hearts and a 6 of hearts. What do I have? It's just the two of us playing to make it as simple as possible.

I have a royal flush, all spades. I win.

 

[Evo]

I have a royal flush, all spades. I win.

Cheater.

 

[JaredJames]

Cheater.

Nope, that would be me and my five aces!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Math can't tell if the person across from you has a pair of Jacks one a club and one a heart, the other 3 cards are clubs. He decides to discard one of the Jacks hoping to get another club and end up with a flush. Or maybe he holds onto the Jacks and discards the three clubs, he might get 3 of a kind, 4 of a kind, or a full house. Maybe he ends up with nothing. Maybe he just holds onto the pair and does nothing. You're going to tell me that math can predict what the opponent is going to do as well? Multiply that by the number of players.

That is draw poker. The current most popular form of poker is Texas Hold'em where there is no discard and draw and you have visible "community cards". Most forms of poker, that I know of, involve visible cards and do not have any discard. Just going by my own experience with "serious" card players any game involving discards (and especially wild cards) is considered a kid/sissy/sucker game for the simple fact that strategy goes completely out the window.

Exactly, the key is psychology. Bluffing your opponents and if you're really good leading them to believe you are going to do something your not (fake a tell that they'll recognise and use it to your advantage).

From what I've seen on the TV games, the majority of betting occurs during the first deal. Where there are no community cards on the table. Most fold, two or three will stay in and bet. Eventually, assuming no one goes all in, then they go for the community cards and bet on them.
A good player will have a rough idea about the strength of the other players cards based on how they bet initially, although as I said above, a good poker player will use this to his advantage and 'bluff' it.

As I already noted you can not bluff well without the numbers to back you up. You mention games you see on TV (note that they show only the "good" or "exciting" hands on TV) and how the betting usually weddles the players down to just a few before the flop. There is math involved here as well. For instance a pair of twos is not a very good hand. If you are the first of nine to bet you may well fold them because if you pay attention to the numbers you are much less likely to win with those cards against eight potential opponents. But if everyone else has folded and there are only two other players in the hand still you are much more likely to play them since you only have two other hands to worry about. Basically, if you watch what's going on, you'll see that most any player that is first up with 6-8 other players at the table will not bet unless they have a fairly big hand and if first up does bet most anyone else in the way will fold unless they have something impressive.

 

[Evo]

The OP didn't state which game or confine it to a casino, and I do believe that 5 card draw is probably the most widely played game over all. The games where you can see part of a player's hand makes it much easier, IMO.

 

[D H]

This is a funny thread. But alas, it's a pretty good example of why most people think that poker is gambling.

All of you stating that math doesn't help in poker are so wrong.

You are creating a straw man because nobody has said that.

In each situation, you can calculate the EXACT probability of 'making your hand' (whatever hand that is).

No, you can't, for the simple reason that you do not know which cards have been face down to the other players. Suppose you are dealt a pair of aces. If two other players were each dealt an ace, your probability of improving your pair with another ace or two is exactly zero -- and that is hidden information that hopefully you cannot know. (Hopefully because there have been online scams where the hidden information has been made available to some select players.)

The best you can do is to come up with a best guess regarding the odds of improving your hand. If you can read people regarding what they have hidden in their hole cards you have vastly increased the likelihood that you will win at poker. If you can't read people your odds of being a winner go way down.

You can also calculate the probability of your opponent making a better hand.

No, you can't, assuming you do not know what their hole cards are.

Suppose you have a pair of aces in the hole and you bet first. A few people stay into see the flop (a deuce), only one other stays to see the turn (also a deuce). You have two pair, guaranteed. After you check or bet, the other person goes all in. Are you going to call because the odds of him beating your two pair is small?

What if you noticed him getting a bit fidgety after the flop, and then after the second deuce showed up you noticed that his face changed to some weird shade of red, his eyebrows start twitching, his hands got all shaky, and he immediately started counting his chips? What if you know from experience that is one of those mathematically skilled but socially inept players who never bluffs? Are you still going to call, or you going just walk away because he has advertised to anyone with skills that he has a pair of deuces in the hole?

A top-notch poker is mathematically skilled, socially aware, and occasionally bets on absolute garbage.

 

[Evo]

A top-notch poker is mathematically skilled, socially aware, and occasionally bets on absolute garbage.

Best post in the entire thread.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If you play by the numbers without psychology, you will not do well. The reason is that what counts is not the number of hands you win, it's the amount of money you win. Part of the game is when you have a good hand and you know it, you don't show it. That way you rope the other players into betting more money than they otherwise would do.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The OP didn't state which game or confine it to a casino, and I do believe that 5 card draw is probably the most widely played game over all. The games where you can see part of a player's hand makes it much easier, IMO.

I'm not sure on that any more. Just about anywhere you go you will find hold'em even in the video bar games along with mahjong and tictactoe. Regardless, the point really is that there is strategy to poker. It may be more or less complex or reliable depending on what version you are playing but it exists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you play by the numbers without psychology, you will not do well. The reason is that what counts is not the number of hands you win, it's the amount of money you win. Part of the game is when you have a good hand and you know it, you don't show it. That way you rope the other players into betting more money than they otherwise would do.

Theoretically if you play strictly by the numbers you will almost always come out ahead. The problem apparently is that the win is not very large or dramatic and good players will know how to use it against you.

 

[Evo]

I'm not sure on that any more. Just about anywhere you go you will find hold'em even in the video bar games along with mahjong and tictactoe. Regardless, the point really is that there is strategy to poker. It may be more or less complex or reliable depending on what version you are playing but it exists.

I definitely agree.

 

[D H]

Theoretically if you play strictly by the numbers you will almost always come out ahead.

Only if you are playing with a bunch of potzers. If you and all of your opponents are equally skilled mathematically and only play per the mathematical odds, you will almost always come out slightly behind (there is the vig to pay at a casino, or in a game amongst friends, the beer to be brought and left behind). If you and all of your opponents are equally skilled mathematically but some of you are socially inept but others have the politician's skills of lying and reading people, the socially inept ones will end up going home much poorer.

 

[FredericGos]

You are creating a straw man because nobody has said that.

Yes, the statement 'Math doesn't work in poker' seems to indicate that.

No, you can't, for the simple reason that you do not know which cards have been face down to the other players. Suppose you are dealt a pair of aces. If two other players were each dealt an ace, your probability of improving your pair with another ace or two is exactly zero -- and that is hidden information that hopefully you cannot know. (Hopefully because there have been online scams where the hidden information has been made available to some select players.)

Yes, you can. The holdings of your opponent is irrelevant to the calculation. You only deal with the cards you have seen. In holdem, the 2 cards in your hand and the 3 cards on the table (on the flop). That's 5 out of 52. So if you have say 2 hearts, and the table has 2 hearts and a spade, the probability of the next card being a heart is 9/47 = 0.19 etc.

You just make the classical mistake any poker players makes in the beginning by even thinking what your opponent might hold. It doesn't matter.

No, you can't, assuming you do not know what their hole cards are.

Suppose you have a pair of aces in the hole and you bet first. A few people stay into see the flop (a deuce), only one other stays to see the turn (also a deuce). You have two pair, guaranteed. After you check or bet, the other person goes all in. Are you going to call because the odds of him beating your two pair is small?

Fist of all yes you can. And secondly, maybe i'll call, your example depends on how much he bets compares to the size of the pot, so i don't know the answer.

You can put you opponent on a weighted range of hands he might hold and use that to calculate the probability he beats you. It's done all the time. It's hard yes, but it's done.
Maybe the word EXACT in my post was a bit misguiding. But given enough samples, we get there.

A top-notch poker is mathematically skilled, socially aware, and occasionally bets on absolute garbage.

Of course. He calculates his bluffing frequency based on his opponents tendencies. All done with statistics, probability and combinatorics.

You seem to misunderstand that I'm treating this game statistically. We are not talking about a single hand and how we might 'know' what he holds. Of course we can't. But we can statistically infer a lot. Especially when we need to calculate our EV in specific situations.

Now, It must be said that these calculations can be very difficult, and the more complicated one are not done at the table. Especially when using ranges. That's why good players will go over their played hands one by one after playing a session and 'do the math' on each hand. This way they train their brain to recognize situations and learn tricks to estimate their EV at the table.

The social aspect (tells) play a minor part in modern poker between professionals. They are all VERY good at disguising their holding. Look at a guy like fergusson. He excells at keeping the same posture and making the excact same gestures everytime, regardsless of his holdings.

And lastl. Don't make the mistake to think that poker shows can tell you much. First of all, they are SHOWS and these guys get paid to gamble, because that's what people want to see on TV, big bluffs etc. It's not the way it works.

Shows like the early levels of the WSOP main event are much more accurate. But then again, these are filled with bad players so you can't infer much there either.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Yeah, it's called a bluff. If you can't pull off a bluff you cannot be a good poker player.

Supposedly Von Neuman (the inventor of much of game theory) was a terrible poker player and the other physicists regularly took money off him because he never understood this and always played the logically perfect bet for the hand he held.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, you can. The holdings of your opponent is irrelevant to the calculation. You only deal with the cards you have seen. In holdem, the 2 cards in your hand and the 3 cards on the table (on the flop). That's 5 out of 52. So if you have say 2 hearts, and the table has 2 hearts and a spade, the probability of the next card being a heart is 9/47 = 0.19 etc.

I diagree, the odds can't be 9/47 (I'm not too sharp on probability so correct me here if I'm wrong). The opponent has 2 cards therefore the odds are dependent on what they have.

If they do not hold a heart then the odds of one coming out are 9/45, if they do hold a heart the odds of one coming out are 8/45. Adjust the odds dependent on the number of players and number of hearts held.

You have to include their hand or the maths doesn't work. 9/47 is simply stating that out of the 47 cards you don't have, there are 9 left and if you were to draw from all 47 there is a 9/47 chance you get a heart.

If you have five players, and you have 2 hearts and there's 2 on the table, you could assume that they don't have any and say there is a 9/39 chance of a heart being drawn. It could very well be that each of the other players has a heart which means the real odds of one being drawn are 5/39, which is quite a bit lower.

Probability might be able to give you a rough estimate, but when it comes down to it you have 2 cards per other player that are effectively out of the game and therefore do have an impact on your predicitons.

 

[FredericGos]

I diagree, the odds can't be 9/47 (I'm not too sharp on probability so correct me here if I'm wrong).

Disagree all you will but it's the way it's calculated. :) I once read somewhere (and the math behind) that it actually doesn't matter if you consider your opponent's holdings or not in this calculation. you will get the same result. Something to do with the fact that if you consider your opponents holdings, that too becomes a probability and it all cancels etc. I tried to find that article but could not.

Anyway, that's the way it's calculated in every book, article and what not. It's easy to lookup if you don't believe me :)

You can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability_(Texas_hold_'em)

 

[DaveC426913]

I diagree, the odds can't be 9/47 (I'm not too sharp on probability so correct me here if I'm wrong). The opponent has 2 cards therefore the odds are dependent on what they have.

No. In this limited sense, Fred is right. It does not matter what your opponent has. If you see 5 cards, then there are 47 cards unexposed. Those 47 cards do not have faces until you see them. They may be in the deck, they may be in another player's hand, but it has no effect on how you play.

 

[JaredJames]

No. In this limited sense, Fred is right. It does not matter what your opponent has. If you see 5 cards, then there are 47 cards unexposed. Those 47 cards do not have faces until you see them. They may be in the deck, they may be in another player's hand, but it has no effect on how you play.

I don't see it. Not saying you're wrong, just don't understand it.

If there are 47 cards left, I agree that there is a 9/47 chance of a heart coming out. But, there aren't 47 cards left. There's 45 (assuming one opponent). You can't select from the opponents hand so there are three available sets of odds here:

1) Opponent does not have a heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 9/45
2) Opponent has one heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 8/45
3) Opponent is doctor who, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 7/45

So the odds of a heart coming out of the remaining deck decrease depending on your opponents hand.

Like I said, not too good at probability.

It's like having a bag with 5 red balls and 5 blue balls. To win you must select a blue ball. Now the odds are 5/10 that you choose a blue ball.
Someone takes two randomly and doesn't show you. Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean the odds of you getting a blue when you stick your hand in haven't changed.
It's either 5/8, 4/8 or 3/8 depending on what they have taken. The odds go from being in your favour to against you.

Or is this difference just too insignificant in cards to matter? I suppose you could play it safe and go with 4/8 and get a rough answer for the above.

 

[Evo]

I don't see it. Not saying you're wrong, just don't understand it.

If there are 47 cards left, I agree that there is a 9/47 chance of a heart coming out. But, there aren't 47 cards left. There's 45 (assuming one opponent). You can't select from the opponents hand so there are three available sets of odds here:

1) Opponent does not have a heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 9/45
2) Opponent has one heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 8/45
3) Opponent is doctor who, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 7/45

So the odds of a heart coming out of the remaining deck decrease depending on your opponents hand.

Like I said, not too good at probability.

It's like having a bag with 5 red balls and 5 blue balls. To win you must select a blue ball. Now the odds are 5/10 or that you choose a blue ball.
Someone takes two randomly and doesn't show you. Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean the odds of you getting a blue when you stick your hand in haven't changed.
It's either 5/8, 4/8 or 3/8 depending on what they have taken. The odds go from being in your favour to against you.

Or is this difference just too insignificant in cards to matter?

Not all of those 47 cards are playable either, the top card is discarded (burned) each time the dealer deals.

http://boardgames.about.com/cs/poker/a/texas_rules.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see it. Not saying you're wrong, just don't understand it.

If there are 47 cards left, I agree that there is a 9/47 chance of a heart coming out. But, there aren't 47 cards left. There's 45 (assuming one opponent). You can't select from the opponents hand so there are three available sets of odds here:

1) Opponent does not have a heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 9/45
2) Opponent has one heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 8/45
3) Opponent is doctor who, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 7/45

So the odds of a heart coming out of the remaining deck decrease depending on your opponents hand.

And since you make your calculations without seeing your opponent's hand, the probability of what he might or might not have is irrelevant to your calculation. The probability of you turning up any given card is simply 1/the number of cards you have not seen; it does not matter where those cards are.


Reduce it to 4 cards: 2 red, 2 black. Your objective is to get a "flush" of two cards.

You are each dealt 1 card; you turn up a black card.
There are 3 cards you have not seen: 2 in the deck, 1 in your opponent's hand.

What are the chances that the next card you are dealt will be black? They are 1-in-3.

 

[FredericGos]

Not all of those 47 cards are playable either, the top card is discarded (burned) each time the dealer deals.

Which doesn't matter either because no one sees it.

Look, I had a pretty hard time grasping this myself a couple of years ago and I don't blame you. Intuitively, we think we should consider this, but I assure you it's done this way for a reason that eludes me right now. I'll try to find that article which explains why pretty convincingly.

The only thing that matters is the number of cards we have seen. It could be a pot with 5 players in it, the calculation is the same.

 

[Evo]

Which doesn't matter either because no one sees it.

You're right, they aren't going to played, I'm tired.