3 ms·

Your 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 (

Your 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 ago
I 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.]

csa 8y ago

I 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.]