The dangers of excess in gaming and life.

 

Several blogs ago, I wrote in some detail regarding various aspects of gambling. I recall reasoning that as with most things in life, gambling has both a positive as well as a negative aspect. I also added back then, that more often than not it was the darker, shadier aspects that got into the collective psyche thus demonizing the concept as a whole.

What I said back then still holds true for me, and I will not re-iterate those cogitations, still I feel I have something more to add to all the rhetoric. In the following exposition I propose to link gambling in general to the way the human brain is wired, and how this biological imperative impacts upon all mental undertakings, including gambling.

The human brain is a pattern-matching machine, we learn by memorizing patterns, determining similarities between what we perceive to be related matters. Even pre-schoolers are taught to first learn how to group related objects together, at times even before being taught the rudimentary concepts behind mathematics and language. Additionally, mathematical constructs such as addition, are normally approached from the standpoint of groupings of similar units. Poetry is itself an exercise in pattern matching, creating linguistic harmony by alternating rhyming verse.

John Ratey (2001), a Harvard psychiatrist believes that the brain works by relating whole concepts to one another while looking for similarities, differences and relationships between them. Each time we learn something new, we effectively put together a new pattern that will aid us in the evaluation of similar circumstances. There is a downside to this drive for identifying patterns, for our minds may trick us into seeing patterns where there might be none. Methods based on these made-up or false patterns, could lead to disastrous conclusions as we shall see later.

Going one step further, most of our endeavours in life are based on our ability to recognise patterns, and to successfully take favourable actions based on our ability to predict the next element in patterns occurring around us. An extreme example of all this would be determining an acceptable level of risk for a given venture. Taken from a mathematical standpoint, risk is calculated using formulas derived from the observation of patterns, which are then broken down and logically weaved into abstract thought processes which facilitate the direct analysis of a situation. From a sociological standpoint, risk can then be analysed from the past behaviours of individuals or groups, given a specific set of environmental variables whether intrinsic or extrinsic, which impinge upon the scenario being considered.

As we grow we therefore realise that being skilled at recognising patterns and extrapolating future occurrences from past experience, will lead to favourable personal outcomes. In a nutshell we learn that becoming good at detecting certain patterns will result in rewards and satisfaction. In some people, the rewards and satisfaction accrued from their pattern matching skill, take precedence over anything else they might do in life. It is not uncommon for people we identify as being exceptionally gifted in a certain field, to be so immersed in their work as to appear alienated in other fields of life. They become the eccentric gurus, the whizz kids that inspire millions with the fruits of their labour.

Yet this same pattern matching skill is what drives us towards other endeavours in life such as gaming. Games come in all shapes and sizes yet at the heart of each game you will find some sort of pattern matching exercise. Take Chess for instance, this intriguing game follows a specific set of rules; each individual chessman moves in a predetermined pattern and can conduct any finite number of moves within a specific scenario. The Chess player learns to leverage the strength of each piece on the board, based on patterns of play which he memorizes. At a higher level then, he will take those patterns of play and systematically extrapolate each move forward in time in order to determine the best course of action. The stronger players are those who have efficient recall of precisely the moves required to perform a certain manoeuvre that will lead to victory. The satisfaction derived from beating an opponent becomes the vital juice that drives the consummate player towards improving and practising his skill, game after game.

This happens even with games of imperfect information such as backgammon or poker. In these games, chance adds a further dimension to game play; because it forces the player to optimise a strategy that takes into account that which he cannot control. In backgammon for instance, the player strives to maximise positional strength by building points on the board, to either block an opponent or set him up for an aggressive onslaught. To do so the proficient backgammon player would have studied the best possible moves given specific rolls of dice. He would learn how to recognise certain checker layouts, in order to quickly determine whether or not to offer or accept a double.

In poker, the players learn to maximize the effect of each infinitesimal bit of information available to them, in order to enact psychological and strategic moves that grant them an edge over the competition. They would effectively be doing this by recalling past correlations between behaviour and actual play, in order to spot similar patterns in moves happening in the current hand. Not only but thanks to mathematical models such as Expected Value, they also learn to attach weights to the possibility of certain patterns materializing as opposed to others. At a higher level then the gamer will also learn to scrap certain patterns based on newer information that would favour others.

Either game (poker or backgammon) depends on a player’s ability to recall effective skilful plays based on recognising patterns, the better a player’s recall, the more potentially skilful his play. Again as with other endeavours mentioned earlier on, winning at these games results in potent psychological re-enforcement, encouraging that player to both repeat those patterns that led to victory as well as strive to improve his game over time. Improvement in turn comes at the cost of assessing certain patterns that work and adopting them, while discarding others that prove ineffective over time. Indeed the greatest ability lies in the discovery that perhaps an embraced pattern needs to be disposed of in order to foster intellectual growth and hence better over all play.

So long as a person’s inclination and aptitude at recognising patterns is kept in check, there can be nothing wrong in pursuing excellence in a particular field of interest; but what happens when that skill becomes an obsession? That is when a player becomes so enamoured with the rewards accrued from his perceived or actual ability, that everything else takes second place. Such a person could even potentially start to get his priorities all wrong, resulting in social problems that could eventually destroy him on a psychological and physical level.

We are here entering the realm of addictions, where a person will now take up an activity with so much intensity that nothing else carries any importance; the worse the addiction, the greater the impact on the actions taken by that person. A quick search on Wikipedia describes addictive behaviour as any activity, substance, object, or behaviour that becomes the major focus of a person's life resulting in a physical, mental, and/or social withdrawal from their normal day to day obligations. For instance a person believes he has mastered a specific method (or pattern of actions) that promises a lucrative outcome. The promise itself becomes the motivator to experiment repeatedly with that method which however could be flawed. Yet the person becomes engaged into a pattern of repeated behaviours that develop into psychological addiction. The person suffers losses as a consequence to underlying false premises that make up that perceived method. Rather than stopping to reconsider, that person blindly loses himself in that delusion, resulting in further losses.

Yet it does not have to be so, the underlying skill is a valid one and working on it, regardless of the venue, can have positive ripple effects on other areas in one’s life. The secret towards maximising the benefits one could accrue from it is to never stop learning. When a person believes he has learnt all there is to be learnt on a subject, he will inevitably start building a delusion that could prove fatal. Moderation and knowledge on the other hand could not only to reap the benefits of one’s skill-base but also not to fall victim of personal misconceptions over time.

Some people, it is true are genetically predisposed to addictive behaviour patterns (addictive personalities), they must therefore learn to stay away from those situations that will lead to addiction. As for others they must simply learn that on-going education, constructive self-criticism and moderation go a long way towards maximising their pattern-recognition skills without falling victims to the dangers of excess.

Read More

People do not play the same way you do!

Technorati Tags: poker,assumptions,thinking,player types,betting,casual players,tournament,Texas Holdem

The competitive aspect of poker has always drawn me, more than cash games. This is why you will most often see me regularly play competition formats online. Likewise, when I put together a home game, I normally opt to offer a tournament style game that so far has proven popular with my guests. Through these games, both the several thousand hands I have played so far online and the few hundreds I have played off-line, I have discovered that while books and theories do help you towards developing your skill-base, they can never really prepare you for the people you eventually meet at the tables.

The basic premise here is that in the real world, you will frequently find people who do not think about a hand in the same way you do, nor will they play a hand in the same way you do. This may be because either they are reckless by nature, or simply because they have no formal poker training.

Most people I have played casually with, play poker instinctually, at times emotionally. What this means is that the moment they pick a pair for instance, any pair, they will play it as if they are holding gold. They will play A-x, K-x or any high card for that matter, the same way they would play better holdings. Perhaps nobody told them they are playing it all wrong; yet there again who am I to tell them they are? What I have learnt is that in such circumstances I must learn to revisit the way I play the game, not my opponent. I must think differently, I cannot blame a casual opponent for playing pocket deuces as though they were holding Aces, but rather I should blame myself for my unfounded assumptions.

The first unfounded assumption, that could really cost you many chips, is to assume that your opponents will play a hand in the same way you do. If I feel that pocket aces need betting aggressively pre-flop, this does not imply my opponents do so too. Maybe they believe calling is sufficient, not because they might want to trap me, but because calling for them is more natural than raising. Alternatively, they might value any pair regardless of rank. Let me illustrate this point with an example.

A while ago, I was playing some poker with friends, most of whom had not played Texas Holdem at all. To be fair most had played some variation of 5-card draw but nothing more than that. Therefore, feeling very proud of my set-up and my newfound knowledge up until then, I set about explaining how the game plays as well as what beats what in poker. Confident that everyone had grasped the notions, we began to play.

Halfway through the evening, a friend of mine whom I shall call Sally, and on whom I had the advantage of position at the table, opened pre-flop with a bet. This was by no means unique for her, she had been opening with a minimum bet all evening, and I was admiring that to tell you the truth. This time round however, I looked at my pocket cards to find Jacks. Knowing that she had a tendency to play a whole lot of marginal and rubbish hands and wanting to thin out the field, perhaps play her heads-up, I decided to raise her bet by a further two big blinds. I need to specify that at the time I was playing in the cut-off position, which made Sally’s opening bet from middle position an interesting proposition.

My raise had the desired effect of getting the other players on the table to fold, except Sally of course who called my bet. The flop came down 2-4-9 rainbow, no flush or straight draws possible, and no scary high-cards to challenge my Jacks. Sally bets almost half the pot, this action itself confused me in that if she connected to the flop and made a pair she was not going to be a threat, but I had to give her credence for a pair. There again, she could be holding trips, perhaps she started with pocket nines or maybe fours and now she made a set. Still, my re-raise pre-flop must have signalled I had a strong pair so why did she call my raise, if indeed she had a small pair. At this point I began to think she might be holding on to a strong pair, queens or higher. I decided that the best course of action would be to call her bet and have a look at the turn. The turn came Jack of hearts; I had turned my pocket Jacks into trips! I was ecstatic, if indeed, she held pocket queens or higher I now had the nuts. Eager to get my hands on the pot, I opted for a pot-sized bet, surely she will fold I thought! Was I wrong!

Sally just came over the top, doubling my bet; I began to think she had gone crazy. No trips on the board could beat my Jacks; she was drawing dead with her queens or better. Still, the feeling was that whatever I would be throwing at her, she would call, it was useless raising, and she would not fold. I opted to call.

The river card came a deuce, indeed there now was a pair on the table, but surely, this would not help Sally, not with her high pair. Yet, once again, Sally bets and this time, she just shoved her chips all into the middle. I just kept telling myself, the girl is nuts, you want to do this so let us do it! I called.

“Three Jacks!” I announce while turning my hand over.

“I think I beat that, four twos!” she calls while showing me her pocket deuces.

Besides feeling utterly belittled and outplayed, that hand made me realise what a terrible mistake I had made earlier. I had wrongly reasoned that she would somehow play that hand the same way I would. I would find it very difficult not to dump a small pair pre-flop if someone re-raises me, yet she did just that. Following that line of thought, I therefore wrongly excluded the possibility of her turning a pocket pair into trips on the flop; she just could not have called my re-raise with a low pair…big mistake!

This little anecdote leads me to a second erroneous assumption we sometimes make about our opponents. We assume, once again very wrongly, that our opponents know or at least can reason what we might be holding. This is again a very dangerous assumption. In the previous example, I was assuming that Sally could interpret my re-raise pre-flop to mean I had a strong pair. That she would somehow know, as she entered the flop, that I had something she needed to beat with a stronger hand. This was not what she thought at all. Sally being Sally, she was simply happy to be holding on to a pair, perhaps that was the first pocket pair she had seen in a few hands and she just wanted to play at all costs. She was definitely not reasoning that I might have a higher pair; her pair was as good as money in the bank for all she knew.

The next logical step in our reasoning would be determining how best to play against a player such as Sally, that is how should one play against a player that observes none of the conventions I might be taking for granted? There is no easy answer to this question other than choosing your spots more wisely. Depending squarely on the manner in which a player normally plays a hand, or maybe on his patterns of play, one should then extrapolate a strategy that will counter his behaviourisms and favour your own skilful play.

For instance if a player comes across as loose passive, calling with weak or marginal holdings, it may indeed pay to bet into this player with nut hands because he will most certainly call any bet you lay on the table. On the other hand, if your opponent is more of a loose aggressive, it may make better sense to check to him and allow him to set the bar, especially if you do hold an unbeatable nut hand. In this way you can hope, or at least attempt to maximize profits per hand with your good hands. Likewise, with weaker holding, you need to thread carefully especially if your opponent has a proven history of playing drawing hands to the extreme consequence. Drawing hands do get lucky some times and you do not want to be there when it happens with most of your chips on the line.

It is also advisable to weigh carefully those instances where you might opt to bluff. Against some players, for instance the loose passive, bluffing may be hard to almost impossible. If you happen to be playing against a calling station, you may fair better if you opt not to bluff at all and wait for premium starting hands in order to attack.

Another assumption is an intriguing one indeed. At times we fall foul of labelling a person as being a rock or maybe, not a bluffer, when in fact that person might be throwing in a couple of bluffs occasionally. You should therefore never base your entire decision process on the premise that a given player is playing too tight to be bluffing. There might be instances it is true, that a player may fold hand after hand and play straightforward with good to premium holdings, but it does not follow that this same player might not try to slip a bluff under the radar, precisely because of the image he might have at the table. For this reason, it pays to consider other factors, such as the pattern of betting shown by that player in question, his behaviour when he is in late position as opposed to when he is in early position, so on and so forth.

While the above arguments seem to only address playing amateurs or casual players, they also apply to other players you might encounter. It is true that more experienced players will use deceptive manoeuvres in an attempt to mislead opponents, yet you need to take yourself out of the equation if you are to approximate an optimal decision given the information at hand. You do this by not assuming anything, but rather by gathering information at the table in an unbiased manner.

In the previous example, given that I knew that Sally would play a lot of hands and that, she valued any pair that came her way; my reasoning should have followed a different path. First, I should have disregarded her opening bet, since she always opened with the same sized bet. However, more importantly, post flop if she did not make any kind of drawing hand or pair Sally would have normally folded her hand. This is where I should have stopped to think that her hand was sufficiently valuable to lead her into betting with it, to open bets. So here, I had a habitual caller who was now actively betting. This of itself should have alerted me that she must have connected to the flop, and since there were no straights or flushes possible, the only way she would have connected was with a pair that she had now turned into a set. So essentially, she could now have trip deuces, fours or nines. In any case, my Jacks were beat at this point.

In hindsight, the only way to minimise losses on the turn with the appearance of a Jack, could have been to check to her and see what kind of bet she would have lain down. I would not have been surprised had she simply bet the minimum on the turn, indicating what she perceived to be a strong hand. Some may argue that going all-in at this point would have really shaken her sufficiently to reassess and possibly fold, yet I had nothing to indicate that she would indeed throw away her trips, regardless of the Jack on the turn. On the river then with the table pairing, a reassessment would have been in order. I still believe that my smooth call on the turn to a hypothetical smaller bet by Sally would still have led her then to go all-in the moment she realised she had made four deuces. The only difference would have been less commitment on my part in terms of chips in play.

The bottom line is this, never assume your opponents play the same way you do and never assume they think the same way you do. Poker is fun because it brings diverse characters together in a game of incomplete information, and the trick is to remember this diversity and keep it in mind. Definitely, there are many other skills to acquire along the way, but learning how to approach the game objectively will definitely give you an edge over the competition.

Read More