3 ms·

I don't play poker, but it's interesting there that the right play (because sound statistically) can make you lose the game. Over time a player that makes bette

by troebr 4y ago

I don't play poker, but it's interesting there that the right play (because sound statistically) can make you lose the game. Over time a player that makes better decisions will come out on top. It makes me think sometimes about how the right decision can still end up exploding in your face: it was the best decision with the information at your disposal at the time.

Swizec 4y ago
> the right decision can still end up exploding in your face Nassim Taleb talks about this a lot – never risk ruin. Because yes, on average it works out in the long run, but you are not average, you have 1 playthrough. Before you can win, you have to survive.
- seanhunter 4y ago
  Risk of ruin doesn't apply in poker decision-making except in the "metagame" (ie which stakes you play and how much you actually put on the table etc). In hands themselves poker is played for "table stakes" (ie in a given hand you can only lose the chips that are in front of you at the beginning of that hand). Because of the table stakes rule, avoiding risk of ruin in poker is literally as simple as keeping some money as cash and not putting it on the table. The thing that happens in movies where someone makes a bet their opponent can't call so they throw the deeds to their house/title to their gold mine/keys to their car into the pot literally can't happen in poker. You can only bet what you have on the table at the beginning of the hand and if you call all-in (all those chips) you get to see the hand to conclusion regardless of what the opponent bet.
fronterablog 4y ago
Oh, indeed. Annie Duke (professional poker player) had a great book on this called "Thinking in Bets." The main idea is that good decisions can create bad outcomes. And bad decisions can create good ones (because of luck). So she suggests making decisions by calculating expected value like a poker player. And separating the outcome from the quality of the decision.

by troebr 4y ago

Swizec 4y ago

> the right decision can still end up exploding in your face Nassim Taleb talks about this a lot – never risk ruin. Because yes, on average it works out in the long run, but you are not average, you have 1 playthrough. Before you can win, you have to survive.

seanhunter 4y ago
Risk of ruin doesn't apply in poker decision-making except in the "metagame" (ie which stakes you play and how much you actually put on the table etc). In hands themselves poker is played for "table stakes" (ie in a given hand you can only lose the chips that are in front of you at the beginning of that hand). Because of the table stakes rule, avoiding risk of ruin in poker is literally as simple as keeping some money as cash and not putting it on the table. The thing that happens in movies where someone makes a bet their opponent can't call so they throw the deeds to their house/title to their gold mine/keys to their car into the pot literally can't happen in poker. You can only bet what you have on the table at the beginning of the hand and if you call all-in (all those chips) you get to see the hand to conclusion regardless of what the opponent bet.

fronterablog 4y ago

Oh, indeed. Annie Duke (professional poker player) had a great book on this called "Thinking in Bets." The main idea is that good decisions can create bad outcomes. And bad decisions can create good ones (because of luck). So she suggests making decisions by calculating expected value like a poker player. And separating the outcome from the quality of the decision.