Poker: Math vs Feel

Prediction of Odds
These interwoven interrelationships so beautifully described by Feynman
are indicative of the delusion of objectivity that penetrates much of
contemporary thinking and practice. Ironically, despite the fact that
physics has partly retrenched from its position of objectivity following
the discoveries of the quantum world, the delusion of such objectivity
lingers on in a number of disciplines. Indeed, after a century of aggregated
delusions and suppressed paradoxes, it is still very diffi cult to abandon this
idea about truth. Even at the level where fundamental physical laws were
constructed to represent reality, we cannot really tell exactly what is going
on. We may provide descriptions of reality, and come up with a series of
interpretations, but we cannot really explain anything. There is no answer
to the question why? There can be no answer. All that we can talk about is
a prediction of odds.
What an amazing irony; what a beautiful antithesis to the thesis of science.
The enterprise of science, which has taken upon itself the investigation of
the nature of Nature, is having to compromise. Rather than certainty and
causality, all that modern science now delivers is a prediction of odds.
Who could have expected that the scientifi c establishment, which has been
pursuing the truth about Nature and reality for centuries, would have to
endorse the use of the concept of probability when describing Nature.
These problems surrounding the double-slit experiment indicate that
quantum mechanics holds serious implications for observation. But even more
importantly, there are grave contradictions in the distinction between classical
and quantum mechanics; contradictions that bring to light an even more
fundamental problem. Obviously, the development of quantum mechanics
came after the development of classical mechanics, and this presents us with
an example of a most troubling situation, namely the absorption of previous
bodies of knowledge by newly developed theories.
Feyerabend nailed this problem down with the following statement:
the magnitudes (properties) of classical physics can be determined at
any time with any required precision. On the other hand, quantummechanical
entities are complementary in the sense that at a given time
they are able to possess only some of their possible properties. Now
classical mechanics is a special case of quantum mechanics, which means
that all the objects of the macroscopic level obey the laws of quantum
mechanics. Hence, we must re-interpret the signs of classical physics
as designating properties, which apply to their objects (the objects of
the macroscopic level) in almost all circumstances (whereas according
to classical physics they apply strictly in all circumstances). This means
that having adopted quantum mechanics we must drop the classical
interpretation of classical physics (Feyerabend, 1975).
This consequential paradox identifi ed by Feyerabend is worthy of further
refl ection and analysis. We will carry out this analysis by adopting a systems
theoretical perspective, considering every theory as a system in its own right.
Where a theoretical body of knowledge is considered as a system, then we
are inclined to follow Luhmann ’ s way of decomposing that system, in which
two distinct possibilities arise. One possibility is to treat each system as an
assembly of sub-systems; the other is to treat each system as an assembly
of elements and the relationships established between those elements. As
we remarked in the chapter of Systems Theory, the fi rst decomposition
is a more structural way of viewing a system while the second leads to
system complexity, described through a series of elements that are part
of that system, namely its theoretical constructs, equations, descriptions,
hypotheses etc., and the relationships established between these elements.
Science’s First
Mistake
Delusions in Pursuit of Theory
by
IAN O. ANGELL
and
DIONYSIOS S. DEMETIS
B L O O M S B U R Y A C A D E M I C

True, False and Everywhere in Between
Let ’ s get one thing clear: clients of divination are not necessarily gullible
and/or superstitious as perceived by outsiders. Those clients are operating
within the acceptable norms of their society. They are individuals who are at
a loss as how to behave in the face of what today we would label uncertainty.
In the past they had to act in response to illness, drought, death, evil or loss:
when they found themselves in intransigent situations. Nowadays, clients
from business face failure from shrinking markets, rampant competition,
personal insecurity, a credit famine, technology out of control: what is
popularly labelled risk . And they too feel a similar intransigence.
Thus this book starts out with the recognition that all theory is a social
act of divination; that all theory has a utility that has nothing to do with it
being true or false. Indeed, its utility can be simultaneously both true and
false, and neither, all depending on both the observer, who is employing
the operations of that theory, and the situation where he fi nds himself.
Such operations should not be taken out of context; they are tied to the
preceding observations that were unavoidably utilized for the process
of theory construction. Theory therefore operates within the acceptable
norms of society, and as divination, it suggests a course of action that can be
taken with confi dence. Theory then is all to do with uncertainty. However,
be clear, uncertainty has little to do with randomness or chaos. Most of
Chaos disappears into the background as white noise, and we pass right
through it unnoticed. Uncertainty, on the other hand, is all to do with some
ordered elements that have been sampled from the Chaos , but which appear
in an unwelcome order, a strangeness that arises from an unexpected and
surprising conspiracy of events.
Chaos is not disorder, not even un-order; it is pre-order. It is the multiplicity
of complexities that characterizes any system prior to any distinction made
by human thought. Thus any notion of a Theory of Chaos is an oxymoron,
because theory already implies an order. That is why this book rejects the
popular misinterpretation of chaos as disorder, and why in the text the
word is italicized whenever its meaning as pre-order is intended. Chaos ,
therefore, is unapproachable by thought. Even these previous sentences, and
particularly the use of the word ‘ because ’ , are vague attempts at imposing
order, and so are inevitably misunderstandings. All understanding of Chaos
is necessarily misunderstanding; human thought is such absurdity piled
recursively upon itself. For that recursion must miss the non-linearity in
the situation: recursion is linear and thus artifi cial, unnatural, because it
simply fl ip-fl ops between subject and object, with the two states naturally
remaining distinct residuals at each step.
The human ‘ understands ’ a ‘ piece of the world ’ as a particular categorical
‘ thing ’ . Then he recursively focuses on understanding the rest, the residual
category, until by combining together the separate and separated fragments,
everything deemed relevant is ‘ understood ’ . According to Bertrand Russell
‘ every advance in a science takes us further away from the crude uniformities
which are fi rst observed into a greater differentiation of antecedent and
consequent, and into a continually wider circle of antecedents recognized
as relevant ’ (Russell, 1954). What is this but a description of tunnel vision?
However, by changing focus from the thing, onto other things (within its
residual category), the original thing goes out of focus. Hence the concept of
a ‘ thing ’ , and thus everything else, is a fallacy. Even the ‘ concept of a concept ’
is a paradox, but one that allows cognition to function undisturbed by the
peculiarities.
In thinking about thought, both the ‘ thinking ’ and the ‘ thought ’ are
simultaneously and refl exively subject and object of the process: a nonlinearity.
However, any rational theory is linear and requires a separation
between subject and object. Causality requires both a subject: the thing
affecting, and an object: the thing affected. The trick is to cut through this
Gordian knot of uncertainty and paradox, and just get on with living by
making the most of Chaos ’ s bounty.
In the academic literature, uncertainty is often related to risk and the
management of risk, implying an elusive underlying assumption that
uncertainty can be planned for. Apparently risk consists of a series of isolated
singularities. Hence individual events, for which tactics and strategies can
be developed, and thus risk, can be managed. Typical examples in the
fi nancial services industry include calculations of ‘ value at risk ’ that attempt
to simulate both the amount of money put at risk for a particular course of
action and its exposure. But calculations like these are just another layer of
divination, masked by the delusional effi ciency of mathematical techniques.
The crisis of 2008 was the outcome of what this unquantifi able exposure
to risk came to imply for fi nancial markets worldwide. In a system of such
complexity, control of the behaviour of the system itself becomes extremely
diffi cult, if not impossible (Mandelbrot, 2005). This confusion is often
responsible for the confounding of uncertainty and risk with ‘ true ’ Chaos .
Even the very act of articulating a risk implies an imposition on the Chaos ,
which actually ceases to be Chaos when it is sampled.
The world inhabited by humanity is intrinsically strange, fantastical,
magical. We are deluding ourselves if we think that we can always make sense
of that strangeness. Managing Uncertainty is just another futile attempt
at controlling the conspiracy of strangeness. There is order in uncertainty,
which is unwelcome because it approaches us out of the void. It doesn ’ t sit
nicely in the authoritarian glare of some universal theory. However, there
can be no ignoring that strangeness in the human condition, as it inevitably
returns to bite us.
By collecting all these strange events together under the label of uncertainty,
and by organizing ourselves as individuals or in groups, we hope that the
surprising events will either go away or become benign/advantageous. We
humans create structures that transform uncertainty into risk: a heady mix
of hazard and opportunity. Thus we swap hopelessness for the optimism in a
plan of action. In other words we submit to theory in order to gain a tenuous
handle on uncertainty.
However, different ages have different perceptions of uncertainty; and
so there are different approaches to theory construction and application,
delivering different risk assessments and prompting different decisions.
Note this book stresses decisions not solutions, because from its position
there are no solutions, only contingent decisions. And each decision is itself
a start of a new journey, not the end of an old one.
Indeed, there is no grander delusion than the production of a solution,
with its linear insistence on cause and effect. A decision about a particular
problem domain or a decision to act upon a situation can only trigger
changes with undetermined consequences, and these in their own turn may
become the basis for requiring even more decisions, and so on. ‘ Solutions ’
always ‘ multiply, proliferate, disperse, circulate, diversify, diffuse the
original problem ’ (Rossbach, 1993). Cause and effect merely implies a focal
point, choosing a single linear path through this multiplicity, which can only
exist within the scope of either: (1) an individual observer who prescribes a
solitary function for a system – a prescription that becomes self-fulfi lling,
and as a consequence the coupling between cause and effect appears even
tighter, or (2) many observers who operate single-mindedly, with that singlemindedness
predetermined by a shared belief in cause and effect.
Science First
Mistake
Delusions in Pursuit of Theory
by
IAN O. ANGELL
and
DIONYSIOS S. DEMETIS
B L O O M S B U R Y A C A D E M I C

Freeze, Fight or Flee? (in my own words : call;raise or fold; )
Nevertheless, when faced with the dangers of this uncertain world we
still have the three age-old choices: freeze, fi ght or fl ee. Forget the myth
of rationality; when confronting the contradictions of uncertainty, our
responses tend to be impulsive and instinctive, unconscious and automatic.
For we humans are fi rst and foremost feeling animals, rather than thinking
ones. Our emotions are tied inexorably into what we do when confronting
the torrent of incomplete or asymmetric information all around us. And
here lies the source of power that theory/divination holds over any seeker
after truth.
The ritual application of theory lifts humanity out of the overload of dayon-
day problems. It is a safety valve that gives us time for circumspection
and clarifi es our concerns. It short circuits the inertia and precipitates action.
By using a theory, we are seeking a pragmatic and socially acceptable course
of action. Intransigent problems are attacked with legitimate solutions
in such a way that the seeker does not have to justify his actions. Theory
delivers useable information. It breaks the logjam of indecision. For what
is information after all? Merely the appropriate interpretation of data that
forms an acceptable (legitimate) basis for decision-taking amongst one ’ s
peers. Just because scientists accept only the information from their own
scientifi c form of divination, why should scientifi c data be the only form
available to the rest of us who are less committed to that particular way of
‘ transcending the mundane ’ ? For no matter what the theory, it is always and
already beset by paradox.
Every Age fi nds signifi cance in its own particular and peculiar brand of
theory/divination. In The Bible Code (Drosnin, 2002), Michael Drosnin
tells of three highly reputable Israeli mathematicians, Witzum, Rits and
Rosenberg, who laid out the text of the Torah in rectangular blocks, and
then checked every tenth, fi ftieth (whatever) letter for omens. Using the
text of the Book of Genesis they uncovered biographical details of various
important medieval rabbis. Has God been waiting millennia for humanity
to invent the computer for His messages to be uncovered? Furthermore,
many of these messages were decoded centuries after they would have any
relevance. Surely God, if He exists, has better things to do with His time
than play a sealed envelope type of conjuring trick? More likely this is just
another demonstration of faith deluding even the most rational thinkers.
Either way, it didn ’ t take long for the sceptics to fi nd similar predictions by
using the same techniques on other books, like Moby Dick (Melville, 1994).
Of course, Drosnin, like all shrewd operators, says these messages are just
warnings, which if heeded can stave off disaster. This is just as well for him,
since his own death (in Athens of all places) has been foretold by a critic
using the same decoding technique.
Apparently, the Bible ’ s text hides predictions of the Holocaust, the Moon
landing, various political assassinations and much more. Most alarming, the
date for Armageddon had been set for 2006. Taking a break from their book
writing, and while enjoying a very pleasant lunch in Soho in the autumn of
that year, the present authors could predict quite confi dently that the world
would NOT end later the same year. They are equally confi dent in rejecting
the predictions of the End of the World in 2012 that are based on spurious
interpretations of the ancient Mayan calendar. 6 In common with those who
believe in the afterlife, the authors have no fear of contradiction: if the world
were to end in any prescribed year, then everyone with proof to the contrary
of their prediction would be dead. That they were tackling the fi nal editing of
the text in the summer of 2009 showed their confi dence is well founded, at
least in rejecting Drosnin ’ s predictions. However, at the same time they do
not deny humanity ’ s enduring fascination with such prognostication.
The art of divining, or indeed theorizing, namely ritually constructing
delusions, may have subtly changed its form across continents and throughout
history, although there does seem to be some human universal at work; some
intellectual imperative that has been delivered by our evolution from our
ancestors on the savannah, and even earlier.
So who is to say that divination/delusion, whether in its ancient, modern
or soon to be future form, is inappropriate? No matter how sophisticated we
are, we all have a sneaking regard for the interpretation of omens that will
uncover some divine purpose in events: augury. Some forms of divination
have even received certain respectability in our scientifi c society. After all,
both Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung have given legitimacy to various
kinds of oneiromancy: dream interpretation.
Meanwhile, sceptical scientists like Professor Richard Dawkins line up
to ridicule the claptrap, all the while selling their equally absurd notion of
the ‘ rational human ’ . However, it is not just scientists playing this game
of superior ‘ understanding ’ . Religion too has its pedants. Like meets like
whenever scientist Dawkins combats Creationist champions from the
American Bible Belt over the latter ’ s denial of Darwinism and their claims
of an Intelligent Design of life on earth. Apparently it ’ s all too wonderful to
have occurred a la Darwin, ergo God did it, intelligently. The problem here
is neither science nor religion, but the attitudes of scientifi c and religious
bigots, both certain that they have all the answers, when there can be
no universally applicable generic answers, only contingencies – as the
present authors insist from their own bigoted certainty. That the scientists
won the subsequent court battles shows only the superior legitimacy of
science over religion in the American court system, despite the irony of
witnesses having to swear on the Bible. However, the victory of science in
the US courts had nothing to do with truth or falsity. Winning, as always,
is determined by power, which is why science rarely wins in the court of
public opinion.
Scientists smugly use rational facts to debunk astrology. According to the
science of astronomy, if we insist on dividing up the heavens into the signs
of the zodiac then there should be a thirteenth sign (Ophiuchus). Scientists
prattle on about the fallacy of personal validation and of generalized, trite
and bogus predictions. Of course, to a certain extent this position is valid.
Humanity does have a tendency to focus on successful hits, and overlook or
forget all the failures. But we still read our horoscopes.
Scientists claim that as a pattern seeker, the brain too often sees causation
where there is only correlation: an assertion repeated in Chapter 5. Despite
this claim, many scientists still fall into the same trap and concentrate on
looking for linear causality in whatever topics interest them. Thus they
fail to see the importance of non-linear effects. They could ask about any
disadvantages in this tendency to linearity. Getting too involved with rational
theories can also be dangerous, and even seriously jeopardize an individual ’ s
survival prospects. Archimedes may have been the greatest thinker of his
age, but streetwise he was not. During the sack of Syracuse in 212 BC he was
confronted by a Roman soldier. His apocryphal famous last words were:
‘ stand away, fellow, from my diagram! ’ 7 By following the demands of his
intellect rather than those of the soldier, he set up a chain of events that led
inextricably to his death.
This feeling of superior ‘ understanding ’ and an overwhelming feeling of
truth within the construction of theory did not even escape Einstein (who
was quite modest by all accounts) in his statement that ‘ Politics is for the
moment, but an equation is for eternity ’ , made when declining the offer of
the presidency of the new state of Israel in 1948.
If Galileo had been less dogmatic over his understanding of planetary
motion and had signed a document stating that the sun was not at the centre
of the solar system, then the Inquisition would possibly have let him off the
hook. They wanted him to say that the heliocentric theory was only a model
that was useful for calculating planetary motion and that it was not the
truth (Feyerabend, 1975). How perverse that quantum physicists, who see a
multitude of possibilities in parallel universes, have more in common with
the Inquisition than with Galileo and have become far less dogmatic in their
own interpretations of the world. At this stage it will suffi ce to mention that,
at the time of writing this book, quantum reality is prone to eight different
interpretations of the world. These are Quantum Realities QR1: There is
no deep reality; QR2: Reality is created by observation; QR3: Reality is
an undivided wholeness; QR4: Reality consists of a steadily increasing
number of parallel universes; QR5: The world obeys a non-human kind of
reasoning; QR6: The world is made of ordinary objects (neorealism); QR7:
Consciousness creates reality; QR8: The world is twofold, consisting of
potentials and actualities (Herbert, 1987).
Science First
Mistake
Delusions in Pursuit of Theory
by
IAN O. ANGELL
and
DIONYSIOS S. DEMETIS
B L O O M S B U R Y A C A D E M I C

Hi carexfish,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Would you mind editing your post a bit? It would be a lot easier for us to read it and get the discussion going

Ingrid

I am so happy do see my post alive and not deleted.
But then again I really need some hints for editing.Pm me if possible any one who can help ty bery much.

Boy I need a break now, I'll have to come back to this 1 later as I need to digest the first two posts by carexfish, very interesting but hard going.

So far my conclusion is that as a poker player I Schrödinger's cat and whenever I enter the pot I have both won and lost (I'm both dead and alive ) until the particle decays and an observation is made.

( the particle being the final bet of the hand this determines the out come, at which point there is an observation which determines the out come. )

Ether I live or Die ( win or lose ) So as both subject and observer I am thus part of the system and also out side the system and just the observer.

or an I just talking bollocks or are both part true?

My eyes are sore even though i just scanned over it.Interesting stuff but will wait to editing or read when have more time.

Why don't you make a video or at least an audio of this pile of unstructured letters you posted?
I stare all day long to monitor and now you expect me to read this novel?
Not if my life depends on it


EDIT ps Gus Hansen is overbankrolled, pet of variance gods, maniac-fish

Thanks for the replays.I will do every thing in my power to edit and make my post more organized and easy to read by tomorrow morning.
I know that most of the poker players in this forum are exeptionaly smart and open-minded,so I will see what can I do to focus and edit this ideas.

Originally posted by Gerovit


EDIT ps Gus Hansen is overbankrolled, pet of variance gods, maniac-fish

that's so funny

Wow Carex! Good stuff, just scummed through though. Don't edit this!!! Make your edited version a new post and keep this and ffs publish it! Non-academics may give you cult status. Especially since noone wanna be the first to say they haven't got a clue about what your saying . As for the poker; learn the theory and go with your feeling so you find your style. Cya n GL!

Originally posted by themagpiespg
Boy I need a break now, I'll have to come back to this 1 later as I need to digest the first two posts by carexfish, very interesting but hard going.

So far my conclusion is that as a poker player I Schrödinger's cat and whenever I enter the pot I have both won and lost (I'm both dead and alive ) until the particle decays and an observation is made.

( the particle being the final bet of the hand this determines the out come, at which point there is an observation which determines the out come. )

Ether I live or Die ( win or lose ) So as both subject and observer I am thus part of the system and also out side the system and just the observer.

or an I just talking bollocks or are both part true?

That's only for the quantum world; particles and smaller molecules tops. Your betting doesn't change the cards.

Originally posted by ZeroDegrees
Wow Carex! Good stuff, just scummed through though. Don't edit this!!! Make your edited version a new post and keep this and ffs publish it! Non-academics may give you cult status. Especially since noone wanna be the first to say they haven't got a clue about what your saying . As for the poker; learn the theory and go with your feeling so you find your style. Cya n GL!

ahahahahhahaha CULT STATUS

I lost account of how many times I was beaten and folded because I "felt like it" just to see my opponent showing me how crushed I was. I even had this kind of experience when I sweat a HU SNG with a friend and he said I would fold every time he had something worthy playing... when we reviewed the hands I noticed I didn't have any analitycal justifications for what I did.

I also experience on a daily basis having complete certainty that I'll lose with a particular hand before entering the pot, even AAxx and stuff like that (I play PLO).

Cold-calling PF and knowing I'll hit a set also happens a lot. Knowing people's exact holdings also happens quite frequently.

But the deal is that this skill cannot be applied arbitrarilly, at least by me. A person cannot come into the room right now with two cards face-down and ask me to guess which cards they are...

It is something that comes while the game is running, when I forget completely about myself and get immersed in that trance-like state that multi-tabling often leads to.