Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
sans_souse
I'm surprised at the general tone of response here towards the subject of poker overall (I didn't read the article yet so perhaps something more is in the context, but all the same); I understand there are many in the poker world even regarding the most successful of whom are regarded as living a degenerate lifestyle, but being that I was previously in that world myself and was not a degenerate type; I never gambled outside of "my game" that I had an edge in, I learned and implemented proper bankroll management and I studied the game on fundamental levels and on up, progressing into the meta-psyche game that is NL heads-up.
Which brings me to my point which is that while some forms of poker have proven "beatable" by ai, certain forms ie; short-handed tables of NL Holdem, increase in perpexlity to a point where, in heads-up, there are too many variables at play both "physically" (the cards and corresponding hand ranks) and metaphysically (the story being implied thru the route of actions taken at each street from preflop, flop, turn, to river) for there to exist some perfect approach against a skilled player.
NL Holdem poker is absolutely a game of skill with an element of variance aka luck/lack-there-of.
blitzar
The teachings from the games of gambling, probability etc is a valuable life skill that far too few people have.
I reccomend:
Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts Hardcover – 6 Feb. 2018 by Annie Duke
Or listen to any of the podcasts she did when promoting the book - Peter Attia or Masters of Business are the two I presonally consumed at that time.
PaulRobinson
I mention this in threads/replies below:
It's a warped puritanism.
I agree with everything you've said, and I think we'd have better politics, economics, human relationships and fun, if more people got their heads out of their posteriors and actually understood poker more.
Muvasa
It's kinda disgusting that people have such a visceral reaction.
marksimi
Also used to be in that world and identify similarly in terms of my lack of love for gambling.
I'd suggest that you're empirically incorrect in saying that there is no perfect approach against a skilled player (6handed games which often reduce to a single heads-up interactions by showdown):
1. we know that a Nash equilibrium exists for every two-player zero-sum game such that it’s mathematically unexploitable
2. Pluribus approximated the Nash well enough (didn’t have to search over 10^161 possibilities) to crush high stakes skilled player over a good run of hands
schwartzworld
> NL Holdem poker is absolutely a game of skill with an element of variance aka luck/lack-there-of.
I’ve played a lot of Holdem, and I’m not sure I agree. A lot of what passes for skill is just an innate understanding of the odds.
John Scarne writes about gambling that a good bet isn’t one you are likely to win, but one where the payout is enough to be worth the risk. The best players know the odds of pulling a straight and can do math to figure out if it’s worth chasing one.
cluckindan
Also known as Expected Value (EV), as in, how much is in the pot right now compared to how much you’re betting/calling, usually compared to how likely you are to win a hand using the cards you’re holding.
That works well for limit games, where you can’t bet more than a set amount (in relation to the blinds or the current pot), especially when there are multiple people at the table, and you’re in an advantageous late position so others act before you do.
In high-stakes no-limit heads-up (1v1) play, the cards you’re holding matter less, especially before the flop. EV and pot odds are almost useless except for gauging when to bluff / if you’re being bluffed. Hands rarely end in a showdown as opposed to one of the players folding. The hands that do are essentially coin-flips, with both players holding what they believe are strong hands.
bko
I think this is true and why programs like like Pluribus, Libratus and DeepStack have outperformed professionals in both heads-up and multiplayer no-limit Texas Hold'em. It's not reading social cues like traditional players, but just relying on probability. Even when giving perfect knowledge of the computer strategy to humans, they're still unable to exploit.
Humans are improving their game by using solvers and introducing randomness into their decisions. For instance, an optimal strategy given a hand might be "fold 80% of the time". One way to do that in live play is look at the second hand of a watch and fold unless it seconds (in this case) are about 48 (80% prob).
marksimi
You're not wrong that knowing the odds is a component of the skill, but to suggest that skill in poker stops there is minimizing many of the advanced aspects that require playing at a higher level (information management, assessing a player's likely range, determining the equity of a player's range with cards to come, realizing when your or their range is capped, etc)
tengbretson
> I’ve played a lot of Holdem, and I’m not sure I agree. A lot of what passes for skill is just an innate understanding of the odds.
"The odds", however, are not simply a function of the cards in your hand and the unknown cards in the deck. There are also the cards in other people's hands, and getting a good read on what they may be based on the person's behavior is absolutely a skill.
It's always entertaining to play poker with 1 friend who is very skilled at a table full of novices. They often get frustrated and crash out due to their read on other people's behavior being miscalibrated to the situation.
ryandrake
> It's always entertaining to play poker with 1 friend who is very skilled at a table full of novices. They often get frustrated and crash out due to their read on other people's behavior being miscalibrated to the situation.
The most frustrating poker game I play is the monthly Saturday Night game with the bros where they're mostly drinking and watching sports, and none of them are very good or play regularly in casinos.
You can usually get a good read on people who are decent-to-good players, playing in a casino. Their bets will generally make sense and tell a believable story (whether or not they are bluffing). You can mostly tell when they are playing ABC poker vs. getting out of line or making moves. People's bet sizing, their approach to pot management, their ranges, their play style, tight vs. loose, passive vs. aggressive, tend to be identifiable. In other words, players tend to act in ways you'd expect from poker players who have played 10,000 hands.
The Saturday Night amateur gang don't play in ways that make sense or are classifiable. You can't tell what their range is, because they don't even know what a range is. Their betting lines don't make sense because they aren't poker players, and often aren't even paying attention to the current hand. You really have to play these kinds of games differently, and/or just relax and consider it a night of drinking and random bingo instead of poker.
mettamage
Hey I've started playing poker occasionally again, wanna have a chat about poker? My email is in my profile.
I used to be a winning player at small stakes about 20 years ago, so nothing major but enough for me to show that it's a game of skill.
But yea, for anyone interested why poker is a game of skill, it's due to the law of large numbers. You can easily see the law kick into effect when you simulate a dice roll and you win from 1 to 4 and the other wins 5 to 6 and you both get $1 if you win. I recently had to explain this concept so I happen to have the JS still lying around in my Chrome console.
const rolls = 10_000;
let a = 0;
let b = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < rolls; i++) {
const die = Math.ceil(Math.random() * 6); // 1–6
if (die <= 4) a++;
else b++;
}
console.log(`Player A wins: $${a}`);
console.log(`Player B wins: $${b}`);
console.log(`Total paid out: $${a + b}`);
console.log(`A's edge per game: ${(a - b) / rolls}`);
console.log(`Difference: ${(a - b)}`);kqr
Poker has much, much higher variance than dice though (or weighted coins, which is what you're actually modeling). It takes hundreds of thousands of hands to establish a statistically significant win rate.
At a common online pace of 1.5 hands per minute (live games are much slower) that's over a thousand hours of playing. I.e. even if playing for one hour every day, it takes years before a player knows whether they're profitable or not.
Seems disingenious to compare to dice when you presumably know poker belongs to that class of distributions to which the central limit theorem applies very slowly.
63stack
Your proof to poker being a game based on skill is a simulation of weighted dice?
internet_points
> I'm surprised at the general tone of response here towards the subject of poker overall [...] regarded as living a degenerate lifestyle
Maybe the people who are negative have read to the end of the article where we are let into the not-so-hidden agenda of the parent: Teach the kids to hustle their way through college so they can become a market speculator.
cillian64
Matt Levine is “known for his humorous, witty, deadpan writing style” - I’m pretty sure that’s a joke.
tasuki
I think it was at least partially joke. The author writes a popular newsletter called "Money Stuff", which is about weird things in the finance world.
undefined
more_corn
One of the best life lessons I learned was while perusing a poker strategy book in a bookstore as a teen. I’ve never been into poker, not even sure why I picked it up. One thing it said was the most important thing to remember is that most of your hands will be crap. Don’t get attached to a bad hand and don’t convince yourself that an ok hand is a good hand. If you just fold the bad hands and play the good ones you’re already a better player than most.
I took that to heart and it has served me well in life.
tgijs
For me, it's "decisions, not results." Poker will teach you patience and acceptance of that which is out of your control.
wileydragonfly
That’s it. That’s the entire strategy. I pray that the Texas Hold ‘Em fad doesn’t come back. That was an insufferable decade of hearing how clever everyone was.
cman1444
That's "the entire strategy" for becoming a non-beginner. Poker game theory gets much more complicated at higher levels of play.
wileydragonfly
[flagged]
albedoa
[flagged]
oinfoalgo
I have never met a losing poker player.
That for me was the greatest life lesson from that time.
Also how there was all these poker strategy books but I don't remember a single one trying to model the strategy of the rake and how to determine if the rake made a game unbeatable. Basically, assuming all games at all levels of rake are beatable.
How convenient for the house.
wileydragonfly
[flagged]
thebigspacefuck
That just makes you a tight passive player which is not the worst kind of player to be but also not likely to win you a lot of money
btilly
Being a loose aggressive player is far more likely to lead to you losing a lot of money, than winning a lot of money.
Once you consider what the house earns, poker is a net negative for the players. In order for there to be some big winners, there have to be a lot of losers. And a shocking number of those losers will, thanks to our selective memories, consider themselves winning players.
owlninja
In popular poker you are just playing against other players, not the house.
thebigspacefuck
Sure, that’s considered the worst player type to be and generally tight aggressive is considered the best strategy.
Zero-sum nature of the game aside, Meta developed an AI that wins consistently at poker, so it is possible to be good at poker and win consistently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluribus_(poker_bot)
bobbiechen
I like this. Most people try to teach card games by listing every rule, but it's much easier to play a simpler version then add in new rules.
I play the Chinese card game Zhao Peng You (Finding Friends, part of the Sheng Ji family of games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng_ji), which is a trick taking game with a trump suit that changes between games, a trump number that changes between games, and a team selection mechanic rather than fixed teams. It's insanely hard to learn everything at once, so we usually start new people with fixed teams and trumps just to get the feel of a team-based trick-taking game, before adding in the complications.
shaftway
Every game is easier to learn when you start with simple rules and then add new ones as you go.
We teach people Liar's Dice. It's a very simple game, especially if you build it up like this. Everyone gets five Dice. You roll them and look at your own, and then take turns guessing how many of a given number are on the table. Guesses have to "go up" (either the number of dice stays the same and the number of pips goes up, or the number of dice goes up). Instead of guessing you can challenge the person before you. Whoever is wrong loses a die and game play repeats.
After a few rounds, dice showing a one are wild.
After a few more rounds, if anyone in a round bids 1's, then ones are not wild for that round.
After a few more rounds we start discussing the probabilities and strategies.
The challenge is not breaking the game fundamentally while you add rules.
animal531
We play Uno like this. Start with the basic (agreed upon house rules), then every time someone wins a hand they get to add or remove any rule they want, as long as it doesn't outright break the gameplay.
coderintherye
Blind Man's Bluff is a great variant: Give everyone a card face-down, they put it on their forehead without looking at it. Bet based on whether or not you think the card on your forehead is higher than other people's. More fun in my opinion.
mrexroad
Article footnote mentions this with the caveat that it requires some dexterity that young children may find challenging. That aside, I think the two games make a great complementary pair and switching between provides a nice contrast for kids.
bombcar
You play normal one card poker until the kids realize the benefit of seeing other player’s cards - then you play blind man’s and learn that incomplete information can go the other way.
nielsbot
I suppose you can simply hold your card in your hands with the back facing you. Or use some kind of vertical holder.
entropic88
Like.. a headband?
ChicagoDave
I’ve taught all five of my kids how to play poker, and if they ever sit down at a cash game consider their stack gone and play the cards (remove the dopamine chaos). Learn the math, betting strategies, and look for villain patterns.
These all directly relate to real life.
I believe in it so much that I have a tournament training app startup: https://mach9poker.com/.
There’s a company in Chicago that teaches women poker in relation to business: https://pokerpower.com/.
Bankroll management is a critical skill regardless of the use case.
mna_
Start your kids onto the path of gambling? No thanks. Better to teach them chess, xiangqi, shogi or go/baduk.
gwd
Life is full of uncertainty. Learning to take calculated risks, where most attempts fail but a few ones pay off big, is an important life skill. Reading other people's behavior to infer hidden information is another one -- Jane Street apparently used to have people learn poker to learn how to infer hidden information from the behavior of other people buying and selling stocks, but invented their own game (https://www.figgie.com/) to teach the same skills more efficiently.
ETA: I would say, when poker is taught correctly, it should discourage anyone from the sorts of gambling which are problematic:
Problem 1: Wasting your money in situations where the odds are "with the house". This would include playing slot machines or basically anything at a casino, the lottery, or even 50/50 raffles (although I can see an exception for the last one).
Poker should teach you to only take bets where the expected value (value of winning * prob winning) is greater than the cost, which is not true in the above examples.
Problem 2: Getting sucked into betting more and more to make up what you've already lost. One aspect of long-term poker should be teaching you is how to manage this effectively.
nkrisc
That’s funny. I’ve played poker but I’ve never gambled a cent in my life. How does that work? Oh yeah, we played poker with plastic chips not backed by any money. We just played for fun.
telesilla
Likewise, never gambled once even when exposed to the possibility, but I love a good game of poker or blackjack, it's fun for the mind and it's sociable. Our maths teacher a few decades ago used roulette and other games to teach us about statistics, we all loved it and it engaged the entire class, a bonus for slower maths learners. Today I suppose it's not allowed in the classroom?
AtlasBarfed
Gambling is a huge addiction problem. Your comment is like saying someone that occasionally smokes cocaine isn't addicted so cocaine isn't addictive.
jiminymcmoogley
I think a more apt comparison might be that it's like saying an actor who has played roles which involve them pretending to snort cocaine isn't addicted so acting in roles that involve the portrayal of drug use isn't addictive.
nkrisc
We weren’t gambling. Nobody won or lost anything.
ta1243
Are they gambling then there is no win or lose?
Rastonbury
Once kids get familiarity with odds and probability they will soon realise that casino games they have no edge and the house always wins. Also you cannot bluff a casino dealer which is half the fun
_diyar
You can also use it to teach about the risk of gambling and simple probabilities. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
blitzar
Europeans with their sip of wine for kids seems to have a very different outcome to the puritanical US attitude to alcohol and ban until old age.
yorwba
Different in the sense that they consume more alcohol? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_c... That it is legal for children to drink under parental supervision also doesn't necessarily mean that parents will allow it, so the legal situation isn't necessarily the deciding factor.
undefined
mmmlinux
A lot of the commenters here seem unable to separate poker from gambling. I assume this is how Balatro managed to get that 18+ PEGI rating.
egypturnash
Huh this actually makes sense, it strikes directly at the reasons I’ve never wanted to try playing poker. I’m in my fifties and I have a vague idea that there is a hierarchy of hands and that something called a “flush” is probably the winning hand (which is pretty absurd given that the main way I use “flush” is as a verb for disposing of my body’s waste products via the city’s sewage system) but I have absolutely zero grasp of the mechanics of going from “people are dealt hands” to “someone won”, and not enough free cash to play a game people seem to generally insist is absolutely not worth playing if it’s not for money. The levels of analysis hardcore players constantly descend into at the faintest excuse is really unappealing too, filling my brain up with that sounds impossibly tedious.
(Please do not attempt to explain the rules of poker to me in replies unless you are being hilariously wrong.)
vel0city
Flush also has a meaning of fullness/abundance, "he was flush wish cash", "his face was flush with embarrassment". It can also mean something level to a surface, as in "this should sit flush against the wall".
Muvasa
A lot of starcraft players transitioned to Poker. Because both games require decision making in a system with incomplete information(like real life). That's why parents should teach their kids how to play poker. Otherwise they risk going by in life without critical cognitive skills.
AtlasBarfed
Yeah, the only way to learn those skills is to engage in a degenerate gambling pastime, that is a gateway to many other degenerate gambling pastimes.
This entire thread is exactly like arguing with weed smokers on Reddit/r/trees.
handoflixue
If you think "Starcraft" is a degenerate gambling pastime, you might want to consider that your standards do not align with 99% of the people you're hanging out with here.
Equally, if you consider weed a degenerate pleasure to begin with, then of course you're going to disagree with teenagers going "hehehe, look at my first bong!!"
Nemi
This is so overly simplified. There are many things in life that require you to make decisions with incomplete information. E.g., Business decisions and investment decisions. Not learning how to properly make decisions with incomplete information keeps you relegated to simply being an employee without the opportunity to vastly change one's own circumstances in life.
If you listen to a person describe the way to play as a Tight Aggressive poker player, you will see that the message parallels what Warren Buffett says about Value Investing.
spongebobism
Is "degenerate" the word that comes to your mind when reading about the Levine family's game night?
prawn
I taught our youngest Monopoly Deal with similar simplification: removed all but properties, birthday and debt collector/etc. Then added property stealing/swapping. Then rent. It was very effective in getting her quickly up to speed.
ljf
After my kids fell in love Uno (in all it's versions) - I got them Monopoly Deal and Monopoly Bid - and I have to say they are both brilliant and fun games in their own right and very different to each other.
We then got the Cludo card games and were equally impressed.
gwd
So hang on, you play with just properties and simple cards; so in this simplified version of the game, you're mainly just trying to collect sets?
spongebobism
Great stuff. Growing up, I played both chess an poker seriously. Chess mostly in person: in a club, at tournaments and league matches. Poker mostly online, for real money (age verification wasn't taken very seriously at the time). Though I've spent more time on chess in total, poker has had a bigger impact on my outlook on life. It constantly confronts you with your own cognitive biases and teaches you how to deal with uncertainty and variance, two very important things people by default kinda suck at.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
https://archive.ph/AjiWY