4 ms·

>When a poker player has a small stack he makes poorer choices This immediately shows you have not played poker seriously or have a working knowledge of poker

>When a poker player has a small stack he makes poorer choices This immediately shows you have not played poker seriously or have a working knowledge of poker knowledge. The framing of the question is wrong too,

cynicalkane 13y ago
Instead of jumping to conclusions, consider that the OP is probably talking about a typical person playing poker who is prone to making bad decisions for psychological reasons. Hey, that's just like most real-life people, which is what this article is about.
- EGreg 13y ago
  Thank you. Exactly. I wanted to add one thing, which I have found to be a good general principle: To help someone (including yourself) achieve real success the best way is to make it safe to fail. That makes it safe to take risks - because there are no certainties in life. That poor kid with a talent for singing would have a better shot at helping the world if he was able to take a risk eg pursue his singing education instead of working at McDonalds 10 hours a day to pay his rent.
  - pi18n 13y ago
    > To help someone (including yourself) achieve real success the best way is to make it safe to fail. Oh I was just thinking this same thing a while ago. If we want to reduce unemployment we have to empower people to employ themselves, since corporate spending appears to be trickling down in other countries. I was thinking of it in the context of free healthcare and free education.
    - nhaehnle 13y ago
      I'm not sure if that's what you're saying, but keep in mind that targetting the unemployed for self-employment is usually not an effective strategy. Mass unemployment is a macro problem and not the individual fault of the unemployed, but despite that, the people who end up unemployed do tend to be on the lower end of the skill range. This means they are not the best candidates for self-employment to begin with. It's better to make it safe for those who are employed to give up their employment to create new businesses and thus create more jobs. Though in the end, it always comes down to aggregate demand. Even encouraging startups does not boost aggregate demand.
      - pi18n 13y ago
        Ah, no, I do mean to target the already employed people that want to create their own jobs but cannot take the risk due to having no other source of healthcare and no other way to pay for their children's education. I think there must be some group of people that would do their own startup but for needing healthcare.
      - pi18n 13y ago
        Ah, no, I do mean to target the already employed people that want to create their own jobs but cannot take the risk due to having no other source of healthcare and no other way to pay for their children's education. I think there must be some group of people that would do their own startup but for needing healthcare.
boboblong 13y ago
Actually, in a typical MTT short stacks are forced to shove all-in very aggressively, which can be construed as having to make "poor" choices--the decisions aren't actually incorrect, but larger stacks wouldn't have to take such frequent and large risks.
nbouscal 13y ago
When you're playing a small stack your Nash equilibrium actions do not extract as much EV as the actions you would make with a large stack. In other words, the best choices you can make with a small stack are poorer choices than the best choices you can make with a large stack.

cynicalkane 13y ago

Instead of jumping to conclusions, consider that the OP is probably talking about a typical person playing poker who is prone to making bad decisions for psychological reasons. Hey, that's just like most real-life people, which is what this article is about.

EGreg 13y ago
Thank you. Exactly. I wanted to add one thing, which I have found to be a good general principle: To help someone (including yourself) achieve real success the best way is to make it safe to fail. That makes it safe to take risks - because there are no certainties in life. That poor kid with a talent for singing would have a better shot at helping the world if he was able to take a risk eg pursue his singing education instead of working at McDonalds 10 hours a day to pay his rent.
- pi18n 13y ago
  > To help someone (including yourself) achieve real success the best way is to make it safe to fail. Oh I was just thinking this same thing a while ago. If we want to reduce unemployment we have to empower people to employ themselves, since corporate spending appears to be trickling down in other countries. I was thinking of it in the context of free healthcare and free education.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    I'm not sure if that's what you're saying, but keep in mind that targetting the unemployed for self-employment is usually not an effective strategy. Mass unemployment is a macro problem and not the individual fault of the unemployed, but despite that, the people who end up unemployed do tend to be on the lower end of the skill range. This means they are not the best candidates for self-employment to begin with. It's better to make it safe for those who are employed to give up their employment to create new businesses and thus create more jobs. Though in the end, it always comes down to aggregate demand. Even encouraging startups does not boost aggregate demand.
    - pi18n 13y ago
      Ah, no, I do mean to target the already employed people that want to create their own jobs but cannot take the risk due to having no other source of healthcare and no other way to pay for their children's education. I think there must be some group of people that would do their own startup but for needing healthcare.
    - pi18n 13y ago
      Ah, no, I do mean to target the already employed people that want to create their own jobs but cannot take the risk due to having no other source of healthcare and no other way to pay for their children's education. I think there must be some group of people that would do their own startup but for needing healthcare.

boboblong 13y ago

Actually, in a typical MTT short stacks are forced to shove all-in very aggressively, which can be construed as having to make "poor" choices--the decisions aren't actually incorrect, but larger stacks wouldn't have to take such frequent and large risks.

nbouscal 13y ago

When you're playing a small stack your Nash equilibrium actions do not extract as much EV as the actions you would make with a large stack. In other words, the best choices you can make with a small stack are poorer choices than the best choices you can make with a large stack.