4 ms·
When I learned to play poker with some "semi-pro" players at the table, they asked what I did I said I worked in security and cryptography, which is what got me
by motohagiography 6y ago
When I learned to play poker with some "semi-pro" players at the table, they asked what I did I said I worked in security and cryptography, which is what got me into playing. When they said, "oh, you're a math guy?" I said, "not really, more code, but the problems I deal with at work are edge cases where assumptions about math break down, for example like how statistical models of card shuffling assume an even, normal distribution, which is great in theory, but doesn't bear out in practice."
This created enough uncertainty and second guessing in their minds about their own odds calculations on each hand that with a bit of aggression and beginners randomness, I was able to take a few of them out.
I wasn't doing better calculations, I was just adding uncertainty to theirs. I still don't know much about playing cards, but that is how you bullshit bullshitters.
- andrewflnr 6y agoThat's beautiful. It sounds like you were using the standard odds calculations?
- mewpmewp2 6y agoI'm not sure I get it. How do you know this created uncertainty and second guessing?
- vl 6y agoHe said that he knows that the deck is not shuffled randomly.
- mewpmewp2 6y agoI mean how does he know that this had influence on the semi pro players. It just seems unlikely to me that they would start second guessing after that fact.
- mpol 6y agoMath. Or he might be a human being with feelings and perceptions, however subjective they may be.
- mewpmewp2 6y agoIt just seems unlikely to cause anyone semi pro to start second guessing themselves. So I would like to understand how did this manifest.
- Raidion 6y agoThis is like an example of persuasive bullshitting from the article! Poker amateurs play badly regardless of reason. Poker professionals wouldn't adjust their strategy based on some random guy at the table. The sample size is incredibly small for poker (as you said) but saying that the uncertainty you added affected the outcome is tenuous. Additionally the best live poker players are entertainers in terms of they want to make you feel valued and that you have a chance so you come back and play more. They have a concrete financial interest in making you feel smart, funny, and competent. A true live poker pro always laughs when the worst player tells a joke and always says 'whoa that's interesting' after the worst player tells a story.
- motohagiography 6y agoIt's possible I didn't know the difference between winning and losing and it was an attribution error. My experience with people in business who lie about data and bullshit about crypto suggested even though the players were way more experienced, they could be persuaded they needed to be cautious by someone with a "deeper" background. Anyway, I ended up splitting the pot in that tournament, so lucky for sure, and maybe the guy I split it with was so good he could use a beginner at the table against the others as a shield, but in a game of confidence and perceptions, bringing in data points nobody else has is destabilizing.
- mewpmewp2 6y agoI've got to call bullshit on this as well. No one is going to lose confidence due to something like that and results of one game with small crowd are very luck dependant. It feels like you won at roulette and are attributing your win to something genius you think you did.
- motohagiography 6y agoPlausible, with the slight exception it was on purpose, and breaking peoples balls on their mystical folk understandings of why they think they're good is very much a competitive strategy. See sports psychology for examples. The way to bullshit a bullshitter is to seize the initiative and give them an out where they save face. Nothing brilliant, but it's funny, and standard in sales. A bit of charisma goes a long way. I've absolutely been the mark in other situations, but that one, I thought it was intentional enough to share.:)