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.