Who's better at playing poker on average?

[Jimmy Snyder]

If you play by the numbers without psychology, you will not do well. The reason is that what counts is not the number of hands you win, it's the amount of money you win. Part of the game is when you have a good hand and you know it, you don't show it. That way you rope the other players into betting more money than they otherwise would do.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The OP didn't state which game or confine it to a casino, and I do believe that 5 card draw is probably the most widely played game over all. The games where you can see part of a player's hand makes it much easier, IMO.

I'm not sure on that any more. Just about anywhere you go you will find hold'em even in the video bar games along with mahjong and tictactoe. Regardless, the point really is that there is strategy to poker. It may be more or less complex or reliable depending on what version you are playing but it exists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you play by the numbers without psychology, you will not do well. The reason is that what counts is not the number of hands you win, it's the amount of money you win. Part of the game is when you have a good hand and you know it, you don't show it. That way you rope the other players into betting more money than they otherwise would do.

Theoretically if you play strictly by the numbers you will almost always come out ahead. The problem apparently is that the win is not very large or dramatic and good players will know how to use it against you.

 

[Evo]

I'm not sure on that any more. Just about anywhere you go you will find hold'em even in the video bar games along with mahjong and tictactoe. Regardless, the point really is that there is strategy to poker. It may be more or less complex or reliable depending on what version you are playing but it exists.

I definitely agree.

 

[D H]

Theoretically if you play strictly by the numbers you will almost always come out ahead.

Only if you are playing with a bunch of potzers. If you and all of your opponents are equally skilled mathematically and only play per the mathematical odds, you will almost always come out slightly behind (there is the vig to pay at a casino, or in a game amongst friends, the beer to be brought and left behind). If you and all of your opponents are equally skilled mathematically but some of you are socially inept but others have the politician's skills of lying and reading people, the socially inept ones will end up going home much poorer.

 

[FredericGos]

You are creating a straw man because nobody has said that.

Yes, the statement 'Math doesn't work in poker' seems to indicate that.

No, you can't, for the simple reason that you do not know which cards have been face down to the other players. Suppose you are dealt a pair of aces. If two other players were each dealt an ace, your probability of improving your pair with another ace or two is exactly zero -- and that is hidden information that hopefully you cannot know. (Hopefully because there have been online scams where the hidden information has been made available to some select players.)

Yes, you can. The holdings of your opponent is irrelevant to the calculation. You only deal with the cards you have seen. In holdem, the 2 cards in your hand and the 3 cards on the table (on the flop). That's 5 out of 52. So if you have say 2 hearts, and the table has 2 hearts and a spade, the probability of the next card being a heart is 9/47 = 0.19 etc.

You just make the classical mistake any poker players makes in the beginning by even thinking what your opponent might hold. It doesn't matter.

No, you can't, assuming you do not know what their hole cards are.

Suppose you have a pair of aces in the hole and you bet first. A few people stay into see the flop (a deuce), only one other stays to see the turn (also a deuce). You have two pair, guaranteed. After you check or bet, the other person goes all in. Are you going to call because the odds of him beating your two pair is small?

Fist of all yes you can. And secondly, maybe i'll call, your example depends on how much he bets compares to the size of the pot, so i don't know the answer.

You can put you opponent on a weighted range of hands he might hold and use that to calculate the probability he beats you. It's done all the time. It's hard yes, but it's done.
Maybe the word EXACT in my post was a bit misguiding. But given enough samples, we get there.

A top-notch poker is mathematically skilled, socially aware, and occasionally bets on absolute garbage.

Of course. He calculates his bluffing frequency based on his opponents tendencies. All done with statistics, probability and combinatorics.

You seem to misunderstand that I'm treating this game statistically. We are not talking about a single hand and how we might 'know' what he holds. Of course we can't. But we can statistically infer a lot. Especially when we need to calculate our EV in specific situations.

Now, It must be said that these calculations can be very difficult, and the more complicated one are not done at the table. Especially when using ranges. That's why good players will go over their played hands one by one after playing a session and 'do the math' on each hand. This way they train their brain to recognize situations and learn tricks to estimate their EV at the table.

The social aspect (tells) play a minor part in modern poker between professionals. They are all VERY good at disguising their holding. Look at a guy like fergusson. He excells at keeping the same posture and making the excact same gestures everytime, regardsless of his holdings.

And lastl. Don't make the mistake to think that poker shows can tell you much. First of all, they are SHOWS and these guys get paid to gamble, because that's what people want to see on TV, big bluffs etc. It's not the way it works.

Shows like the early levels of the WSOP main event are much more accurate. But then again, these are filled with bad players so you can't infer much there either.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Yeah, it's called a bluff. If you can't pull off a bluff you cannot be a good poker player.

Supposedly Von Neuman (the inventor of much of game theory) was a terrible poker player and the other physicists regularly took money off him because he never understood this and always played the logically perfect bet for the hand he held.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, you can. The holdings of your opponent is irrelevant to the calculation. You only deal with the cards you have seen. In holdem, the 2 cards in your hand and the 3 cards on the table (on the flop). That's 5 out of 52. So if you have say 2 hearts, and the table has 2 hearts and a spade, the probability of the next card being a heart is 9/47 = 0.19 etc.

I diagree, the odds can't be 9/47 (I'm not too sharp on probability so correct me here if I'm wrong). The opponent has 2 cards therefore the odds are dependent on what they have.

If they do not hold a heart then the odds of one coming out are 9/45, if they do hold a heart the odds of one coming out are 8/45. Adjust the odds dependent on the number of players and number of hearts held.

You have to include their hand or the maths doesn't work. 9/47 is simply stating that out of the 47 cards you don't have, there are 9 left and if you were to draw from all 47 there is a 9/47 chance you get a heart.

If you have five players, and you have 2 hearts and there's 2 on the table, you could assume that they don't have any and say there is a 9/39 chance of a heart being drawn. It could very well be that each of the other players has a heart which means the real odds of one being drawn are 5/39, which is quite a bit lower.

Probability might be able to give you a rough estimate, but when it comes down to it you have 2 cards per other player that are effectively out of the game and therefore do have an impact on your predicitons.

 

[FredericGos]

I diagree, the odds can't be 9/47 (I'm not too sharp on probability so correct me here if I'm wrong).

Disagree all you will but it's the way it's calculated. :) I once read somewhere (and the math behind) that it actually doesn't matter if you consider your opponent's holdings or not in this calculation. you will get the same result. Something to do with the fact that if you consider your opponents holdings, that too becomes a probability and it all cancels etc. I tried to find that article but could not.

Anyway, that's the way it's calculated in every book, article and what not. It's easy to lookup if you don't believe me :)

You can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability_(Texas_hold_'em)

 

[DaveC426913]

I diagree, the odds can't be 9/47 (I'm not too sharp on probability so correct me here if I'm wrong). The opponent has 2 cards therefore the odds are dependent on what they have.

No. In this limited sense, Fred is right. It does not matter what your opponent has. If you see 5 cards, then there are 47 cards unexposed. Those 47 cards do not have faces until you see them. They may be in the deck, they may be in another player's hand, but it has no effect on how you play.

 

[JaredJames]

No. In this limited sense, Fred is right. It does not matter what your opponent has. If you see 5 cards, then there are 47 cards unexposed. Those 47 cards do not have faces until you see them. They may be in the deck, they may be in another player's hand, but it has no effect on how you play.

I don't see it. Not saying you're wrong, just don't understand it.

If there are 47 cards left, I agree that there is a 9/47 chance of a heart coming out. But, there aren't 47 cards left. There's 45 (assuming one opponent). You can't select from the opponents hand so there are three available sets of odds here:

1) Opponent does not have a heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 9/45
2) Opponent has one heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 8/45
3) Opponent is doctor who, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 7/45

So the odds of a heart coming out of the remaining deck decrease depending on your opponents hand.

Like I said, not too good at probability.

It's like having a bag with 5 red balls and 5 blue balls. To win you must select a blue ball. Now the odds are 5/10 that you choose a blue ball.
Someone takes two randomly and doesn't show you. Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean the odds of you getting a blue when you stick your hand in haven't changed.
It's either 5/8, 4/8 or 3/8 depending on what they have taken. The odds go from being in your favour to against you.

Or is this difference just too insignificant in cards to matter? I suppose you could play it safe and go with 4/8 and get a rough answer for the above.

 

[Evo]

I don't see it. Not saying you're wrong, just don't understand it.

If there are 47 cards left, I agree that there is a 9/47 chance of a heart coming out. But, there aren't 47 cards left. There's 45 (assuming one opponent). You can't select from the opponents hand so there are three available sets of odds here:

1) Opponent does not have a heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 9/45
2) Opponent has one heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 8/45
3) Opponent is doctor who, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 7/45

So the odds of a heart coming out of the remaining deck decrease depending on your opponents hand.

Like I said, not too good at probability.

It's like having a bag with 5 red balls and 5 blue balls. To win you must select a blue ball. Now the odds are 5/10 or that you choose a blue ball.
Someone takes two randomly and doesn't show you. Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean the odds of you getting a blue when you stick your hand in haven't changed.
It's either 5/8, 4/8 or 3/8 depending on what they have taken. The odds go from being in your favour to against you.

Or is this difference just too insignificant in cards to matter?

Not all of those 47 cards are playable either, the top card is discarded (burned) each time the dealer deals.

http://boardgames.about.com/cs/poker/a/texas_rules.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see it. Not saying you're wrong, just don't understand it.

If there are 47 cards left, I agree that there is a 9/47 chance of a heart coming out. But, there aren't 47 cards left. There's 45 (assuming one opponent). You can't select from the opponents hand so there are three available sets of odds here:

1) Opponent does not have a heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 9/45
2) Opponent has one heart, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 8/45
3) Opponent is doctor who, odds of a heart coming out of the deck = 7/45

So the odds of a heart coming out of the remaining deck decrease depending on your opponents hand.

And since you make your calculations without seeing your opponent's hand, the probability of what he might or might not have is irrelevant to your calculation. The probability of you turning up any given card is simply 1/the number of cards you have not seen; it does not matter where those cards are.


Reduce it to 4 cards: 2 red, 2 black. Your objective is to get a "flush" of two cards.

You are each dealt 1 card; you turn up a black card.
There are 3 cards you have not seen: 2 in the deck, 1 in your opponent's hand.

What are the chances that the next card you are dealt will be black? They are 1-in-3.

 

[FredericGos]

Not all of those 47 cards are playable either, the top card is discarded (burned) each time the dealer deals.

Which doesn't matter either because no one sees it.

Look, I had a pretty hard time grasping this myself a couple of years ago and I don't blame you. Intuitively, we think we should consider this, but I assure you it's done this way for a reason that eludes me right now. I'll try to find that article which explains why pretty convincingly.

The only thing that matters is the number of cards we have seen. It could be a pot with 5 players in it, the calculation is the same.

 

[Evo]

Which doesn't matter either because no one sees it.

You're right, they aren't going to played, I'm tired.

 

[D H]

The holdings of your opponent is irrelevant to the calculation.

If you want to lose.

Any information that gives insight into your opponent's hole cards will make you better off than a simple calculation that ignores this information. The information can be something stupid such as your opponent getting all fidgety. However, that is just as much a potzer mistake as hoping the river card will fill an inside straight.

Just because top-notch players don't have tells does not mean they aren't telling you anything. They are. They have to open the pot, check, call, raise, or fold. That is information, and top-notch players know how to heuristically take advantage of that scant information. (Fully applying Bayes' law here is a bit beyond the scope of a human. Some kind of electronic connection to a computer doing those calculations for the player is, I suspect, a form of cheating.)

 

[FredericGos]

If you want to lose.

This is out of context. In the raw calculation given in the previous post it does not matter.

Any information that gives insight into your opponent's hole cards will make you better off than a simple calculation that ignores this information. The information can be something stupid such as your opponent getting all fidgety. However, that is just as much a potzer mistake as hoping the river card will fill an inside straight.

Of course. That's why I'm saying that you put your opponent on a weighted range and that you use that info to judge if he beats you. But in the calculation about whether or not you hit your hand on future streets, its irrelevant. If you know your opponent raised the pot preflop, and you know he is tight and only raises 5% of hands, you take that into account, etc. and much more.

Just because top-notch players don't have tells does not mean they aren't telling you anything. They are. They have to open the pot, check, call, raise, or fold. That is information, and top-notch players know how to heuristically take advantage of that scant information. (Fully applying Bayes' law here is a bit beyond the scope of a human. Some kind of electronic connection to a computer doing those calculations for the player is, I suspect, a form of cheating.)

yes, excactly. You use betting patterns to infer their holdings and tendencies, which in turn guide you towards choosing your own frequencies for doing this and that. That's why poker players talk about game theory a lot. Applying bayes is also used, but more to judge unknown players.

I started this responding to this thread when I saw that highly scientific people had the misconception about math not really being relevant to poker. I just wanted to tell them they are wrong, and the youngsters out there making millions online at poker today are using ONLY math basically, and treating the game as one giant life long monte carlo simulation. And then the old timers berate them they play live ;) But I know which ones I will put my money on.

 

[Evo]

I started this responding to this thread when I saw that highly scientific people had the misconception about math not really being relevant to poker. I just wanted to tell them they are wrong, and the youngsters out there making millions online at poker today are using ONLY math basically, and treating the game as one giant life long monte carlo simulation. And then the old timers berate them they play live ;) But I know which ones I will put my money on.

Playing a computer game is nothing like playiing for real. The two can't even be compared. We weren't talking about computer games.

 

[FredericGos]

Playing a computer game is nothing like playiing for real. The two can't even be compared. We weren't talking about computer games.

Woot? Ok, Evo I have the highest regard for your posts around here, but now you're just being ridiculous. Sorry. Now, fold. You obviously have no idea what you are writing about ;)

 

[Evo]

Woot? Ok, Evo I have the highest regard for your posts around here, but now you're just being ridiculous. Sorry. Now, fold. You obviously have no idea what you are writing about ;)

You can't observe someone playing online. Playing on a computer requires none of the skills of observation or the ability to manipulate your opponent by giving incorrect signals. Kids that play online wouldn't know what hit them if they sat facing a skilled player.

You've been going on about computer gaming all of this time, haven't you?

 

[Anonymous217]

There is math involved in poker, just not hard math. It's simply algebra, probabilities, and remembering the probability of certain events to happen given some cards already shown (flush draw, etc.). Pot odds isn't hard to calculate either. That's why a math major would barely ever have an advantage over some other major. Because the math that IS involved in poker is math that almost anyone who's taken high school algebra can do given enough practice.

Any poker professional or any book written by a professional will talk about pot odds and bet wages in a given pot, etc. This is math, albeit very simple. Here's an example: you have the nuts. you think the other guy is going for a flush draw. You will need to use math to determine the greatest amount to bet without having the person fold. This will give you a general idea on what to bet and you can increase/decrease by some depending on your intuition. It's not like you would simply throw all your chips in and hope he calls, or bet very little because it's ensured he would call by pot odds. There's always a middle-ground and math helps determine that along with intuition.

And I think many of you do in fact have a limited knowledge on poker. Yes, you can read people in online poker. Poker pros play online the majority of the time when they aren't in a specific tournament and there are many professionals who are known for their online play (Gus Hansen, etc.). It's just a different type of reading via response time, playing style, etc. to determine if the person is bluffing or not for example. Although there are less factors to be able to go on, there still are a few.

 

[FredericGos]

You can't observe someone playing online. Playing on a computer requires none of the skills of observation or the ability to manipulate your opponent by giving incorrect signals. Kids that play online wouldn't know what hit them if they sat facing a skilled player.

Sorry Evo, but you are wrong again. As I wrote earlier, this is a minor thing in poker today. The whole physical tell thing is highly overrated and is quite simple to overcome. Just ask any top pro who has been playing poker for 40 years. They will tell you that those young guys cannot be intimidated nor read easily. They just sit there like statues and make play after play. Just like they do at home in front of the PC. Why do you think that most major tournaments today have an end game filed of young internet pros owning everything?

You are just talking like Phil Helmuth now, and even he has to admit that in order to deal with the math guys, he has to change his game and learn the new way of poker.

You have a lot of research to do. The whole poker world has changed drastically in the last 10 years as a result of the math/statistic approach to the game. And if you don't believe that for some reason, then whatever. Living in the past is fine with me, but I thought that facts were in the high seat around here.

 

[FredericGos]

You've been going on about computer gaming all of this time, haven't you?

Not really :) I've been trying to open your eyes about the fact that good poker players use game theory a lot. And last I looked, Game theory is part of the math body of knowledge.

Online or live doesn't make a big difference if you are good at it. The rules are the same, except the pace is much slower live so the math geeks actually have an advantage live, if they can keep their patience.

 

[Anonymous217]

Here's a very simple example: preflop, you're dealt 2/7 offsuit and you're not button, SB, or BB. Obviously you would fold because anyone who plays poker can tell you that 2/7 offsuit is the worst hand possible and will give you very bad odds. Now why do people fold? Because of the odds, ie. probability/math. And the more you know about math (by incorporating SB, BB, odds, etc.), the better you will be at determining whether or not to fold preflop or to call/raise when given a certain hand and position. Doing this more and more will eventually ingrain into intuition, but that intuition was developed via math. It's not simply by going by your "gut" but by your gut reaction after having done enough math subconsciously from experience.
Here's another example:
You're dealt Q/9 suited and you have 500 chips. The pot is 100 currently, you're SB, and it takes 25 to call. Should you call? This is where math makes a big deal.

 

[turbo]

I would love to get into a poker game with some of the people contributing to this thread. My shift-mates and I would get together for a few hours after our last night shift, and play poker. Games were dealers' choice, and I paid a lot of attention to how unsettled the other players might be, so I could call a game that would get me the most money. Some people would chase worthless hands if you called 5-card draw, jacks or better to open, progressive. They knew that the pots could be really big, and would refuse to fold when they had crap, just hoping for a miracle. Another favorite was 7-card roll your own high-low where the highest and lowest hand split the pot and the lowest hole card in your hand was wild. People had some pretty odd strategies to get a piece of the pot, and they were sometimes quite easy to read.

I was the crew's machine tender (lead operator) and the backtender (second operator) was a good friend, and we were the highest and second-highest paid members of the crew. Unfortunately for our crew-members, we generally came in 1,2 in winnings, too. Small stakes, but we generally each came out with $45-30 a week. You get WAY more valuable info from other players than most people realize. Want to calculate odds based on shown cards? Knock yourself out. Better players are subtly checking your "tells" and watching your betting patterns.

 

[Evo]

Sorry Evo, but you are wrong again. As I wrote earlier, this is a minor thing in poker today. The whole physical tell thing is highly overrated and is quite simple to overcome. Just ask any top pro who has been playing poker for 40 years. They will tell you that those young guys cannot be intimidated nor read easily. They just sit there like statues and make play after play. Just like they do at home in front of the PC. Why do you think that most major tournaments today have an end game filed of young internet pros owning everything?

Uh huh.

Poker players exist in a world of math and psychology. There are very distinct mathematical underpinnings to the game of poker and smart poker players know through study or through years of experience what those mathematical underpinnings are - even if they can't articulate them. However, poker also has a strong psychological side and players who are gifted at reading their opponents tend to win more than players who can't read their opponents. So successful poker players (success defined simply as long-term winning!) are usually those who have a grasp of the math of the game and the mental state of their competitors.

Video poker is nothing like real poker. Here you are playing to get the best possible hand.

http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/article/the-numbers-dont-lie-34721

And can the attitude.

Here's Annie Duke on "Gut Instincts".

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200705/annie-duke-gut-instincts

 

[FredericGos]

You get WAY more valuable info from other players than most people realize. Want to calculate odds based on shown cards? Knock yourself out. Better players are subtly checking your "tells" and watching your betting patterns.

No they aren't subtly doing anything unless they know they are against total beginners, which does not happen very often in a 10000$ buyin tournament. They are watching betting patterns yes, so is the opponent.

It's true if you play against the average 'I have no idea about poker but play for fun' type, which makes up 99.9% of the populace in home games and such.

I'm talking about experience poker players and the theory behind poker. I'm talking about the thousands of people who actually put in the work to get better by studying the statistics and learn that there are very simple ways to avoid physical tells and such. I taking about the FACT that math has turned the whole poker world upside down, and the fact that even a 1/2 cent poker game online is waaaaay harder than the average tourist 1/2 dollar live game in vegas.

Call it a video game, I don't mind. Ignore the odds and calculations etc. Whatever. Live in last decade, fine. :) Look at poker in the western style eyeball me eyeball you style, fine. It's just fantasy. Just like the poker shows with negreanu, brunson, gus hansen and the rest of them. They are pretty much all fish when they meet the hardcore guys. Most of the really great players today are not well known. They just sit at home making 7 figures a year.

Why do you guys obstinate and insist on living in the past? You are clearly writing against better knowledge but just refuse to learn. I guess you are just old and stubborn or something? But then again, I'm 44 and I understood this a couple of years ago after being in your camp for a while.

So. listen, learn and shut the f... up ffs ;)

Anyways, NOW I'M TIRED. Goodnight. Peace.

 

[FredericGos]

Uh huh.
Here's Annie Duke on "Gut Instincts".

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200705/annie-duke-gut-instincts

Oooh no. Not Annie Duke. ;)

Ok, I wanted to go to bed, but HAD to comment on that one. Annie duke is still really average. Just another over exposed poker pro player who was lucky to be in the right spot at the right time. (before the poker revolution But, I've heard that she is actually studying hard to become better so she can catch up. Just like many of the others. Negreanu is another who has publicly announced a campaign of selfstudy so he can 'come back' and beat the 100/200 stakes. :)

yawn.

 

[turbo]

No they aren't subtly doing anything unless they know they are against total beginners, which does not happen very often in a 10000$ buyin tournament. They are watching betting patterns yes, so is the opponent.

It's true if you play against the average 'I have no idea about poker but play for fun' type, which makes up 99.9% of the populace in home games and such.

I'm talking about experience poker players and the theory behind poker. I'm talking about the thousands of people who actually put in the work to get better by studying the statistics and learn that there are very simple ways to avoid physical tells and such. I taking about the FACT that math has turned the whole poker world upside down, and the fact that even a 1/2 cent poker game online is waaaaay harder than the average tourist 1/2 dollar live game in vegas.

Have you ever spent any time playing poker? I don't mean very limited controlled games like Texas Hold'em, but free-wheeling games that change with the whims of the dealer. And yes, the better players are subtly watching the other players and keeping an eye on them. One night a couple of "strangers" showed up separately at a game organized by a friend. After a couple of hands in which one of the "strangers" bumped and then dropped, sweetening the pot for his confederate, I offered to help the host fix some snacks for the table. I told him what was going on, and the two cheats were "invited" to leave. They left. Lots of stuff happens over the table. You don't have to put people under a magnifying glass - just be aware of the signs. Vegas pit-bosses would have arranged for those guys to be ejected and blackballed with ongoing prejudice.

 

[Anonymous217]

We're talking about maximizing your effectiveness in playing. We're not talking about just playing against beginners who try to emulate poker pros by also doing the math, but leaving clear cut tells as they fail to understand that you need to master specific tells and signs and that math isn't the only factor in winning a pot. Playing poker and using only the ability to read people and bluff well can get you only so far. Sure, it can win you a lot when you're playing with a group of friends, but that's because you guys are all novices. If you go to a tournament or play against any professional, you'd lose in a 500 hand battle if you can't or choose not to do the math. And if you do know the math, I'm sure you'd win even more when playing with the group of friends (given a large size of hands of course). I previously gave some examples regarding Texas Hold'em where math will clearly help you know when to F/C/B, and the same idea is true for other poker games.
To sum what FredericGos and I have been saying throughout this thread, you need both math and intuition/logic to do well in poker. Using only one can make you succeed, but you're not playing as effectively as possible.

 

[JaredJames]

What are the chances that the next card you are dealt will be black? They are 1-in-3.

Yep, definitely not getting it.

I think the problem here is I'm comparing the real odds with what you calculate.

Based on your example, let's put it another way:

You have 5 red balls and 5 blue balls in a bag. To win you have to draw a red ball.

Before the start of the game player 2 removes all 5 blue balls from the bag. Now, you know he's removed 5, but you don't know which colours.

Your calculations show you have 5/10 odds of pulling a red (which I agree with, the overall odds were that, but you took some out of play, that can never be drawn meaning you end up with a spread of possible odds for pulling a red - 5/5, 4/5, 3/5, 2/5, 1/5 and 0/5 - how can you make a judgement with that).

However, because of what occurred above, the actual odds of you pulling a red are 5/5. So your calculations are off by a massive factor. There is a big difference between making a bet on a 50% chance of pulling a red and a 100% chance of pulling a red.

I understand the whole "you doing your calcs without knowing your opponents" bit, and why you work with the overall odds. But I just don't see how they can be truly helpful given the error potential. A guide yes, but to play a game dependent on the numbers not knowing what your opponents have can't give you accuracy required.

 

[Evo]

We're talking about maximizing your effectiveness in playing. We're not talking about just playing against beginners who try to emulate poker pros by also doing the math, but leaving clear cut tells as they fail to understand that you need to master specific tells and signs and that math isn't the only factor in winning a pot. Playing poker and using only the ability to read people and bluff well can get you only so far. Sure, it can win you a lot when you're playing with a group of friends, but that's because you guys are all novices. If you go to a tournament or play against any professional, you'd lose in a 500 hand battle if you can't or choose not to do the math. And if you do know the math, I'm sure you'd win even more when playing with the group of friends (given a large size of hands of course). I previously gave some examples regarding Texas Hold'em where math will clearly help you know when to F/C/B, and the same idea is true for other poker games.
To sum what FredericGos and I have been saying throughout this thread, you need both math and intuition/logic to do well in poker. Using only one can make you succeed, but you're not playing as effectively as possible.

You seem to realize that it takes multiple skills, but Frederic claimed that math was all that was required, he still thinks it's the most important factor, but he was talking about online gaming. My example was 5 card draw where you see no cards at all until the game ends, math really isn't going to help in that game, you have to to use reasoning and psychology. StautoryApe was thinking of Texas hold'em. That game I agreed needs multiple skills.

The different viewpoints expressed in this thread were based on the different types of poker due to no parameters set in the OP.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yep, definitely not getting it.

I think the problem here is I'm comparing the real odds with what you calculate.

Based on your example, let's put it another way:

You have 5 red balls and 5 blue balls in a bag. To win you have to draw a red ball.

Before the start of the game player 2 removes all 5 blue balls from the bag. Now, you know he's removed 5, but you don't know which colours.

Bzzt. In poker, the opponent does not get to affect the odds of what balls get removed. Thus, a RANDOM collection of balls are removed. Thus, your odds do not change, regardless of what you opponent does.

Repeat the 10-ball experiment a hundred times. The opponent pulls a RANDOM collection of 5 balls every time. Result: you pull a red ball 50% of the time.

 

[JaredJames]

Bzzt. In poker, the opponent does not get to affect the odds of what balls get removed. Thus, a RANDOM collection of balls are removed. Thus, your odds do not change, regardless of what you opponent does.

I've just understood it. I was going to use the below as a response to you, but realized the solution whilst writing it. I have elected to leave it here in case anyone else wants to read it to see if it helps them.

As per my post:
"you end up with a spread of possible odds for pulling a red - 5/5, 4/5, 3/5, 2/5, 1/5 and 0/5"

Random choice, the opponent pulls five balls. You are then left with one of the above odds of pulling a red. They range from in your favour to against you. I agree that over 100 goes you should see an even spread of each of these outcomes, but you are calculating with mean odds of 2.5/5 everytime which should give you a 'good' prediciton (shows you to have a good chance of choosing red) 50% of the time. Which means you should choose red 50% of the time - or 5/10.

Bold = my epiphany moment.

Told you I wasn't good with probability. Ta muchely for driving me to that solution!

 

[Office_Shredder]

Evo, you're showing your age here. The default poker game nowadays is texas hold 'em