Poker: Math vs Feel

    • carexfish
      carexfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.01.2011 Posts: 63
      Video

      I have always think about math and the delusions in pursuit of a theory.

      1.Watch the video.(the video is astonishing and full of paradox)
      2.Comment.
      3.How to you think this applys to poker theory?
      4.What is the leap of faith in poker?

      I remeber Gus Hansen said - it is very plausible to assume that in 10-30 years we can find that the best poker players today had no idea what were they doing :s_confused:

      Thank you for your time and good luck at the tables :f_p:
  • 14 replies
    • carexfish
      carexfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.01.2011 Posts: 63
      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
    • carexfish
      carexfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.01.2011 Posts: 63
      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
    • carexfish
      carexfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.01.2011 Posts: 63
      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
    • IngridN
      IngridN
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.03.2011 Posts: 12,162
      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
    • carexfish
      carexfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.01.2011 Posts: 63
      I am so happy do see my post alive and not deleted. :f_love: :s_love: :f_love: :s_love:
      But then again I really need some hints for editing.Pm me if possible any one who can help ty bery much.
    • themagpiespg
      themagpiespg
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.02.2009 Posts: 280
      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? :s_cool:
    • 1984ioc
      1984ioc
      Bronze
      Joined: 16.07.2011 Posts: 712
      My eyes are sore even though i just scanned over it.Interesting stuff but will wait to editing or read when have more time.
    • Gerovit
      Gerovit
      Bronze
      Joined: 16.01.2011 Posts: 1,308
      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
    • carexfish
      carexfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.01.2011 Posts: 63
      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.
    • carexfish
      carexfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.01.2011 Posts: 63
      Originally posted by Gerovit


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

      :f_thumbsup: that's so funny :D
    • ZeroDegrees
      ZeroDegrees
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.06.2008 Posts: 743
      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 :f_biggrin: :f_biggrin: :f_biggrin: . As for the poker; learn the theory and go with your feeling so you find your style. Cya n GL!
    • ZeroDegrees
      ZeroDegrees
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.06.2008 Posts: 743
      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? :s_cool:
      That's only for the quantum world; particles and smaller molecules tops. Your betting doesn't change the cards.
    • carexfish
      carexfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.01.2011 Posts: 63
      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 :f_biggrin: :f_biggrin: :f_biggrin: . As for the poker; learn the theory and go with your feeling so you find your style. Cya n GL!
      ahahahahhahaha CULT STATUS :D
    • blackops888
      blackops888
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.04.2010 Posts: 502
      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.