|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd have to say that the amount of expert commentary on poker delivered from non expert poker players is non existent. Much in the same way I could not pretend to comment on a grand master level chess match, I do not think people who are not great players can comment adequately or truly understand what is going on at really high stakes games. When coming up with this analogy I thought to myself "Wow dani, great thought. now... are there any flaws to it?" And I soon realized that an easy counter analogy is professional sports. I of course play armchair quarterback and criticize decisions made by sports coaches, especially Tom Coughlin and Kevin Gilbride. But they are trained professionals! Super bowl winners! How can I pretend to pass judgment on their wisdom? I haven't fully been able to answer why that isn't valid, but I am mostly sure of a few reasons. For the sake of the simplicity of the analogy, I will stick to only the criticism of decision making in sports, and not the criticism of players athletic abilities. 1) Much of poker decision making is intangible. We do not know what players are thinking when they make a decision. Given that poker is a game of incomplete information, and one in which the best players will have the most of that information, and the rail birds quite often the least, it seems silly for an observer to pass judgment on a situation he is fairly ignorant about. For example, you see Phil Galfond call a river bet from Gus Hanson with 4th pair, and you think "gee, what an idiot." Surely there is more to it than that, and if he makes that call and is right say, 50% of the time, he is turning a clear profit. Poker decision making is based on a long term show of results, not just individual hands. One hand does not show the true profitability of even that hand itself. 2) Variance. I don't really know if any explanation is needed with this, but obviously what you see in terms of poker results is not a direct correlation to performance. There is a varying amount of variance in different professional sports, but the amount is negligible compared to poker. For example, Whitelime is down about a million dollars on highstakesdb. Ask anybody who plays higher than 10/20 if he's got any game. (and even if you found one of his detractors, it's just an example, the point is still there) 3) There is far more access to high level analysis of sports than poker. Even with Pokersavvy and Cardrunners and all the other training sites, there still is not a comparable amount of high level analysis on a daily basis of the highest level of poker going on. And no, I don't count Gabe Kaplan's HSP commentary as a regular dose of high quality analysis. When you have former players and coaches doing sports commentary, it gives you pretty good insight into what is going on in the coaches heads. Alas, it is friday night and I am not going to keep writing a blog, but I think this is a pretty good start. Dani booyah |
|
|||
|
|||||
Back to Pokersavvy.com | PokerSavvy Plus Affiliate Program | Contact Us |
|||||
"Why poker is different..."
Posted March 13, 2009 by Standard_Deviance
I disagree that only great poker players can "truly understand what is going on at really high stakes games."
I may have leaks in my game, and I may not always achieve optimal play in every situation, and I also may sometimes overlook certain lines/plays that a better player would consider, but so long as I have a solid grasp of poker fundamentals and of hand reading (which means I know most of the assumptions the players are working with when they make certain moves and take certain lines), then I can usually piece together what's happening in a high stakes hand history.
Much of decision making in poker is indeed intangible, in that it is highly dependent on reads and match flow, but that is an argument about how *observers* can't fundamentally understand certain situations, not an argument about whether or not inexpert players can understand them. In other words, when Phil Galfond calls Gus Hansen with 4th pair, that's such a read-dependent play that even an expert player can't fully understand the decision without knowing (or at least guessing) the backstory/history/reads involved.
Before I studied poker, I studied chess, and I'd argue that grandmaster-level chess is actually *much* harder for the amateur observer to understand than top-flight high stakes poker is: there are so many more moves available in chess (as opposed to bet-check-call-raise-fold), and expert players are thinking about ridiculously complex board scenarios so many moves in advance, that even if you've studied the game and have a solid grasp of its fundamentals, you still are going to struggle to comprehend the ins and outs of the action.
"Why poker is different..."
Posted March 14, 2009 by mjw006
Great Blog Ansky.
I have to kinda disagree with you std deviance to a degree. I mean you may believe you know the fundamentals etc (which you likely do), yet the reason they are playing such high stakes is that they think on a higher level than you or i. And as much as we wish to believe we understand, that is exactly Dani's point. You may truly believe you know the thought process that goes into a high stakes decision, but there is a reason you aren't yet playing 25/50 (maybe you are but for arguments sake). Maybe you are capable of it and over time will aquire the necessary skills and mindset, but i think his poin was really pushed home by your post.
"Why poker is different..."
Posted March 14, 2009 by Ansky
std deviance, you are mostly correct. I should have amended it to say that its a pretty direct correlation to your own skill as an ability to understand what is going on. I mean, I was mainly directing my comments to the nvg crowd on 2+2.
"Why poker is different..."
Posted March 17, 2009 by philiveysmom
i am the best