July 28, 2013

The new science of poker playing.

"This growth over the past decade has been accompanied by a profound change in how the game is played. Concepts from the branch of mathematics known as game theory have inspired new ideas in poker strategy and new advice for ordinary players."

9 comments:

Mark O said...

Don't call my bluff.

Ooops. Did I just admit I'm bluffing?

roger said...

" Poker theorist David Sklansky once wrote that you should consider yourself a winner as long as you had the higher probability of winning the hand when all the money went into the pot. This attitude is consistent with the underlying mathematical reality of poker, and it can smooth out your emotional reactions to losses and wins. What matters is the quality of your decisions, not the results that come from them."

I play a lot of chess. It makes me wonder why I accept the notion of chess theory without hesitation, but recoil at the thought of "poker theory" As if poker is/were a lesser game.

GrandpaMark said...

If you cannot spot the loser at the table, it is you

roger said...

The reason being that poker is the lesser game.

Beldar said...

bonk-bonk-bonk —

Is this thing on?

So as not to just be making a comment about comments:

This article interested me not just as a poker player but as a trial lawyer.

Ann Althouse said...

I accidentally left the comments display available, and some comments came in, so I published them.

What have we learned?

Unknown said...

"Poker theorist David Sklansky once wrote that you should consider yourself a winner as long as you had the higher probability of winning the hand when all the money went into the pot."

Poker theorist David Sklansky needs to study the Kelly criterion.

roger said...

We have learned that poker is no match for the eloquence, art and beauty of chess.

Kirk said...

That you're the master of your fate? And you and your and your husband should be in Vegas?