MORE SAMPLES


MATH VS. INSTINCT
By CHARLES JAY

OK, the title is a bit of a misnomer. It's not really math versus instinct, but rather math WITH instinct. 

Many of the early torunament stars - people like Johnny Moss, Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim and Puggy Pearson - were swashbuckling types, often hustlers from childhood, born into humble surroundings, using games of chance as a way out of poverty, and sometimes doing just enough to stay one step ahead of the law or out of physical danger. They relied almost exclusively on guts, guile and the ability to read their opponents like a book. These guys were prototypical "gamblers," who were well-suited for games like no-limit Texas Hold'em, utilizing their street sense to gain an advantage in games against the "squares."

Now there has come to the fore a new generation of players, perhaps not accustomed to games where gunplay was a possibility, but committed to playing with a certain degree of precision, highly cognizant of the mathematical patterns that avail themselves in a deck of cards, well-schooled in the subtleties of psychology (in fact, well-schooled, period, as many of them are college-educated, some with PhD's) and yes, possessing nerves of steel. 

They swear by computer studies dealing with probability and statistics, powered by technology that simply didn't exist in Johnny Moss' heyday. Because of that, it is natural that they would have an approach to the game that would involve more in the way of exactitude.

Many of them, in fact, don't even consider what they do to be "gambling," but a job, not unlike any white-collar executive. Phil Gordon, a pro player and co-host of Bravo Network's "Celebrity Poker Showdown," told Bloomberg News, "I think of playing poker very much like the traders on Wall Street think about their jobs. A Wall Street investor who could pick six out of 10 stocks right would be probably the best stock picker in the history of the world. Likewise, if I can get my money into the pot with the best hand six out of 10 times, I am going to be the best poker player in the world. And it's a very fine line between that 60 percent and break-even that really determines who the best strategic investors are."

The "turn" came in the late 1970s, when the annual World Series of Poker, then held at Binion's Horseshoe Club in downtown Las Vegas, was beginning to make dramatic strides in popularity. A new group of players, with less experience but more formal education than their veteran counterparts, started to win important tournaments. Their early standard-bearer was Bobby Baldwin, who, at age 27, won the No-Limit Texas Hold'em championship at the World Series. 

Most of the old guard looked upon limit games as being more of a science, while no-limit hold'em, according to Brunson, required a lot more in the way of "heart," which was generally believed to be something keeping the more "bookish" types away.

Of course, Baldwin disproved that in '78 when he bluffed Crandall Arrington out of a $92,000 pot en route to winning the no-limit main event. 

That was a signal of things to come. There is no question that the player can not rely purely on math at the table and be successful. Most of the game still involves reading opponents' "tells," evaluating positions, self-discipline and money management. But the new breed of players not only had the mathematical approach going for them, they embraced ALL of it. 

Science still has a prominent place, though. One still needs to be able to evaluate his cards in relation to whatever else he sees out there on the table. That would appear to be especially important in hold'em, with the first round of betting and raising coming before 60% of the player's potential hand is dealt. That involves percentages, and it provides a kick-start, if you will, in both no-limit and limit games.

Luck certainly has its place, but of course, in games of skill - like poker - that means less and less in the long run. Younger players may very well understand this concept better than the old guard.

Another difference is the attitude OFF the table. The players of the latest generation have a tendency to think more of interests and investments that have little to do with the game, as the forward-looking pro athlete would, and less about throwing all their winnings into the next no-limit game looming around the corner. Poker players are famous for "busting out" every so often, but this generation seems to have taken more safeguards. 

The next generation of players promises to bring even more of a "modern" approach to the game. After all, they will have been weaned on televised poker, where the commentators, working off the pre-edited material and advantaged by the lipstick camera, spew out each player's percentage chances of winning on every hand.

So clearly there's no end in sight.





Copyright 2006 Total Action Inc.