33 ms·
> While bridge is infinitely analytical, poker is more psychological: In high-level matches, every player at the table can compute the odds instantaneously, and
by csa 8y ago
> While bridge is infinitely analytical, poker is more psychological: In high-level matches, every player at the table can compute the odds instantaneously, and what separates the best players from the pack is the ability to pick up “tells,” such as the furrowing of the brow as an indication of bluffing.
This is largely incorrect, and I wish this stereotype of poker (esp. high-stakes poker) would not be propagated so often.
Pros playing against fish in a private cash game may get a huge advantage off of physical tells, but that’s not the most consistent information that almost all players give away.
The consistent information that players give away is how they play specific kinds of hands in terms of position, frequency, aggression, and/or bet sizing. This extends even to very high levels of play. This type of information cannot be hidden, it can only be varied.
A classic low-stakes live tell is that players bet small on weak made hands and draws, but they bet bigger with their stronger made hands. Once a good player gets a sense of what those ranges are and what type of pressure (if any) can make the weak player fold, it just becomes a field day for the skilled player.
Highly-skilled players will have gears that they shift through such that their opponents have a tough time defining the skilled player’s hand range. Once the skilled player shows down some unexpected hands and gets into the weak player’s head, the game again becomes extremely easy for the skilled player.
Contrary to what the author says, I’m not actually convinced that the gaming skill set of high-level poker players and high-level bridge players is actually that much different.
If any high-level bridge players (I am not one) want to chime in and compare and contrast high-level strategies and tactics in these two games, I would love to extend the discussion.
- jpatokal 8y agoYour description sounds very psychological, which is exactly what the article is saying as well? In other words, you're not concerned with the specific cards (analytical), but what your opponent thinks about their cards.
- csa 8y agoI would characterize high-level poker playing as very analytical, much in the same way that bridge (or spades in my case) is analytical. I would say that the psychological game — especially getting into someone’s head — exists in bridge, spades, poker, and even games like chess and go (high stakes go games between a pro and a rich and skilled amateur often end with the amateur being brain-fucked and playing far below their actual skill level). I will use spades as an example moving forward due to the fact that I have much more experience with it than bridge, and the gameplay is similar (as well as simpler). A skilled poker player is always putting opponents on a range of hands, and the betting becomes largely very mechanical once the skilled player is dialed into a weaker player’s range. A skilled spades player is going to make a guess based on bids and cards played about how the bidder plans to make their bid — specifically, with what cards — and then discard accordingly to attempt to create the highest probability of setting the opponent. The same can be said of winning the bid and potentially choosing to play a specific gambit if the hand doesn’t seem to be a sure thing. The cards always matter to some extent in both games. That said, the analysis and mind games can be used in both as well. Does that answer your question? [edit: The author uses the term “psychological” to refer to physical tells. Online poker is played with no physical presence, so this form of psychological advantage does not exist. What about bet sizing info? They are called betting tells in the poker world. Is that psychological or analytical? What about learning about hand reading and playing tendencies? My point is simply that I think that the skill sets of high-level players in each game are actually more similar than is widely believed and represented. Whether these similarities are called psychological or analytical is really just semantics in this particular context.]
- propter_hoc 8y agoI've played a lot of high level bridge, and a fair amount of mid-level poker. You are definitely correct that there are a number of transferable skills between the two games. Interestingly, a lot of these concepts are much more elaborated in one game or the other, such that playing one game will make you a better player at the other. In fact, I actually picked up poker to improve my bridge skills. For example, counting an entire deck is a critical and basic skill on bridge, and gave me a significant head start in poker. On the other hand, the psychological game is definitely applicable to both games, but is indeed much more developed in poker than in bridge. For example, in poker the concept of 'tilt' (being in a state where emotions are clouding judgment) is quite well developed. There are treatises on how to recognize that you're on tilt, how to get off tilt, how to deliberately play to put your opponents on tilt, etc. There is nothing written about this in the bridge literature, but at high levels it's hugely applicable.