Anyone who plays poker has heard the phrase I chose to title this entry one time too many. Anyone obsessed with poker has heard it hundreds of times too many. Its usually uttered after some cretin goes completely against the odds and wins a hand, oftentimes to knock the other player out of a tournament. Which means if you're both a)obsessed with poker and b)play online, you've probably heard it thousands of times too many.
But, while I could think of a multitude of reasons why this phrase should be banned, one would be that its plain WRONG. Those instances where someone beats the odds are not poker. They happen in poker, but they are not the essence of the game. Even though at times it may seem that way.
So I think I figured out what poker is, in the most basic example possible. This is a question posed by donkeytest.com, so I'd like to credit them with the inspiration for this post. But really, I think I did most of the legwork.
Let's say you flip a coin 10 times, and each time it comes up heads. What are the odds the next flip will be tails? Instinct says "really high," reality says 50% because the previous 10 flips have no influence over the current odds. This is the gambler's fallacy. Donkeytest asks this question to see if you understand this. But I think this situation illustrates poker in this way:
What do you do in this situation if you can place a bet on the next flip?
Choice A is that you can place a bet on either side to come, and win 50% of the time, breaking even in the long-run. This is more or less blackjack, if you're playing correctly (I know, I know, the house technically has a 2% edge in blackjack, even if you play perfectly).
Choice B is that you find out if the guy you're betting with is under the influence of the gambler's fallacy. You say, essentially, "Man, I know that next flip's going to be tails, but if you give me 2:1 odds on it I'll take heads." To re-iterate a phrase, 'That's poker.'
Are you guaranteeing yourself victory on the next flip? Absolutely not. In fact, you haven't increased your chances of victory in any way. But you've increased the rewards for victory, and that's what matters in the long-run. Is this a perfect definition of poker? No, but its close. If your opponent is not influenced by the fallacy, you run your 50:50 odds with him, break even, and move on to the next guy. If no one is influenced by the gambler's fallacy, you have to talk some more game, like maybe point out flaws in the coin which might make it more likely to come out tails(see also: bluff). If you want to win big in this scenario, though, you need to find that guy, even if its only one, who believes that next flip just has to be tails and has deep pockets.(see also: plays like crap and is willing to rebuy).
There are three types of people in this world:
1)Those who say "If I'm not increasing my odds, I'm not wasting my money." The good ones here are cheap, the bad ones are cheats.
2)Those who say "Isn't that hustling the guy who doesn't get it?" The good ones here are charitable, the bad ones are liberals.
3)Poker players, who say "I get it, when can I start?" The good ones here are rich, the bad ones move to choice 1 or 2.
You see, poker players tell each other 'good luck,' but only the bad ones are talking about having cards fall their way. The good ones know that 'good luck' means finding that guy with a nasty gambler's fallacy and deep pockets.
That's poker, kids, and if you still want to play I'll see you at the tables.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think it's interesting how drastically the game of poker (I BARELY KNOW HER) changes when you play for fun and don't bet anything. Like I used to play when I was like five. It's totally different. I imagine that a game-theoretic analysis of poker considers the question of "perfect playing" (all players know the rules and play the game in the best possible way given the odds) is a non-trivial one, since a lot of the "skill" has to do with balancing odds, wagers, and individual characteristics to come up with an objective best play at any time, and the difference between players is largely that ability. And you can't really quantify things like other players' tells and tics, and even if you could, there's a significant amount of risk-taking and wagering that goes on that might be against the "best" plan but still works out in the end. In any case, I think I'll stick to the bar.
In my mind, poker is the best game ever because it balances pure statistical phenomena with human nature in a very realistic way. Like in chess, the differences between average and very good players are so subtle that they can only be observed over many hours of game play. Unlike chess, there are no stalemates.
I don't think I'm a particularly great poker player, but I do know that I play better poker around better players. Semi-ironically, a very good poker player can be a very easy player to bluff, because they're able to read your betting patterns and all you have to do is make your bluff look realistic. (Ken, you did this with a $5,000 cash bet on the river to Daniel Negreanu on "Poker After Dark" earlier this year.) To me, that's the epitome of what makes poker fun (and frustrating). Nobody is immune to the ass-end of the game; everyone can grab a taste of its glory.
Post a Comment