Poker Video: Misc/Other by WiltOnTilt (Micro/Small Stakes)

Dear Coach: Your bluff at 15:03 sucks cause I say so. Nice vid Wilt.

Time Link to 00:28:38

I am surprised that you don't move to a discussion of survivorship bias here. This bias is extraordinarily important to discuss in all fields that have randomness as their basis. Wall Street has repetitively been devastated by problems associated with this bias. Two excellant books to read/suggest would be "Fooled by Randomness", and "The Black Swan" both by Nassim N. Taleb. I would consider both to be essential reading for anyone interested in the Philosophy of Poker.

There is more talk of biases in ep 3 and 4. I can't remember if I mention survivorship bias by name but I certainly provide examples that illustrate the point of it. I haven't recorded ep 5 yet so I might stick some of this there. I'll go back through ep 3 and 4 and decide if they are sufficent or not.

Thanks for watching and bringing up this point.
WoT

Looking forward to it. I was a Philosophy major myself and this topic drew me like a bee to honey. Thanks for producing it. I mentioned survivorship bias not only because of Taleb's truly excellant books but because I have experienced it first hand. After winning a rebuy on pokerstars I decided I was better than I was and bounced off a good portion of my winnings playing cash games within my bankroll but outside of my skill level. Easy to identify in hindsight but painful to go through. Lol. I think this is likely a big problem for people who see success early (read: run like gods) and then see reality set in. Hopefully, you can find room for some discussion. Either way, can't wait.

Just a note on ad hominem thinking. Simply insulting people is not ad hominem - saying "your opinion is wrong because of this or that character fault of yours" is.

Something like "villain is an unthinking spaz monkey so he could have any two in this spot, I call" is not ad hominem, it's just normal reasoning. It might still be wrong, either because villain is not actually unthinking or a monkey, or because even an unthinking spaz monkey would not have any two in that particular spot, but it's not ad hominem.

Time Link to 00:06:36

Obv not, you keep trying to justify your dumb bluffs to us.

Really good episode, definitely a lot of food for thought here. It's pretty hard to see our lens sometimes.

Thanks for this episode, WiltOnTilt. I'm going to start making a conscious effort to look for evidence against the points I'm making in addition to looking for evidence that supports it.

Time Link to 00:23:42

Not only that, but even if there is a correlation with, say "The Full Moon", it doesn't necessarily mean there is a causation for it.

This is very important in poker to not only look for patterns, but assign the correct reasoning to that pattern. Extreme example: We see some guy PFR exactly 23.5% of the time and we see one showdown where he has a suited Ace - from that point on we assume he's PFRing every suited hand, because that is what the incidence of suited hands are and well, we say that one case where it happened.

Edit: oh, hehe, you actually addressed this later in the vid, not in the correlation - causality context, but in the cause and effect context

Time Link to 00:34:59

If something makes you jump from your C-game to your A-game, your results will "always" be better, you'll be at your highest theoretical expectation. True, you will still lose on some days, but lose less. If that person has found something to calm them down, let them tilt less and lop them off their bad game, then their results will always be better. On some days that might mean that they're "running" at -2.5ptBB/100 instead of -3ptBB/100.

If you have a problem with that person's statement then you would also have a cause problem with the statement "My results are always worse when I watch TV while playing!"

Or are you making generalizations on the people that use meditation to better their poker game ;-) ?

If something makes you jump from your C-game to your A-game, your results will "always" be better

I'm pretty sure what you mean is:

If something makes you jump from your C-game to your A-game, your expectation will "always" be better

Two things about that: 1) the "if" is a BIG "if". I'm not convinced that there are very many "somethings" out there that will cause this. I'm not saying there aren't some that work for some people, there are, it's just that we should be careful about false cause snake oil scenarios. The series is all about objectivity and self reflection, so let's just make sure that the miracle drug we are working with is really causing the miracles.

2) you seem to be confusing the world results with expectation but I can tell by the rest of that first paragraph that you understand the difference. So maybe it's just a semantics thing.

If you have a problem with that person's statement then you would also have a cause problem with the statement "My results are always worse when I watch TV while playing!"

Yes I definitely have a problem with this. If you change the word "results" to "expectation" it could be closer to the truth, but still may not be accurate for some.

Or are you making generalizations on the people that use meditation to better their poker game ;-) ?

I don't think I am, but I might be, or I could see how it could come across that way. Whatever people can do to put themselves in a good frame of mind I'm fine with. Attributing certain things as the reasoning for this or that is what I have a problem with. Ultimately though, even if the "help" you're getting is tricking yourself into a placebo effect state of being "better" then I don't really have a problem with that, as long as this delusion isn't going to set the person up for a huge crashing reality check later.


hopefully that makes sense on paper, it makes sense in my head

WoT

I'm pretty sure what you mean is:

If something makes you jump from your C-game to your A-game, your expectation will "always" be better

Yes, I mean expectation. But results = expectation in the long run.

2) you seem to be confusing the world results with expectation but I can tell by the rest of that first paragraph that you understand the difference. So maybe it's just a semantics thing.

Agree, semantics... just like you using the word "misjudgment" in episode 3 that doesn't exist HAHA, sorry, I had to throw the needle in there from a non-native speaker.

Yes I definitely have a problem with this. If you change the word "results" to "expectation" it could be closer to the truth, but still may not be accurate for some.

Ok, I'm interested by this. Say we change the word results to expectation, then why would it not be accurate?

I don't think I am, but I might be, or I could see how it could come across that way. Whatever people can do to put themselves in a good frame of mind I'm fine with. Attributing certain things as the reasoning for this or that is what I have a problem with. Ultimately though, even if the "help" you're getting is tricking yourself into a placebo effect state of being "better" then I don't really have a problem with that, as long as this delusion isn't going to set the person up for a huge crashing reality check later.

This makes perfect sense. And yes, I don't know if it is placebo or what, but for some people it seems to work. Same as using tiltblocker (for LHE) or not looking at their results at the end of the day, etc. Little "placebos" or helps or whatchamightcallit to give us peace of mind.

Ok, I'm interested by this. Say we change the word results to expectation, then why would it not be accurate?

it might not be accurate for some with regards to poker and tv as compared to tic-tac-toe and tv. It's possible someone's expectation could be the same with and without the tv there.

I used misjudgement because charlie munger did That's good enough for me

There are now mp3 versions of all pokersense episodes available.
-Rusty

Good stuff, WoT.

Here's an overwhelming list of various cognitive biases from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases I suggest perusing it (not just for poker, but for general life thinking). At its essence poker is simply game of rationality which is therefore won by overcoming bias.

Good stuff, WoT.

Here's an overwhelming list of various cognitive biases from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases I suggest perusing it (not just for poker, but for general life thinking). At its essence poker is simply game of rationality which is therefore won by overcoming bias.

thanks

Good stuff, WoT.

Here's an overwhelming list of various cognitive biases from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases I suggest perusing it (not just for poker, but for general life thinking). At its essence poker is simply game of rationality which is therefore won by overcoming bias.

Thanks for this.

Time Link to 00:27:16

I play mostly limit games and kind of fall into the opposite boat on this concept, but wonder if it could have the same pitfall. By this I mean that I get into an unfamiliar spot and want to value bet on the end but don't sometimes and think man I missed a value bet when they flip over the hand and I win.

I try my best to post those hands win or lose and ask specifically about value betting on the end. Is that the best thing to do?

I play mostly limit games and kind of fall into the opposite boat on this concept, but wonder if it could have the same pitfall. By this I mean that I get into an unfamiliar spot and want to value bet on the end but don't sometimes and think man I missed a value bet when they flip over the hand and I win.

I try my best to post those hands win or lose and ask specifically about value betting on the end. Is that the best thing to do?

Yes that's definitely one way to help. What you'll want to get from that post is more than just "yes its a good value bet" or "no it's not a good value bet" and instead hopefully you can construct exactly what the guy's range will be on the river, count up all the combinations of hands that will call, and count up all the combinations of hands that will fold, then decide that way if you expect to get called by worse >50% of the time. If it's close, then you might need to start considering other factors like how this spot will effect the future hands in the match (ie do u want to be able to bluff in this spot a lot? do you think him folding a hand again will make him start to tilt like you're running him over? if he calls with a better hand now, will he fold more weak/medium hands later because he thinks you value bet too thinly? etc etc)

WoT

makes sense, thanks

Wow. Love the cognitive dissononce slide. Best slide on the site!
Seriously though I love this series.

However, the series made a big jump from ep 1 to ep2. A foundation in logical argumentation should have been ep2 to make it a bit easier to understand some of the concepts of self awareness you brought up in ep 1. I literally went back and reviewed some classical text book logic examples about fifteen minutes in to ep 1 so I could get the most out of the series. If not that would make a great series on it's own as critical reasoning and text book logic as it translates to poker. For instance at around minute 28 I feel you kind of stumbling through weak inductive arguments and strong deductive arguments. Players should be aware of the argument, to be aware of their potential fallacies.

Wow. Love the cognitive dissononce slide. Best slide on the site!
Seriously though I love this series.

However, the series made a big jump from ep 1 to ep2. A foundation in logical argumentation should have been ep2 to make it a bit easier to understand some of the concepts of self awareness you brought up in ep 1. I literally went back and reviewed some classical text book logic examples about fifteen minutes in to ep 1 so I could get the most out of the series. If not that would make a great series on it's own as critical reasoning and text book logic as it translates to poker. For instance at around minute 28 I feel you kind of stumbling through weak inductive arguments and strong deductive arguments. Players should be aware of the argument, to be aware of their potential fallacies.

Reasonable points, thanks for the feedback

Time Link to 00:40:15

What do you think about taking notes in the beginning of a session? Isnt it necessary to make generalizations based on single observations?

Of course we need to confirm them later. But if we have seen him play a hand in a certain way then we have more info than if we havent seen him play any hand.

What do you think about taking notes in the beginning of a session? Isnt it necessary to make generalizations based on single observations?

Of course we need to confirm them later. But if we have seen him play a hand in a certain way then we have more info than if we havent seen him play any hand.

Yes, the mere act of generalizing isn't so bad, it's never changing or evolving the read which is the bad thing. Sometimes the only info you have to go on is very high level, and in that case making some generalizations based on ... what country they are from, what stakes they are playing, how many tables they are on, etc is certainly worthy information even if it is incomplete. We just need to make sure that once we see this guy who is scandinavian and on 1 table at 10nl that we don't stick to our guns that he is a maniac fish if he turns out to be playing 12 vpip

Yes, the mere act of generalizing isn't so bad, it's never changing or evolving the read which is the bad thing. Sometimes the only info you have to go on is very high level, and in that case making some generalizations based on ... what country they are from, what stakes they are playing, how many tables they are on, etc is certainly worthy information even if it is incomplete. We just need to make sure that once we see this guy who is scandinavian and on 1 table at 10nl that we don't stick to our guns that he is a maniac fish if he turns out to be playing 12 vpip

Sounds good. Nice work with the series. And Im from Sweden

Sounds good. Nice work with the series. And Im from Sweden

Then my example should be very relevant

Great new blog about "How to use poker to reduce cognitive biases and improve your rationality": http://rationalpoker.com

Hi Aaron, Been watching your Pokersense videos (like the first two so far ) and heard you display some skepticism about the benefits of meditation to people's poker game. Here's an article that discusses a scientific study that was conducted to verify if 27 minutes of mindfulness meditation per day for 8 weeks created positive changes in the brain.

I think that if meditation has been verified to strengthen the areas of the brain having to do with learning/memory and reduce the strength/size/number-of-connections of the Amygdala (center for stress/anxiety/fear/anger) then it would tend to make people less neurotic and as the personality study said in the first episode of your series, winrate was inversely correlated to neuroticism. So for these reasons I think meditation will help people increase their winrate.

http://www.meditation-techniques-made-easy.com/8-week-mindfulness-meditation.html

-Matt