| I'm going to try again at another poker thread. The poker and soccer threads I've made before weren't too popular, as not many people are interested in these things here it seems. Regardless, I wanted to give this one a bash with a focus on the logic involved in poker game play, but more specifically Texas hold'em. What I've found recently is that this game relies more or less basically on inductive logic. I'd say that the inductive skills of a player is what separates the best from the rest. Induction is, of course, assumption--well, probable assumption. And deductive truths are axiomatic. Formal fallacies only apply to deductive arguments, whilst informal fallacies can be committed when using either type of logic. So you're not going to get that much better at formal logic by playing poker, but poker can really help train your awareness of informal logic. I'd say that both crystalised and fluid intelligence are essential to keep on top of the game. You need a certain level in each anyway. Let me give an example: Someone tells you that you must also consider reverse implied odds (how much you expect to lose if you don't improve your marginal hand in later streets) when you're considering calling a bet because of implied odds (how much you expect to win if you hit your hand in later streets). You might automatically associate reverse implied odds as an inherently negative thing, but that's not the case. Let's put this into context: If someone has a stack size of 40 big blinds when the average stack size at a 6-max table is 100 big blinds, then you're only expecting to lose 40 big blinds should you not improve beyond their most likely range of hands (this is where induction comes into it). Now, this in itself in a 1v1 context, changes nothing. As the implied odds of only winning 40 big blinds counters it. So we'll add a third player into the mix. This third player has 100 big blinds just like you. The action is as follows: Dealing button to seat 4 Seat 5 posts small blind, $0.05 Seat 6 posts big blind, $0.10 Seat 1 is first to act Seat 1 folds Seat 2 (you) raises to $0.30 Seat 3 folds Seat 4 (40 big blinds guy) raises to $0.80 Seat 5 folds Seat 6 calls $0.80 ...And now the action is on us. Seat 4 has been playing very tight the whole game without bluffing, so we now his range is isolated as a premium hand. Were it 1v1, we would fold our 8-8 hand, as we don't have the odds to hit our 3 of a kind and make profit relative to his stack size. I'll expound on that in a bit. But anyway, seat 6 has called and he has 100 big blinds like us. We have been playing quite loose the whole game and seat 6 seems like a solid player. So we assume he doesn't have a premium hand or else he would have re-raised (4 bet) the short stack, as he is more or less pot committed and he has good fold equity (the chances the opponent will fold) against us because of our loose range and seemingly wise enough judgement to make only profitable moves (this assumption that he thinks like this relies on the assumption that we think he is a solid enough player holding true). Also, he knows we are never 4 betting unless we have a premium hand ourselves, as we have practically no fold equity against the short stack. So he's giving himself pre-flop implied odds with an extra $0.50 in the pot from us most of the time when he calls. We justify a call by putting our big stack opponent on a similar or weaker range than us and because we are on position on him. Position usually dictates the flow of a pot in poker as you get to see what action your opponent will choose to do first if you are in position on them. This brings, what was before a situation where 1v1 vs the short stack we would expect to lose money in the long run, into a +EV situation overall against a third opponent involved as well. Did you folks find that interesting at all? Let's discuss poker logic! |
JustaCratMay 3, 2015 8:35 PM
| *snores* |
 |
Claire said: *snores* |
 |
Caligubro said: Claire said: *snores* Sorry, my thoughts about a wall were more interesting. |
 |
| *poker face* too much reading for just gambling |
| CBS- Cards beat stacks PBC- position beats cards SBP- stacks beat position So all in all its a game of rock paper scissors. Interesting read. |
 |
| I quickly became bored of poker when I realised that the margin between good and great players is incredibly tight and mostly absorbed by the house. Anyway a call is justifiable there for if you hit a set but it's a gross situation unless 6 has been calling 3-bets with a reasonably wide range. With the short stack around you aren't likely to win much either without a set vs. overpair. If 6 calls 3-bets with a wider range including hands like 5-5 and 4-4 there's a reasonable chance that you'll actually be the one coming out ahead in a set vs. set situation. Even then, if you don't hit your set on the flop (or an open ended straight draw is by some miracle checked around to the turn) there's not much you can do so it's not great no matter what. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: I quickly became bored of poker when I realised that the margin between good and great players is incredibly tight and mostly absorbed by the house. Anyway a call is justifiable there for if you hit a set but it's a gross situation unless 6 has been calling 3-bets with a reasonably wide range. With the short stack around you aren't likely to win much either without a set vs. overpair. If 6 calls 3-bets with a wider range including hands like 5-5 and 4-4 there's a reasonable chance that you'll actually be the one coming out ahead in a set vs. set situation. Even then, if you don't hit your set on the flop (or an open ended straight draw is by some miracle checked around to the turn) there's not much you can do so it's not great no matter what. Yeah, I guess that true for the information I provided. I just made that one up. I'm sure I've got better examples from my recent hand histories. Playing on Genting poker just now. |
| gambling sounds hard |
| Why don't you just post your PokerTracker logs on Two Plus Two? This isn't logic, and it's impossible to know what to do unless we know who the players are, what they've been playing with, what you've been playing with, what your stack is vs their stack, etc. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Can someone explain OP to me? I feel like I am missing out. |
| Shoot first, think never. |
More topics from this board
» What are some of your favorite animals?DoisacChopper - Feb 10 |
48 |
by perfectlyquiet
»»
50 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you care about your native culture?Kamikaze_404 - Apr 9 |
45 |
by Bruh69XD
»»
51 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Apr 24 |
45 |
by MasterTasuke
»»
58 minutes ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
678 |
by Hitagi__Furude
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Are you going to apologize?LenRea - Mar 25 |
28 |
by Rhaelynne
»»
2 hours ago |