Hold'em

[NikolaiI]

Hold'em, otherwise known as Texas Hold'em, is a poker game, with a singular World Series of Poker determining a single champion every year since the first one to win it, Johnny Moss, in 1970. No-Limit Hold'em has been the game to determine the World Champion since 1970, though there are many other games in poker, such as 7-card Stud and 5-card Draw and Razz, a variation of Stud. In fact Hold'em is a variation of Stud.

Some of my favourite players are Doyle Brunson, Stu Ungar, Tom McEvoy, and Chris Ferguson, all of whom were winners of the WSOP, though I don't really know a great deal.

Stu Ungar is a sensational force of nature to happen to poker and the world. He was compared to Bobby Fischer's effect on chess - a winning force like no other, who dominated opponents completely by their genius and devastated them with their psychological force of presence. To even sit across the board from Bobby Fischer as he neared his peak in chess would shatter an opponent's nerves.

Yet Stu Ungar, like Fischer, was ultimately a tragedy, and even more so of one. Winning hundreds of thousands and upwards on Hold'em, only after he had effectively shut down gin rummy in New York as no one would play him, the money was his downfall as he developed "every bad habit," including the drug use. In this there is a parallel to rock musicians like Hendrix and Janice Joplin.

Stu Ungar won the WSOP twice, two years in a row at 1980 and '81, and then again in 1997, just before his tragic, early end in November the following year.

There are great books on Hold'em and several great authors include "Texas" Doyle Brunson, Mike Caro, Tom McEvoy and many others.

I'm just creating this thread to start a discussion about it, which could be about anything. It is now no longer as dangerous as it once was.. but is it a moral or immoral thing?

[dizzydoll]

I have never been interested in gambling but I remember as a young girl watching the old men at the Tote, they didnt look well and they spent every cent they could lay their hands on "cos it was a sure thing this time".

But professional poker like this, its entertainment - people love to watch winners - but the "thrill seeking" remains after the match is won, what then?

Like watching Pool matches too, the competition is fierce and the atmosphere is electric. I cant imagine the life of a professional pool player.

Who are the people?
We are the people!

It matters not what others think, the world is our oyster.. and we design what we choose.

[applepie]

I always have wondered just how you get into professional poker. We had a friend who was aces with Hold'em, but he never did go pro. He took the casinos for a tiny sum of money since he almost always came out ahead.

Looking at the recent professional poker scene, it isn't hard to believe that it is a lot like living the rockstar life. In casinos, I imagine these guys are like Tiger Woods to a golf course :) They're playing games with millions of dollars spread amongst the players. The winner may leave with 5 or 6 million dollars if they take the tournament.

[Dodo25]

Stu Ungar was good. Doyle Brunson was good. Phil Ivey is better. Back in the 80s, main event was like played by 200 people. In the 21st century, especially after Moneymaker, the thing is played by 5000 or more. It is in these huge fields that Ivey has managed to finish within the top 25 like 4 times. Too bad he only got 7th last time, he really deserved to win..

Having said that, I love poker, and I think it's neither immoral nor a game of luck. What makes it so interesting is that it's all about self-discipline. Only if you have a proper bankroll management and patience you'll come out as a winning player in the long run. In short timespans, it's luck, if you play it more often, it's all about skills.

I used to watch maniacs like Tom Dwan play online poker, 7 tables simultaneously, each with about 300'000$ on average.. It releases a hell lot of adrenalin.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be a professional poker player, I feel like I can use my talents better, i.e. writing so other people have something of it too. But if one manages to finance college or a nice house with playing a bit now and then, that's awesome. It's the dream of everyone to make money out of what one loves doing, so the life of a professional poker player is pretty dandy.

Anyone seen Rounders by the way? Is an awesome movie, especially because it has Ed Norton and Matt Damon in it, but it gets across the wrong message. If you play bankroll management like Matt Damon, you go broke and loose it all.

Okay my post didn't really have a central theme at all, so if anyone wants to discuss it just pick out the bits that interests you and ignore the rest...

[MarkBastable]

I have never been interested in gambling
.


Poker isn't gambling. There's an element of luck - as there is in any game - but luck isn't what determines success. What I think demonstrates this is that there are - I dunno - five or six thousand entrants in the final stages of the World Series each year, but four or five of the same twenty or so faces always end up on the final table - every year, year after year. So there's something going on there that has to do with more than the element of chance, as represented by which cards fall where.

People think poker is a form of gambling because the apparent aim is to win money. But that's like saying crepe-flambé is a form of arson because the apparent aim is to set fire to a pancake.

However, if anyone does think it's all luck, I'd be happy to host a game for them in my kitchen.

[Emil Miller]

I print below a post that I entered a year ago on this subject.


I heard a very interesting radio programme about the world's best poker player and his contest with a computer. They played a number of games and the result was a draw. When they played again the computer won. It was suggested that those companies that advertise poker over the internet are now using computers. So, if you didn't know this already, be warned.

[MarkBastable]

It was suggested that those companies that advertise poker over the internet are now using computers. So, if you didn't know this already, be warned.


I'm not sure it makes any difference. Either the computer will play entirely mathematically, and make decisions based on statistical probability - which is a valid long term strategy, if not a very exciting one. Or it'll have been programmed with more subtle and varied strategies by a human being who understands other aspects of the game, in which case you're playing against a human being's style of game rendered through a piece of software.

So as long as the computer isn't cheating - that is, it knows what cards I have - I don't think I'd mind playing against a machine.

[Emil Miller]

I don't play poker but there are similarities with chess when it comes to playing computers. Being non-sentiate, computers neither win nor lose but merely carry out a statistical function to obtain a result, therefore much of the exitement of playing against people is lost even though the computer has been programmed by humans in the first instance.

There are some interesting websites about humans playing computers in poker but the item below seems to indicate that, whatever advantages humans have, the odds are stacked against them:

"At the very highest level of play, I would guess that most of the edge that human players have would be washed out by the odds. Why shouldn’t an algorithm that does nothing but play the Kelly Criterion win at this level? It’s the theory of runs."

[MarkBastable]

I don't play poker but there are similarities with chess when it comes to playing computers....

I think that what makes computers good at chess is that they can simultaneously hold in their little silicone brains all the possible moves and outcomes that can arise from any given position, for several moves ahead. That's beyond most human beings.

In poker, there are fewer variables at any given moment, and anyone with a fair brain for maths can figure out what the computer can figure out. If you were to play the computer completely according to the maths, both the computer and the human would have an equal chance of winning, and it would be tipped by either a single eventuality that went against the probabilities - what poker players call 'a bad beat'- or by a good run of hands.


"At the very highest level of play, I would guess that most of the edge that human players have would be washed out by the odds. Why shouldn’t an algorithm that does nothing but play the Kelly Criterion win at this level? It’s the theory of runs."

...and that's what is meant here by 'the theory of runs'. But the guy's argument (which, as he says, is a guess) is that there's no reason why a computer shouldn't win. And I agree with that. I'm saying that there's also no reason why a human shouldn't.

[Dodo25]

Exactly, it's much more complex than just playing equationsThere are many variables, and the most important one is the opponent one's playing. High stakes online players run programs on their computers (legally) that show them the exact percentage of hands all other players are raising / calling / folding with, and it also shows them the aggression percentage of the others on flop, turn and river. Now, knowing these stats, on has to adjust one's own strategy to the 'range' of the opponent for each move. And he knows that you know his 'range', so he can change it for any given hand to counter your thinking. The result is a complex meta game.

It's possible to write an algorythm that can do that, but I doubt it can do it better than humans. Maybe equally well, but I'd rather play a computer in poker than in chess (even if I was equally skilled in the two, which I'm not cus I hardly ever play chess).

[Lokasenna]

It's also damn good fun - I rather enjoy a friendly game of poker (though I don't play for money), even if I am laughably bad at it. Apparently, I have a very readable face...

Gambling, like anything, is fine in moderation. It's only when people go mad over it that harm occurs, and in that respect the internet casinos are being somewhat irresponsible by providing easy, 24-hour access to games. I always go to the charity events at my local casino because the games are fun, its all for charity, and the glitz and glamour is rather appealing. But if I were going there everyday, and spending real money, I'd soon be a poor man indeed.

To someone with a serious gambling problem, internet casinos are the equivalent of having free cocaine dispensers on the streets of towns with a major drug problem. It is exacerbating the situation!

[Dodo25]

To someone with a serious gambling problem, internet casinos are the equivalent of having free cocaine dispensers on the streets of towns with a major drug problem. It is exacerbating the situation!

Kind of, altough the sites do offer 'self-exclusion' for certain periods - or forever. Altough I guess if someone really needs to play, he can just set up another account on another site.. I'd only play on two sites though, I don't trust most of what is out there..

[NikolaiI]

I print below a post that I entered a year ago on this subject.


I heard a very interesting radio programme about the world's best poker player and his contest with a computer. They played a number of games and the result was a draw. When they played again the computer won. It was suggested that those companies that advertise poker over the internet are now using computers. So, if you didn't know this already, be warned.

Brian,

This is absolutely a true point... Chess always had that issue, the question of people sometimes cheating and using computers to help them. With poker, it's many many degrees more of seriousness, because there's so much money involved.


I'm not sure it makes any difference. Either the computer will play entirely mathematically, and make decisions based on statistical probability - which is a valid long term strategy, if not a very exciting one. Or it'll have been programmed with more subtle and varied strategies by a human being who understands other aspects of the game, in which case you're playing against a human being's style of game rendered through a piece of software.

So as long as the computer isn't cheating - that is, it knows what cards I have - I don't think I'd mind playing against a machine.

But you would want, you would need to know it's a computer. It's a very legitimate concern - using computers as a tool while playing internet poker.

It doesn't matter the strength of the computer.. All I know about poker computer programs is what I've read briefly of Mike Caro's creating the program Orac (Caro backwards)... he programmed it first for limit Hold'em and then for no-limit. I know that it could play good poker and somehow he used it in a lot of analysis.

But even if the computer was only something you could use to check probabilities, I would say using a computer is definitely cheating in poker - which is itself always, always a serious thing and very wrong.


Exactly, it's much more complex than just playing equationsThere are many variables, and the most important one is the opponent one's playing. High stakes online players run programs on their computers (legally) that show them the exact percentage of hands all other players are raising / calling / folding with, and it also shows them the aggression percentage of the others on flop, turn and river. Now, knowing these stats, on has to adjust one's own strategy to the 'range' of the opponent for each move. And he knows that you know his 'range', so he can change it for any given hand to counter your thinking. The result is a complex meta game.

It's possible to write an algorythm that can do that, but I doubt it can do it better than humans. Maybe equally well, but I'd rather play a computer in poker than in chess (even if I was equally skilled in the two, which I'm not cus I hardly ever play chess).

I am pretty good at chess - an A player - and I used computers a lot. A lot of times for entertainment, to have different chess engines play each other in tournaments or matches, with different time controls, in different openings. In general, computers in chess have always, always been specialists in tactics, while lacking the ability to play positionally, which requires going too many plies into the variations (the number of positions which must be checked increases exponentially as the number of plies increases).

There are different obstacles to overcome in programming a computer to play poker. But it is certainly possible - anything is possible, which is proven by the fact that computers can now hold their own in the most serious of competitions against the best human players.

It used to be thought impossible for computers to achieve something like this - and why? Computers were weak, and so were the chess programs they could run. I think that computers may eventually (and may one day very soon if not already) be able to beat the top human players.

It is more complex than running equations, but so is playing chess - positional chess especially. And that is exactly what the best computers can beat everyone but the very, very top human players at in chess.