Assani's Poker Thread (4 Viewers)

[Good Posting Judge]

Stoned AF vs. sober Oats HU4rollz?

 

[Judge Smails]

Otis wanted a sober poker player for his action.....

 

[fred_1_15301]

Otis wanted a sober poker player for his action.....

Otis seems pissed

 

[Otis]

Not at all. Guy is living the dream. He gets to party and work out and gamble and make great money doing it. I don't begrudge him that. I just don't buy the claim that the stuff is performance enhancing.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Not at all. Guy is living the dream. He gets to party and work out and gamble and make great money doing it. I don't begrudge him that. I just don't buy the claim that the stuff is performance

enhancing.

Would you not have bought some of his action if you knew he would be playing stoned?

 

[Otis]

Not at all. Guy is living the dream. He gets to party and work out and gamble and make great money doing it. I don't begrudge him that. I just don't buy the claim that the stuff is performance

enhancing.

Would you not have bought some of his action if you knew he would be playing stoned?

Good question. Maybe not. But I'm commenting less on that and more on these poker pros going out in droves to their cars at every break to get blazed and claiming they do it to play better.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I would think coke would be a better performance enhancer than weed

 

[James Daulton]

I agree with Otis. To think that weed would enhance your ability to process information is really immature. More likely weed just makes you give less of a shi*, so you're apt to take on more than you normally would.

I know that if I need surgery I'd prefer my physician wasn't on weed. I don't want my superbowl QB on the stuff during the game either.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I feel like my nana's in this thread.

 

[Otis]

I feel like my nana's in this thread.

pics?

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I feel like my nana's in this thread.

pics?

http://blog.amandanorman.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CoffinSkeletonRust1.jpg

 

[Abraham]

 

[Otis]

I feel like my nana's in this thread.

pics?

http://blog.amandanorman.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CoffinSkeletonRust1.jpg

She's thin.

 

[James Daulton]

Not hating on weed at all. When its legalized I'll definitely hook some up. Who cares anyway, AF is living the life plus hes from Maryland!

 

[IC FBGCav]

Assani, how was the PLO8 event? I'm assuming you played.

played both the $1500 and the $3000, just didn't get many hands in either, never really built up much of a stack(think I may have close to doubled in the $3k but thats it).

The Main Event has such great structure that you have plenty of opportunities to accumulate chips. In the smaller events you just need to make hands or else the blinds will catch up to you.

I know you played well and battled but let us in on some of your mistakes and hands you wish you played better. That is where the learning is.

I've probably played like 4 or 5 million hands lifetime, I'm not really gonna learn something new or have any super interesting spots in most tournaments. If you're talking about the Main Event, just check my twitter feed and ask questions about any specific hands. In fact, earlier today I mentioned a hand with A3s that I said was the first hand of the tournament which I think I misplayed- if you want I'd be glad to discuss that more in depth. If you're asking about the PLO8 events, I literally can't remember one hand from either....i smoke far too much weed to remember hands from weeks ago.

This is part of your problem. You can play as many hands as you want and if that is what makes you good, everyone will do it, then be great. The game is always changing if you believe what is bolded is true you are done.

I absolutely belive the bolded to be true. I do not think I have a problem when it comes to evolving my poker game, and I believe my growth over the course of this thread is a testament to that. "I'm not going to learn something in most tournaments" is not saying "I'm not going to learn something new ever again". This was a super soft tournament where most hands were standard hands against fish that don't require me much thought. Moreover since we're playing live and getting ~30 hands/hour, its less than a 1000 hand sample size we are talking about here- thats nothing at all. I'm simply not going to improve a ton from this and expecting me to do so at this stage of my poker career is silly imo.

Going online and multitabling a really good NLHE opponent HU for 10k+ hands, using pokertracker/pokerstove/etc. to analyze our play mathematically, discussing hands with trusted friends, and then making some small and barely noticeable changes to my game is a much more reasonable scenario of how I might improve at this stage in my career.

Are you a winning player?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Re: theories about drugs, I'm not sure I buy this whole "performance enhancing" point about pot.

It's not more performance enhancing than booze. True, my performance for the women, and at bars, and for entertainment purposes was way better when I was lit. But that was about partying. Booze and pot never made me smarter, or more focused, or better at, well, really anything.

I suspect there is research that says as much. That it makes you distracted and lower performing. I'm willing to put up the universe of non pot smokers against the universe of pot smokers any day pretty much any day of the week. If you put me up against an above average lawyer who smokes pot all day while he works? Pretty sure I'll run circles around him.

And this whole notion of "all the guys do it and we go out to our cars every break"? It's just making me want to play in the ME more myself. It sounds like a fun party lifestyle, but the claim that a bunch of stoners all going out to their cars to smoke rounds every few hours because it's performance enhancing? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

I'm not saying I'm against pot. Or mushrooms. I've done plenty of that stuff in my life. And I'm not saying it doesn't open up your mind in interesting new ways and help you think creatively. That's all good stuff. But I don't buy this notion that it makes me way better at analytical, on the job thinking. It's great for partying and relaxing, but I don't the rest.

Of course that's a generalization. I suppose it could work that way for some. But then again, I bet there are studies that suggest otherwise for most.

Sounds like a fun life, and a good time, but it also sounds like me trying to justify sitting around and getting hammered at a bar and proclaiming it makes me a better lawyer. I may enjoy it and it may be a blast, but I highly doubt it will make me better at much of anything.

:buzzkill:

Well, there's the minor detail that Assani's not playing in the WSOLawyering.

 

[GTBilly]

AF just to put things into perspective for us and me(and if the question is in bad taste feel free to say so)

Do you make more than 50 thousand per year playing poker?

 

[Otis]

AF just to put things into perspective for us and me(and if the question is in bad taste feel free to say so)

Do you make more than 50 thousand per year playing poker?

 

[Otis]

Re: theories about drugs, I'm not sure I buy this whole "performance enhancing" point about pot.

It's not more performance enhancing than booze. True, my performance for the women, and at bars, and for entertainment purposes was way better when I was lit. But that was about partying. Booze and pot never made me smarter, or more focused, or better at, well, really anything.

I suspect there is research that says as much. That it makes you distracted and lower performing. I'm willing to put up the universe of non pot smokers against the universe of pot smokers any day pretty much any day of the week. If you put me up against an above average lawyer who smokes pot all day while he works? Pretty sure I'll run circles around him.

And this whole notion of "all the guys do it and we go out to our cars every break"? It's just making me want to play in the ME more myself. It sounds like a fun party lifestyle, but the claim that a bunch of stoners all going out to their cars to smoke rounds every few hours because it's performance enhancing? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

I'm not saying I'm against pot. Or mushrooms. I've done plenty of that stuff in my life. And I'm not saying it doesn't open up your mind in interesting new ways and help you think creatively. That's all good stuff. But I don't buy this notion that it makes me way better at analytical, on the job thinking. It's great for partying and relaxing, but I don't the rest.

Of course that's a generalization. I suppose it could work that way for some. But then again, I bet there are studies that suggest otherwise for most.

Sounds like a fun life, and a good time, but it also sounds like me trying to justify sitting around and getting hammered at a bar and proclaiming it makes me a better lawyer. I may enjoy it and it may be a blast, but I highly doubt it will make me better at much of anything.

:buzzkill:

Well, there's the minor detail that Assani's not playing in the WSOLawyering.

Oh I so wish they had this.

 

[eoMMan]

Caffeine is a great drug.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Open min-raising in tourney poker seems de rigor now. What's the math behind this?

you only need to threaten stack sizes by the river, so min opening is often all thats necessary. For example lets assume that we are at 500/1000 with a 100 ante, so with 9 players there is 2400 in there preflop. Lets assume effective stacks are 60,000...

If we open to 2000 and get one caller(not from the blinds) there is now 6400 in there on the flop and 58,000 effective stacks. We can bet 4500 on the flop to make the pot 15,400 and leave us with 53,500. Then we can bet 13,000 on turn to make the pot 41,400 and leave us with 40,500- a pot sized river shove.

Bet sizing is a little on the largish size in this example so it may work out slightly better to open to ~2500, especially for when you get called from one of the blinds. However, the overall point is that you want to be sizing your bets so that you risk the minimum while still threatening your opponent's stack.

 

[Assani Fisher]

This was a super soft tournament where most hands were standard hands against fish that don't require me much thought.

Everybody talks about how soft the main event is. How soft are we talking? Like a $100 weekly tourney at a typical casino?

Is it mostly soft due to weak-tight players who are afraid of busting or because of stations you can take to valuetown?

It all comes down to number of entrants and number of satellites. The Main Event has a ton of both, which results in bad players. The great structure, though, is what really makes it the very softest tournament in the world....you simply have tons of time to find good spots against super easy opponents. Starting off 300 BBs deep is just absurd, and the levels are 2 hours long.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Re: theories about drugs, I'm not sure I buy this whole "performance enhancing" point about pot.

It's not more performance enhancing than booze. True, my performance for the women, and at bars, and for entertainment purposes was way better when I was lit. But that was about partying. Booze and pot never made me smarter, or more focused, or better at, well, really anything.

I suspect there is research that says as much. That it makes you distracted and lower performing. I'm willing to put up the universe of non pot smokers against the universe of pot smokers any day pretty much any day of the week. If you put me up against an above average lawyer who smokes pot all day while he works? Pretty sure I'll run circles around him.

And this whole notion of "all the guys do it and we go out to our cars every break"? It's just making me want to play in the ME more myself. It sounds like a fun party lifestyle, but the claim that a bunch of stoners all going out to their cars to smoke rounds every few hours because it's performance enhancing? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

I'm not saying I'm against pot. Or mushrooms. I've done plenty of that stuff in my life. And I'm not saying it doesn't open up your mind in interesting new ways and help you think creatively. That's all good stuff. But I don't buy this notion that it makes me way better at analytical, on the job thinking. It's great for partying and relaxing, but I don't the rest.

Of course that's a generalization. I suppose it could work that way for some. But then again, I bet there are studies that suggest otherwise for most.

Sounds like a fun life, and a good time, but it also sounds like me trying to justify sitting around and getting hammered at a bar and proclaiming it makes me a better lawyer. I may enjoy it and it may be a blast, but I highly doubt it will make me better at much of anything.

:buzzkill:

"I suspect there is research that says as much. That it makes you distracted and lower performing."

I can't speak for everyone, but for me personally...

I started smoking around age 27 or 28. I started smoking heavily alone at nights right after I moved out of the house with Eddie and Amanda(just a coincidence, had nothing to do with them). A few things happened to me once I started smoking alone at nights:

1. I looked in the mirror and realized how out of shape I had gotten. I am now ~30lbs less and have the most strength I've ever had.

2. I moved up from being a $.5/1-$3/6 plo8 grinder to being perhaps the very best high stakes PLO8 reg around when Black Friday hit.

3. I stopped drinking so much alcohol, realizing how terrible it is long term.

4. I discovered a new sense of empathy. I got into yoga and meditation. I started to care passionately about trying to improve myself and be completely honest about self-evaluation.

In short, it basically helped me see things as they really are and made me grow up.

"And this whole notion of "all the guys do it and we go out to our cars every break"? It's just making me want to play in the ME more myself. It sounds like a fun party lifestyle, but the claim that a bunch of stoners all going out to their cars to smoke rounds every few hours because it's performance enhancing? Sorry, I just don't buy it."

Maybe check out this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19/high-stakes-pl-nl/weed-poker-684521/

 

[Assani Fisher]

I agree with Otis. To think that weed would enhance your ability to process information is really immature.

For you to completely dismiss my honest and objective(at least I attempt to be) claims seems really immature. If an athlete told you that he did a number of things in order to make himself a great athlete would you ever think about saying "Listen Mr. Brady, you're a great football player, but for you to suggest that you became so good because of _______ seems really immature"?

I'm telling you that weed has made me a much better poker player. Loads of other poker players will agree with this. If you think weed slows me down, then I would love to show you how well I can play tetris/fooseball/basketball/etc. while stoned. These things require extreme reaction speed, and I crush at them when I'm stoned.

I guess I just don't understand why people feel the need to insist that I must be wrong...I'm being as honest and open as I possibly can here! Why would I ever lie(especially to the people I try to sell action to at times)?

 

[Assani Fisher]

AF just to put things into perspective for us and me(and if the question is in bad taste feel free to say so)

Do you make more than 50 thousand per year playing poker?

yes, although the poker economy is getting worse and worse every year

My Vegas house(rented): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO6Pqlv5RlI

my Mexico house(view from rooftop): https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200089201285553&set=a.1404929596011.2056794.1015527085&type=3&theater

my car: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1404929636012&set=a.1404929596011.2056794.1015527085&type=3&theater

I also lived in Toronto during 2012 and had perhaps the sickest place in all of downtown Toronto(penthouse apartment at corner of Front/Spadina, one block from the baseball stadium)....all of this was paid 100% in full by poker. I haven't worked any other job since I was 21(I'll be 31 in September).

Not posting this to brag- its a ~$20k car, Vegas real estate is super cheap, and Mexico is even cheaper....I'm sure guys like Otis probably have way more money. But the point is that yes I have done well(although nearly all of my friends have done significantly better it seems).

If I could warp back to 2004 knowing what I know now, I could start with a $100 bankroll and turn that into over a million within one year EASILY. Honestly $5 million in one year would probably be a fair over/under. Nowadays everyone is pretty good and its fairly tough to eek out a living....its time to get out of poker for sure, and I'm looking to do so.

 

[kutta]

Re: theories about drugs, I'm not sure I buy this whole "performance enhancing" point about pot.

It's not more performance enhancing than booze. True, my performance for the women, and at bars, and for entertainment purposes was way better when I was lit. But that was about partying. Booze and pot never made me smarter, or more focused, or better at, well, really anything.

I suspect there is research that says as much. That it makes you distracted and lower performing. I'm willing to put up the universe of non pot smokers against the universe of pot smokers any day pretty much any day of the week. If you put me up against an above average lawyer who smokes pot all day while he works? Pretty sure I'll run circles around him.

And this whole notion of "all the guys do it and we go out to our cars every break"? It's just making me want to play in the ME more myself. It sounds like a fun party lifestyle, but the claim that a bunch of stoners all going out to their cars to smoke rounds every few hours because it's performance enhancing? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

I'm not saying I'm against pot. Or mushrooms. I've done plenty of that stuff in my life. And I'm not saying it doesn't open up your mind in interesting new ways and help you think creatively. That's all good stuff. But I don't buy this notion that it makes me way better at analytical, on the job thinking. It's great for partying and relaxing, but I don't the rest.

Of course that's a generalization. I suppose it could work that way for some. But then again, I bet there are studies that suggest otherwise for most.

Sounds like a fun life, and a good time, but it also sounds like me trying to justify sitting around and getting hammered at a bar and proclaiming it makes me a better lawyer. I may enjoy it and it may be a blast, but I highly doubt it will make me better at much of anything.

:buzzkill:

I totally agree with you.

But I will say that it seems that most good classic rock music was written by guys who were really into drugs. When they got sober, their music sucked. So maybe there is something there.

 

[DrJ]

I agree with Otis. To think that weed would enhance your ability to process information is really immature. More likely weed just makes you give less of a shi*, so you're apt to take on more than you normally would.

I know that if I need surgery I'd prefer my physician wasn't on weed. I don't want my superbowl QB on the stuff during the game either.

Sitting at a table for hours at a time getting unplayable hands is boring as ####. I would think the weed would help you to remain more patient. It probably doesn't help or hurt analytical skills - let's be honest, a card game doesn't take great mental abilities.

 

[DrJ]

Also, if Assani is doing this chronically it isn't effecting him like many of you people probably expect. High quality weed gives me a light buzz because of how often I smoke it. I'm currently laying off for some time, my next J will knock me on my ### and effect concentration. That only lasts a couple days though if you go back to chronic use.

 

[Assani Fisher]

let's be honest, a card game doesn't take great mental abilities.

man, I just disagree so much with this. My good friend Dan Smith(one of the best tournament players in the world) was a legit chess prodigy when he was younger. He has given me some good perspective on comparing the two, and from everything I've heard poker is every bit as intense strategically. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that chess doesn't take great mental abilities, yet people do so all the time with poker. And yes, for the record, Dan plays stoned all the time.

Or I had the chance to sit and talk PLO with Sauce123 at dinner once...holy ##### that guy is a genius. Like seriously..hes a legit genius level person, I"m not exaggerating one bit. One of the few people who I have ever had a conversation with and just instantly felt as if we were on completely different intellectual levels.

 

[DrJ]

let's be honest, a card game doesn't take great mental abilities.

man, I just disagree so much with this. My good friend Dan Smith(one of the best tournament players in the world) was a legit chess prodigy when he was younger. He has given me some good perspective on comparing the two, and from everything I've heard poker is every bit as intense strategically. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that chess doesn't take great mental abilities, yet people do so all the time with poker. And yes, for the record, Dan plays stoned all the time.

There's a heck of a lot more to analyze in a chess game IMO. In poker the mathematical analysis is basic and simple, you aren't doing calculus here.I'd say that there are few if any world class chess players that aren't highly intelligent. There's plenty of people that fit that criteria in the poker world IMO. Does intelligence help? Sure, it helps in just about any profession. But it's not nearly the prerequisite as it is in the chess world and it's far easier to make up for deficiencies here with other skills.

 

[Assani Fisher]

There's a heck of a lot more to analyze in a chess game IMO.

wikipedia on chess:

Chess computers were first able to beat strong chess players in the late 1980s. Their most famous success was the victory of Deep Blue over then World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, but there was some controversy over whether the match conditions favored the computer.

In 2002–2003 three human-computer matches were drawn. But whereas Deep Blue was a specialized machine, these were chess programs running on commercially available computers.

After convincing victories in two matches in 2005 and 2006, it appears that chess programs can now defeat even the strongest chess players.

wikipedia on poker:

Poker is a game of imperfect information (because some cards in play are concealed) thus making it impossible for anyone (including a computer) to deduce the final outcome of the hand. Because of this lack of information, the computer's programmers have to implement systems based on the Bayes theorem, Nash equilibrium, Monte Carlo simulation orneural networks, all of which are imperfect techniques. This is unlike games such as chess where (because no information is concealed) a computer can play with greater accuracy than a human.

In the summer 2007, the University of Alberta hosted a highly specialized headsup tournament between humans and their Polaris bot, at the AAAI conference in Vancouver, BC, Canada. The host platform was written by the University of Alberta. There was a $50k maximum giveaway purse with special rules to motivate the humans to play well. The humans paid no entry fee. The unique tournament featured four duplicate style sessions of 500 hands each. The humans won by a narrow margin.

 

[DrJ]

There's a heck of a lot more to analyze in a chess game IMO.

wikipedia on chess:

Chess computers were first able to beat strong chess players in the late 1980s. Their most famous success was the victory of Deep Blue over then World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, but there was some controversy over whether the match conditions favored the computer.

In 2002–2003 three human-computer matches were drawn. But whereas Deep Blue was a specialized machine, these were chess programs running on commercially available computers.

After convincing victories in two matches in 2005 and 2006, it appears that chess programs can now defeat even the strongest chess players.

wikipedia on poker:

Poker is a game of imperfect information (because some cards in play are concealed) thus making it impossible for anyone (including a computer) to deduce the final outcome of the hand. Because of this lack of information, the computer's programmers have to implement systems based on the Bayes theorem, Nash equilibrium, Monte Carlo simulation orneural networks, all of which are imperfect techniques. This is unlike games such as chess where (because no information is concealed) a computer can play with greater accuracy than a human.

In the summer 2007, the University of Alberta hosted a highly specialized headsup tournament between humans and their Polaris bot, at the AAAI conference in Vancouver, BC, Canada. The host platform was written by the University of Alberta. There was a $50k maximum giveaway purse with special rules to motivate the humans to play well. The humans paid no entry fee. The unique tournament featured four duplicate style sessions of 500 hands each. The humans won by a narrow margin.

Not sure what your point here is. To me this indicates that skills other than math and logic play an important part in the outcome of a poker game (including luck) whereas chess is entirely based on these skills.

 

[Assani Fisher]

You said that there is "more to analyze in a chess game." I disagree.

Chess is basically like a math problem- there is one correct answer in every spot. A person could quite literally drop in on a game already in progress, and his ability to solve for the correct play would not be hampered in the slightest. In other words, theres actually very little to analyze in chess- either you make the optimal play or you do not make the optimal play. There is no in between.

In poker, however, there is far more to analyze than simply making the correct play in a vacuum. There is a massive amount of psychology involved, and it would be impossible for even the world's best player to drop in on a poker game and instantly know what the best play is(without having reads on his opponents). That is because the "correct play" in poker constantly changes based upon how one's opponents are playing. Moreover, it may actually be optimal to pass up +EV plays(in a vacuum) if taking them may cause future +EV plays to not exist.

 

[DrJ]

You said that there is "more to analyze in a chess game." I disagree.

Chess is basically like a math problem- there is one correct answer in every spot. A person could quite literally drop in on a game already in progress, and his ability to solve for the correct play would not be hampered in the slightest. In other words, theres actually very little to analyze in chess- either you make the optimal play or you do not make the optimal play. There is no in between.

In poker, however, there is far more to analyze than simply making the correct play in a vacuum. There is a massive amount of psychology involved, and it would be impossible for even the world's best player to drop in on a poker game and instantly know what the best play is(without having reads on his opponents). That is because the "correct play" in poker constantly changes based upon how one's opponents are playing. Moreover, it may actually be optimal to pass up +EV plays(in a vacuum) if taking them may cause future +EV plays to not exist.

Exactly - skills like patience and an ability to read a human's actions are important skills here and can actually turn the tables against an opponent that has an advantage in intelligence.

 

[DrJ]

Having the mental fortitude to withstand periods of bad luck is also an important skill in poker as well. There are a ton of necessary skills that don't fall under intelligence, unlike chess.

I can see what you're getting at that there's more elements to it. But the skills to successfully navigate many of those elements don't really fall under the category of intelligence. Our brightest mathematical minds have the required skills to be top chess players, but they won't necessarily make good poker players as those skills play a much smaller factor.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I don't know why i'm getting so defensive here.... Basically I'm kinda tilted that I give my honest and open thoughts ITT, and then people just say "No you're wrong". Like with the weed thing- I have no reason whatsoever to lie to you guys here! I noticed a drastic change in my mindset, my ability to process information, and my overall attitude after I started smoking weed. From my perspective it resulted in very clear changes in my poker game, and it ended up with me moving up to higher levels and making more money.

Now if you guys have had differing experiences with weed, then thats fine. I obviously can't tell you how a drug is going to impact your body. But why do people pretend to be able to tell me this? Do you all think I'm intentionally misleading you and trying to get everyone hooked on weed? What possible motivations could I have for lying?

Dr J, this debate started by you saying "let's be honest, a card game doesn't take great mental abilities. " The underlying implication that you're making seems to be "Who cares about whether or not poker pros smoke weed while they play because a card game doesn't take all that much great mental abilities anyway." As someone who has dedicated himself for 10+ years to "a card game" I find this to be severely underrating the mental skills needed to become elite at poker.

skills like patience and an ability to read a human's actions are important skills here and can actually turn the tables against an opponent that has an advantage in intelligence.

You started off saying that poker doesn't take "great mental abilities". Now you are trying to group things such as "ability to read a human's actions" as something different from "intelligence." Regardless of whether you group that in with "intelligence", I think it very clearly is grouped in with "mental abilities". And since mental abilities is what we are discussing(not intelligence) then I don't see why that should be ignored.

Basically you've pulled a bait and switch here. You made a comment about poker and the "mental abilities" it takes. And then once I point out some "mental abilities" involved in poker, you make a differentiation between "mental abilities" and "intelligence." But I don't see where we were ever having a debate over intelligence- the debate was about mental abilities.

 

[DrJ]

I don't know why i'm getting so defensive here.... Basically I'm kinda tilted that I give my honest and open thoughts ITT, and then people just say "No you're wrong". Like with the weed thing- I have no reason whatsoever to lie to you guys here! I noticed a drastic change in my mindset, my ability to process information, and my overall attitude after I started smoking weed. From my perspective it resulted in very clear changes in my poker game, and it ended up with me moving up to higher levels and making more money.

Now if you guys have had differing experiences with weed, then thats fine. I obviously can't tell you how a drug is going to impact your body. But why do people pretend to be able to tell me this? Do you all think I'm intentionally misleading you and trying to get everyone hooked on weed? What possible motivations could I have for lying?

Dr J, this debate started by you saying "let's be honest, a card game doesn't take great mental abilities. " The underlying implication that you're making seems to be "Who cares about whether or not poker pros smoke weed while they play because a card game doesn't take all that much great mental abilities anyway." As someone who has dedicated himself for 10+ years to "a card game" I find this to be severely underrating the mental skills needed to become elite at poker.

skills like patience and an ability to read a human's actions are important skills here and can actually turn the tables against an opponent that has an advantage in intelligence.

You started off saying that poker doesn't take "great mental abilities". Now you are trying to group things such as "ability to read a human's actions" as something different from "intelligence." Regardless of whether you group that in with "intelligence", I think it very clearly is grouped in with "mental abilities". And since mental abilities is what we are discussing(not intelligence) then I don't see why that should be ignored.

Basically you've pulled a bait and switch here. You made a comment about poker and the "mental abilities" it takes. And then once I point out some "mental abilities" involved in poker, you make a differentiation between "mental abilities" and "intelligence." But I don't see where we were ever having a debate over intelligence- the debate was about mental abilities.

Fair enough, I was really referring more to mental abilities we typically classify as intelligence as I clearly categorized things like patience as things it would likely enhance. I'd say it helps with mental fortitude as well since it will likely dull your reactions to adverse conditions. It's simply not going to help your ability to process mathematical equations, but that's a small part of poker. The math is relatively simple.

 

[kutta]

You said that there is "more to analyze in a chess game." I disagree.

Chess is basically like a math problem- there is one correct answer in every spot. A person could quite literally drop in on a game already in progress, and his ability to solve for the correct play would not be hampered in the slightest. In other words, theres actually very little to analyze in chess- either you make the optimal play or you do not make the optimal play. There is no in between.

In poker, however, there is far more to analyze than simply making the correct play in a vacuum. There is a massive amount of psychology involved, and it would be impossible for even the world's best player to drop in on a poker game and instantly know what the best play is(without having reads on his opponents). That is because the "correct play" in poker constantly changes based upon how one's opponents are playing. Moreover, it may actually be optimal to pass up +EV plays(in a vacuum) if taking them may cause future +EV plays to not exist.

Oof. Sorry Assani but this is wrong on many levels. In my younger days I was a very good chess player (almost made it to Master level), and to say there's "very little to analyze" in chess almost seems like a joke.

As someone who has played both a lot of chess and poker, I would say without a doubt that being great in chess is much harder than being great in poker. I think I'd bet on Anatoly Karpov vs. Mike Matusow in a brain power test.

 

[DrJ]

I'd say having a short memory is a big skill in poker as well, like a DB. And since you admit you can't remember hands from a couple weeks ago, it's clearly helped you here.

And for the record, I'm an IT professional and the area I'm in is highly analytical. Memory skills are also very important, My own marijuana use has impaired my abilities in these areas to some extent, I'm not going to pretend it hasn't, but luckily I don't need all of my analytical capabilities to be very competitive.

 

[Assani Fisher]

kutta,

Its very possible I'm underrating how much goes into becoming a great chess player. With that said, lol wtf @ Mike Matusow as an example. Hes probably somewhere around the 3000th best poker player in the world. Of course hes gonna look horrible in a comparison to a top chess guy. But take a legit top poker pro, and imo his intelligence will compare just fine to the top chess players.

Btw nearly all of my chess knowledge comes from watching Greg Shahade's(known as "Curtains" online) chess videos on leggopoker. I barely play the game at all, but I've always found his videos fascinating and found him to be a great teacher. From a google search I found both his rating and the rating of my friend Dan Smith who I referenced earlier:

To give you an idea of some chess-poker player ratings, Greg estimated Dwan’s strength at 1000, while Greg holds an international rating of 2467. Chess prodigy-turned poker pro Jeff Sarwer was rated 1837 when he stopped playing and received a provisional rating of 2300 after resurfacing a few years ago in a rapid tournament in Poland. Dan Smith, EPT Barcelona high roller champ (and many other 2012 tournaments), is 2084. U.S. Chess Champion Hikaru Nakamura, who played in the 2011 WSOP is rated 2783, #5 in the world.

 

[kutta]

kutta,

Its very possible I'm underrating how much goes into becoming a great chess player. With that said, lol wtf @ Mike Matusow as an example. Hes probably somewhere around the 3000th best poker player in the world. Of course hes gonna look horrible in a comparison to a top chess guy. But take a legit top poker pro, and imo his intelligence will compare just fine to the top chess players.

Btw nearly all of my chess knowledge comes from watching Greg Shahade's(known as "Curtains" online) chess videos on leggopoker. I barely play the game at all, but I've always found his videos fascinating and found him to be a great teacher. From a google search I found both his rating and the rating of my friend Dan Smith who I referenced earlier:

To give you an idea of some chess-poker player ratings, Greg estimated Dwan’s strength at 1000, while Greg holds an international rating of 2467. Chess prodigy-turned poker pro Jeff Sarwer was rated 1837 when he stopped playing and received a provisional rating of 2300 after resurfacing a few years ago in a rapid tournament in Poland. Dan Smith, EPT Barcelona high roller champ (and many other 2012 tournaments), is 2084. U.S. Chess Champion Hikaru Nakamura, who played in the 2011 WSOP is rated 2783, #5 in the world.

Yeah, I know I picked a cheesy example, but he was the first guy that came to mind and he really made my example for me.

Look, I agree that poker takes a ton of brain power. But having played both a a fair amount, I think I have a pretty good perspective on things. I play my fair share of poker, and I've won a couple tournaments (Venetian twice, Casino AZ) and overall I am a winning poker player. But there is no way I could waltz into a chess tournament and come in the money without studying full-time for at least a year. Not a chance in hell.

FYI, my United States Chess Federation (USCF) rating was about 1900 about 25 years ago.

 

[kutta]

I have a good buddy, Jim Geary, who some of you poker geeks know. He's been a poker pro for about 15 years. We went to high school together and played on the chess team there. He is also the best chess player I know (rating around 2200 I think), and he is a world class Scrabble player. I just texted him and asked him: "What takes more brain power, chess or poker? And by how much?" His response was, "Chess, by lots."

 

[DrJ]

kutta,

Its very possible I'm underrating how much goes into becoming a great chess player. With that said, lol wtf @ Mike Matusow as an example. Hes probably somewhere around the 3000th best poker player in the world. Of course hes gonna look horrible in a comparison to a top chess guy. But take a legit top poker pro, and imo his intelligence will compare just fine to the top chess players.

Btw nearly all of my chess knowledge comes from watching Greg Shahade's(known as "Curtains" online) chess videos on leggopoker. I barely play the game at all, but I've always found his videos fascinating and found him to be a great teacher. From a google search I found both his rating and the rating of my friend Dan Smith who I referenced earlier:

To give you an idea of some chess-poker player ratings, Greg estimated Dwan’s strength at 1000, while Greg holds an international rating of 2467. Chess prodigy-turned poker pro Jeff Sarwer was rated 1837 when he stopped playing and received a provisional rating of 2300 after resurfacing a few years ago in a rapid tournament in Poland. Dan Smith, EPT Barcelona high roller champ (and many other 2012 tournaments), is 2084. U.S. Chess Champion Hikaru Nakamura, who played in the 2011 WSOP is rated 2783, #5 in the world.

Yeah, I know I picked a cheesy example, but he was the first guy that came to mind and he really made my example for me.

Look, I agree that poker takes a ton of brain power. But having played both a a fair amount, I think I have a pretty good perspective on things. I play my fair share of poker, and I've won a couple tournaments (Venetian twice, Casino AZ) and overall I am a winning poker player. But there is no way I could waltz into a chess tournament and come in the money without studying full-time for at least a year. Not a chance in hell.

FYI, my United States Chess Federation (USCF) rating was about 1900 about 25 years ago.

I definitely agree he's a solid example. Let's say he is the 3000th best player in the world - I guarantee that the 3000th best chess player in the world destroys him in intelligence. The 100,000th best chess player probably does too.

 

[DrJ]

kutta,

Its very possible I'm underrating how much goes into becoming a great chess player. With that said, lol wtf @ Mike Matusow as an example. Hes probably somewhere around the 3000th best poker player in the world. Of course hes gonna look horrible in a comparison to a top chess guy. But take a legit top poker pro, and imo his intelligence will compare just fine to the top chess players.

Btw nearly all of my chess knowledge comes from watching Greg Shahade's(known as "Curtains" online) chess videos on leggopoker. I barely play the game at all, but I've always found his videos fascinating and found him to be a great teacher. From a google search I found both his rating and the rating of my friend Dan Smith who I referenced earlier:

To give you an idea of some chess-poker player ratings, Greg estimated Dwan’s strength at 1000, while Greg holds an international rating of 2467. Chess prodigy-turned poker pro Jeff Sarwer was rated 1837 when he stopped playing and received a provisional rating of 2300 after resurfacing a few years ago in a rapid tournament in Poland. Dan Smith, EPT Barcelona high roller champ (and many other 2012 tournaments), is 2084. U.S. Chess Champion Hikaru Nakamura, who played in the 2011 WSOP is rated 2783, #5 in the world.

Looked up the article you're referencing here. Shadade's sister isn't too bad looking, and I'm going to guess pretty danged smart based on her chess rating. http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/14089-the-poker-player-s-guide-to-chess-gambling

A chess player rarely agrees to play for serious money against a higher rated player. Indeed, the night before the WSOP main event, a poker pro rated about 2100 asked me (I’m 2322) to play a blitz match. The stakes he proposed? $5 a game — a full .05 percent of the tournament we’d be playing the next afternoon!

 

[Assani Fisher]

I play my fair share of poker, and I've won a couple tournaments (Venetian twice, Casino AZ) and overall I am a winning poker player. But there is no way I could waltz into a chess tournament and come in the money without studying full-time for at least a year. Not a chance in hell.

This speaks of the levels of variance in each game and has little, if anything, to do with which takes more brain power.

To give an analogy, consider sports betting. Like most amateurs, I pick the correct side of a sports bet around 50% of the time. The best pro sports bettors in the world hit around 56 or 57%. So if me and a pro sports bettor both picked today's games, theres a reasonable chance that I would outperform him. That doesn't mean anything whatsoever with regards to the amount of brain power necessary to be successful at sports betting.

I have a good buddy, Jim Geary, who some of you poker geeks know. He's been a poker pro for about 15 years. We went to high school together and played on the chess team there. He is also the best chess player I know (rating around 2200 I think), and he is a world class Scrabble player. I just texted him and asked him: "What takes more brain power, chess or poker? And by how much?" His response was, "Chess, by lots."

Ask him this please: What takes more brain power- to write a computer program that could beat the world's best chess player or to write a computer program that could beat the world's best poker player? If he picks the latter then please ask him what he thinks the difference is between the question you asked him and the question I asked him.

It seems to me like you guys are approaching this argument from a perspective of "how much brain power is necessary to become better than average at poker/chess?" whereas I'm approaching it from a perspective of "how much brain power is necessary to become one of the best in the world at poker/chess." Do you think thats a fair statement?

 

[Assani Fisher]

and fwiw I don't even really think that poker requires more "brain power" than chess. I was simply responding to the post that said "let's be honest, a card game doesn't take great mental abilities." In comparing poker to chess I was only trying to relay the message that poker very clearly requires high level mental abilities, especially when you are playing at top levels. I don't actually have a strong opinion either way on this chess vs poker debate.

 

[Otis]

Sorry, just have to disagree. I'm too lazy to find it, but someone who cares more could I'm sure dig up study after study that says marijuana use generally impedes performance in mental tasks.

I don't think you're trying to "lie" to anyone. You may have even convinced yourself it makes you better. If I were a twenty-something kid making a living gambling and hanging out with my buddies and smoking pot, I'd probably convince myself it makes me "play better." It sounds like a fun lifestyle, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with smoking pot. I do think it's at a minimum intellectually dishonest to argue that it makes you play better, and I question the notion of a bunch of kids going out to the parking lot to blaze during breaks in a $10,000 poker game (largely funded by others, who may or may not know you're doing that) and claiming that they're doing it to improve their poker playing.

Like I said, if you've got some research that suggests otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it. You of all people should understand that a sample size of one -- particularly when it's the guy we are talking about in this instance, who claims or believes that pot makes him a better player -- is pretty meaningless.

 

[DrJ]

I play my fair share of poker, and I've won a couple tournaments (Venetian twice, Casino AZ) and overall I am a winning poker player. But there is no way I could waltz into a chess tournament and come in the money without studying full-time for at least a year. Not a chance in hell.

This speaks of the levels of variance in each game and has little, if anything, to do with which takes more brain power.

To give an analogy, consider sports betting. Like most amateurs, I pick the correct side of a sports bet around 50% of the time. The best pro sports bettors in the world hit around 56 or 57%. So if me and a pro sports bettor both picked today's games, theres a reasonable chance that I would outperform him. That doesn't mean anything whatsoever with regards to the amount of brain power necessary to be successful at sports betting.

I have a good buddy, Jim Geary, who some of you poker geeks know. He's been a poker pro for about 15 years. We went to high school together and played on the chess team there. He is also the best chess player I know (rating around 2200 I think), and he is a world class Scrabble player. I just texted him and asked him: "What takes more brain power, chess or poker? And by how much?" His response was, "Chess, by lots."

Ask him this please: What takes more brain power- to write a computer program that could beat the world's best chess player or to write a computer program that could beat the world's best poker player? If he picks the latter then please ask him what he thinks the difference is between the question you asked him and the question I asked him.

It seems to me like you guys are approaching this argument from a perspective of "how much brain power is necessary to become better than average at poker/chess?" whereas I'm approaching it from a perspective of "how much brain power is necessary to become one of the best in the world at poker/chess." Do you think thats a fair statement?

Thinking about this more and I'd say it'd be far easier to write a computer program that could beat the top poker players - the program could actually play entirely randomly and have some chance of beating the top poker player, especially if the sample size were small. A program that plays chess randomly couldn't beat even a beginner chess player in any sample size. This is the reason you see people putting up high stakes in a poker game when they're entirely unwilling to do so for chess matches.You could take a beginner poker/chess player and he'd be able to beat the top poker player a certain percentage of the time. He'd win 0% of the time against a top chess player. The fact that the humans can beat a computer in isolated games which involve large amounts of chance isn't all that relevant, especially considering the mantra you guys follow is basically "over the long run....with a large enough sample size..." No matter how many lines of code you produce, how advanced your algorithms are, you can't remove the element of chance from the game. The 2007 competition you referenced is largely irrelevant because it only involved 4 sessions of 500 hands each. What happens over 5 million hands? 50 million hands?

This is also why you see guys like Moneymaker and other amateurs make names for themselves in the poker world when they'd stand a 0% chance of winning a similar tournament in the chess world. A large part of what happens over a small sample size is simply luck in the poker world.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

let's be honest, a card game doesn't take great mental abilities.

man, I just disagree so much with this. My good friend Dan Smith(one of the best tournament players in the world) was a legit chess prodigy when he was younger. He has given me some good perspective on comparing the two, and from everything I've heard poker is every bit as intense strategically. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that chess doesn't take great mental abilities, yet people do so all the time with poker. And yes, for the record, Dan plays stoned all the time.

There's a heck of a lot more to analyze in a chess game IMO. In poker the mathematical analysis is basic and simple, you aren't doing calculus here.I'd say that there are few if any world class chess players that aren't highly intelligent. There's plenty of people that fit that criteria in the poker world IMO. Does intelligence help? Sure, it helps in just about any profession. But it's not nearly the prerequisite as it is in the chess world and it's far easier to make up for deficiencies here with other skills.

I have no link to share - and am too lazy to look for one - but read awhile back that there is little correlation between IQ and world-class chess ability. Basically, there is a minimum bar (IQ) that you have to be at, but once you reach that bar, it doesn't help to be super-smart. That isn't the delineator.

 

[DrJ]

let's be honest, a card game doesn't take great mental abilities.

man, I just disagree so much with this. My good friend Dan Smith(one of the best tournament players in the world) was a legit chess prodigy when he was younger. He has given me some good perspective on comparing the two, and from everything I've heard poker is every bit as intense strategically. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that chess doesn't take great mental abilities, yet people do so all the time with poker. And yes, for the record, Dan plays stoned all the time.

There's a heck of a lot more to analyze in a chess game IMO. In poker the mathematical analysis is basic and simple, you aren't doing calculus here.I'd say that there are few if any world class chess players that aren't highly intelligent. There's plenty of people that fit that criteria in the poker world IMO. Does intelligence help? Sure, it helps in just about any profession. But it's not nearly the prerequisite as it is in the chess world and it's far easier to make up for deficiencies here with other skills.

I have no link to share - and am too lazy to look for one - but read awhile back that there is little correlation between IQ and world-class chess ability. Basically, there is a minimum bar (IQ) that you have to be at, but once you reach that bar, it doesn't help to be super-smart. That isn't the delineator.

Maybe that has something to do with how IQ is measured, but if a computer can beat the top chess players consistently the game is obviously heavily dependent on logic.