4 ms·

Original article is talking about Fantasy Football, but I feel like something similar has been occurring in Poker over the last few years. A lot of the current

Original article is talking about Fantasy Football, but I feel like something similar has been occurring in Poker over the last few years. A lot of the current players are studying Game-Theoretic-Optimal (GTO) models of gameplay, and memorising range tables and bet sizes based not just on your cards, but also on where you are sat at the table in relation to the dealer, and the size of your chip stack.[0] I know that Poker is a game of skill, and the more you put into understanding the game, the more you're going to get out - but this just seems like... a lot of work. Is it really making the game more fun? It's kind of weird, because watching Rounders from back in the day, you'd see a lot of people express respect for Knish (John Turturro) and his attitude towards grinding it out, playing careful odds, treating Poker as a job. And if the poker scene is filled with people "playing the man, not the cards" and learning how to make good reads, and, well, dreamers, then having someone like Knish around makes for an interesting contrast. But if everyone plays like Knish? Where's the fun in that? [0] https://www.splitsuit.com/poker-ranges-reading https://www.splitsuit.com/poker-ranges-reading

altdataseller 4y ago
Isnt it like this for all things? Its fun when you are the only one with an edge and winning. Its no longer fun when everyone has the same edge. Goes for startups, college admissions, SEO/marketing, etc.
- afiori 4y ago
  Arms races are a negative sum game.
- Karellen 4y ago
  I dunno. Even if you're the only one doing it, and winning a lot because of the edge, it still feels like that much work would still make it "not fun". Or, it's possible that a lot of current poker players are the kind of nerds for whom figuring out GTO strategies and memorising probability tables for games is intrinsically fun, and they'd do it even if they had no intention of ever actually playing the game. In the same way that some people memorise everything about different types of train, even if they never intend on working in the railway industry, but because it tickles the right part of their brain. But I doubt it.
  - altdataseller 4y ago
    Diff. people get satisfaction from diff. things. Some like to find exploits in a system, and take advantage of them. And seeing their score go up because of that gives them satisfaction.
indigochill 4y ago
I feel similar about the direction Go (the game, not the language) has gone ever since AlphaGo beat Lee Sedol. Suddenly the top players are looking to AI to teach them the most optimal way to play even though the plays are far more alien than if you watch games from the ancient masters, where intuition still informs most of the moves. Sedol commented at the time that although he appreciated AlphaGo's strength, he never wanted to play it again and I agree. It's not even really that it sucks the fun out of it, it's that the decisions the AI makes are often inscrutable and counterintuitive. It removes the traditional feel of Go being a negotiation.
- remram 4y ago
  This reminds me of the recent post about Magnus Carlsen giving up his chess World Champion title: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163993
phkahler 4y ago
>> but this just seems like... a lot of work. At that point it's not about work or fun. It's about winning. Same thing is happening at companies - it's not about great product, it's about maximizing profit. Winning and money are obvious reasonable things to strive for, so I'm not sure how we can refocus either of these areas on QoL.

altdataseller 4y ago

Isnt it like this for all things? Its fun when you are the only one with an edge and winning. Its no longer fun when everyone has the same edge. Goes for startups, college admissions, SEO/marketing, etc.

afiori 4y ago
Arms races are a negative sum game.
Karellen 4y ago
I dunno. Even if you're the only one doing it, and winning a lot because of the edge, it still feels like that much work would still make it "not fun". Or, it's possible that a lot of current poker players are the kind of nerds for whom figuring out GTO strategies and memorising probability tables for games is intrinsically fun, and they'd do it even if they had no intention of ever actually playing the game. In the same way that some people memorise everything about different types of train, even if they never intend on working in the railway industry, but because it tickles the right part of their brain. But I doubt it.
- altdataseller 4y ago
  Diff. people get satisfaction from diff. things. Some like to find exploits in a system, and take advantage of them. And seeing their score go up because of that gives them satisfaction.

indigochill 4y ago

I feel similar about the direction Go (the game, not the language) has gone ever since AlphaGo beat Lee Sedol. Suddenly the top players are looking to AI to teach them the most optimal way to play even though the plays are far more alien than if you watch games from the ancient masters, where intuition still informs most of the moves. Sedol commented at the time that although he appreciated AlphaGo's strength, he never wanted to play it again and I agree. It's not even really that it sucks the fun out of it, it's that the decisions the AI makes are often inscrutable and counterintuitive. It removes the traditional feel of Go being a negotiation.

remram 4y ago
This reminds me of the recent post about Magnus Carlsen giving up his chess World Champion title: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163993

phkahler 4y ago

>> but this just seems like... a lot of work. At that point it's not about work or fun. It's about winning. Same thing is happening at companies - it's not about great product, it's about maximizing profit. Winning and money are obvious reasonable things to strive for, so I'm not sure how we can refocus either of these areas on QoL.