" 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.
"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.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
9 comments:
Don't call my bluff.
Ooops. Did I just admit I'm bluffing?
" 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.
If you cannot spot the loser at the table, it is you
The reason being that poker is the lesser game.
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.
I accidentally left the comments display available, and some comments came in, so I published them.
What have we learned?
"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.
We have learned that poker is no match for the eloquence, art and beauty of chess.
That you're the master of your fate? And you and your and your husband should be in Vegas?
Post a Comment