Pokernews Strategy - Page 7

On July 16 2008 12:45 TSLto wrote: TenBagger, '' ...If that were the case, everyone in the world would have the mental capacity to discover the theory of relativity if they just applied themselves. Everyone could crush high stakes games and everyone could win an OGN Starleague. ... ,, Yes, everyone can do this if they dedicate themselves to it at 100% like the professionals, but the factor that stops them to do it is how hardworking they are. We are mostly talking for theory and abstract things now, and you have forgotten how hard actually is to achieve something in reality. It really sounds that simple and because of that you doubt it but this is the perfect formula for sucess - practice 24/7 for a given amount of time and you will be if not the best, then one of the bests. But not everyone can practice 24/7, not everyone can handle when it starts to be 'borring' in some way, not everyone can be so high motivated to keep trying and keep trying and keep trying... until it finally happens. Plus most people are just too fucking lazy just to 'think'. I remember some bw player - ToT)SEn( and honestly when I watched his replays he wasn't creative at all. He looked like a dumb but perfect machine that just keeps pwning and pwning units and macroing all the map no matter who the opponent, which the race and what the map is. I highly doubt his tallent but he was one of the best foreigners back then when he was active. And that just because of sick amount of practice. He just played insanely huge amount of games and became perfect at his macro strategy. Well I don't think he's actually is dumb in person and we may never know but I know something for sure - he became gosu for one reason - sick, sick practice and nothing else. And I agree with Beast that he can actually teach a monkey to math, even there are research universities where scientists are teaching monkeys to math, and very sucessfully. I've watched the series on Discovery Channel. lol.

So you thinka person with a 90IQ can come up with the theory of relativity if only he dedicated the neccesary time to physics... ROFL.

okay one of my four reasons was that urindanger has won more than him. he has 4 accounts in the hsdb all time top 50.

another reason is that he has a 54k hand sample at 80-100ptbb/100 standard deviation games so its about as close to proof hes the best as [witty analogy here that im too lazy to think up, open to good suggestions for the lulz value]

another is you have no idea how any of the other top nlhe players play and think, and only have a shadow of an idea about krantz thru dc vids. your opinion is based on nothing

and the last is even if u were given the lifetime hhs of the top 10 nlhe players at nosebleed stakes, so that youd have actual material to base an opinion on, youre not close to good enough to understand most of whats happening and correctly pick whos the 'best' (this isnt an insult, nor am i)

i never said it was a proven thing since its nearly impossible to determine who is the best player i just happen to like Krants however Rhaegar's posts suggest Krants is an underdog against the top players saying he should dodge (not based on variance because he didnt mention other names), and that imo is totally wrong.

i agree with beast

repetition is only valid if you are repeating something tested and robust

a failure in testing or ego or control or anything else is more likely to account for error than a lack of intelligence, esp in poker, because poker is a very easy game to understand

you get 2 cards. they get 2 cards. 5 cards come out. if a card is in your hand or on the board, they cannot have it. insert introductory hand rankings with music. hf.

casper can u send me some chocolate milk. u still have me and myth's address?

TenBagger, I just wanted to give an example that information is more important than anything else. If I apply that concept to your GO example.. If someone solved GO useing great mathematical skills and a supercomputer and I was to apply this solution to different game situations and study the results, eventually I'd become the best player in the world, at least for a while. Natural talent as far as those games go, would be the speed in which one is able to extract quality information. Having a great learning tool (that noone else has) to help me gain the needed information faster, basically will make me much smarter for purposes of the game.

We say one has talent for something, when his work (results from his intentional actions) distinguish himself from the majority in that field. For me talent is rather a combination of personal characteristics (waiting to be provoked), than some "innate ability" (as stated in the dictionary). No one would ever be able to see Mozart's talent, if he was born two centuries before his time. So, for one's talent to be unleashed there has to be the right environment as a prerequisite. And the rest is just exploring how far you can develop it in this environment (and here comes the dedication, practice and so on).

"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Einstein
But we see this "passionately curious" as part of his talent. And when speaking about talent in poker/card games, always one phrase pops up in my mind, "freak of nature".
"At 15 I was massacring people who had mastered this stuff for 30 years. I made a shambles out of them. I guess you could say I was a freak of nature." - Ungar

So yeah, let's suppose a person with some average IQ at the age of 40 gets immortal and begins to play poker 24/7 with the best poker players teaching him, he'll probably succeed to reach Stuey's best level after a couple of centuries, the problem is that no one has so much time and here comes what talent really is.

On July 17 2008 14:32 Rhaegar wrote: TenBagger, I just wanted to give an example that information is more important than anything else. If I apply that concept to your GO example.. If someone solved GO useing great mathematical skills and a supercomputer and I was to apply this solution to different game situations and study the results, eventually I'd become the best player in the world, at least for a while. Natural talent as far as those games go, would be the speed in which one is able to extract quality information. Having a great learning tool (that noone else has) to help me gain the needed information faster, basically will make me much smarter for purposes of the game.

you obviously don't understand the game of GO. Deep blue may beat kasparov but the world's fastest computer would still not be able to beat a novice in GO. You could use every tool in the universe, study for all of eternity and you'll never come close to beating Lee Sedol. There does not exist any tool that can help you in that regard besides the power of your own brain. The game of GO as it stands now is unsolvable and is unique in that no amount of raw supercomputing can do anything close to what human intelligence can do. That is why it is the holy grail of AI and also wy it is such a great example for this discussion. It is a game that is uniquely dependent on the intangible, unquantifiable, beauty that is natural human intelligence. And someone like Lee Sedol can do things with his mind that others are just incapable of doing, regardless of how much effort they put in. That is the natural talent that I'm referring to. Just like all of us on this forum are incapable of running a sub 10 second 100 meter dash. It doesn't matter how long we train, our bodies were just not built for it. In the same way, it doesn't matter what you can possibly do, you will NEVER ever be able to beat Lee Sedol in GO.

On July 17 2008 16:47 Expiate wrote: We say one has talent for something, when his work (results from his intentional actions) distinguish himself from the majority in that field. For me talent is rather a combination of personal characteristics (waiting to be provoked), than some "innate ability" (as stated in the dictionary). No one would ever be able to see Mozart's talent, if he was born two centuries before his time. So, for one's talent to be unleashed there has to be the right environment as a prerequisite. And the rest is just exploring how far you can develop it in this environment (and here comes the dedication, practice and so on). "I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Einstein But we see this "passionately curious" as part of his talent. And when speaking about talent in poker/card games, always one phrase pops up in my mind, "freak of nature". "At 15 I was massacring people who had mastered this stuff for 30 years. I made a shambles out of them. I guess you could say I was a freak of nature." - Ungar So yeah, let's suppose a person with some average IQ at the age of 40 gets immortal and begins to play poker 24/7 with the best poker players teaching him, he'll probably succeed to reach Stuey's best level after a couple of centuries, the problem is that no one has so much time and here comes what talent really is.

but if Ungar attained the same level of poker in 1/10th of the time that would mean he is genetically superior in that field.

I mean, if you are skinny as hell go ask in a gym if u will ever be able to be a bodybuilder... you wont, simply because you dont have a mesomorph body you wont get huge, no matter if u go to the gym every day for 20 years, you simply wont build enough muscle mass because your body is genetically set to another shape.

Its the same thing in almost any thing in life, it obviously fluctuates how much "talent" you need depending on the activity, lets put an example, shuffling chips, its a very practice oriented thing, while mm.. dancing its a much more raw natural talent thing, i mean im only stating the obvious but you ar denying the obvious.

A person with an IQ of 70 no matter if he spends 300 years studying math and physics, he will never be able to come up with the theory of relativity.

Intelligence is so attractive, I think Im gay for tenbagger

Thank you baal for getting my point.

I think this whole point has been clouded a bit by the comparison to poker. Poker is a very difficult thing to quantify, as it is a game of incomplete information and the rules are relatively simple. Also the fact that so much of the general population puts in very little effort in actually improving their game opens the opportunity for someone who might not be a genius to be able to put in a lot of time and effort and to be a winning player.

BW is also a game of incomplete information and beast keeps on referring to the point that it's all about acquisition of information. That may hold a certain degree of truth in these games but not in other examples, such as GO.

Take a different mental task such as how many places of Pi you can memorize. Is there any importance of the whole "acquisition of information" that beast talks about. NO! It is available for everyone to get all the information they need. People can certainly improve by practicing more but there are certain people that have a natural talent for memory that can just memorize more than is possible for the general population. And the example that I came up with regarding the theory of relativity. I mean c'mon, is there any rational person that truly believes that any idiot could come up with it independently if he just tried hard enough. I can't believe we're even discussing that point because it is so painfully obvious. When you take tasks or games or challenges that are easier and simpler, then it is easier for practice to bridge the gap of natural talent. I mean if you take tic tac toe, then a person with 70 IQ could become just as good as a genius with enough practice. As the game gets more complex and challenging, the ability for a person to bridge the gap in talent by practice becomes harder and harder.

This whole discussion started when beast made the claim that basically talent is 0% while practice is 100%. Well, that can be true in certain things. In tic tac toe, it is basically 100% true. It really doesn't matter how smart you are, if you practice hard enough you'll be the best in the world , or at least in a multi-billion way tie for the best in the world. On other things, the ratio shifts and the importance of natural talent becomes greater. Poker is further along the spectrum where natural talent becomes meaningful although it is still at a stage where enough practice and effort means that you'll be better than the majority of people, even if they are "smarter". When you go to the extreme high end of difficulty though, you reach a certain point where no amount of practice can overcome a deficiency in natural talent. This holds true in certain sports such as sprinting and it also holds true for the game of GO.

On July 17 2008 17:27 TenBagger wrote: Show nested quote + On July 17 2008 14:32 Rhaegar wrote: TenBagger, I just wanted to give an example that information is more important than anything else. If I apply that concept to your GO example.. If someone solved GO useing great mathematical skills and a supercomputer and I was to apply this solution to different game situations and study the results, eventually I'd become the best player in the world, at least for a while. Natural talent as far as those games go, would be the speed in which one is able to extract quality information. Having a great learning tool (that noone else has) to help me gain the needed information faster, basically will make me much smarter for purposes of the game. you obviously don't understand the game of GO. Deep blue may beat kasparov but the world's fastest computer would still not be able to beat a novice in GO. You could use every tool in the universe, study for all of eternity and you'll never come close to beating Lee Sedol. There does not exist any tool that can help you in that regard besides the power of your own brain. The game of GO as it stands now is unsolvable and is unique in that no amount of raw supercomputing can do anything close to what human intelligence can do. That is why it is the holy grail of AI and also wy it is such a great example for this discussion. It is a game that is uniquely dependent on the intangible, unquantifiable, beauty that is natural human intelligence. And someone like Lee Sedol can do things with his mind that others are just incapable of doing, regardless of how much effort they put in. That is the natural talent that I'm referring to. Just like all of us on this forum are incapable of running a sub 10 second 100 meter dash. It doesn't matter how long we train, our bodies were just not built for it. In the same way, it doesn't matter what you can possibly do, you will NEVER ever be able to beat Lee Sedol in GO.

I dont know how to play go well, but there is a flaw in your argument.

I'm fairly certain that the game of GO like everything is ruled by cause and effect relationships. And so a mathematical model of it can be made. I'd guess the problem of GO is that there is no easy way for a human to simplify the math so that it can give him good decisions without solving the entire tree. Thats what is done in chess, thats what is done in poker. Ultimately a perfect solution for the game is only possible by solving the whole game tree, but you can use a whole array of other tools that can help you pick good moves.

If it's possible to construct a workable mathematical model of GO, i cannot agree that its impossible to play better than this guy. And I'm fairly sure its possible. But the problem is most simple models will require an incredible compuational power, so more advanced math and solutions are needed. And there are some ways in which the brain thinks better than a standart computer program. I'd guess that the ability to think in pictures and to evaluate them makes the game much easier for a human to find good moves, than for a regular programming approach, that is unable to use those tools.

I'm a bit tired and don't know if that came out too well, but I hope my point is somewhat understandable. I guess this guy has an advantage over everything else that is strongly pronounced by the nature of the game, being well suited for the human brain and not suited for the standart programming tools that are used now. This does not mean his advantage is impossible to overcome. Someone with great knowledge of advanced nath and programming (even maybe brain science and neural networks) should be able to construct a workable model and when he does, it might be enough to give a normal player an edge.

"A person with an IQ of 70 no matter if he spends 300 years studying math and physics, he will never be able to come up with the theory of relativity."

I'm fairly sure he would be able to. There are few physicists with average IQ that spend even 10 years of hard work in trying to develop the theory. And I'd think that the main reason physics and other sciences dont get solved so fast is that ppl spend their short lives doing many other things and never devote enough time to the subject.

"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Einstein
I like this thinking a lot.


I think that we're forgetting what we're arguing for. My point is natural talent is generally irrelevant until you get into fields where everyone is useing every available tool to gain an advantage (but can this ever be the case in the real world?) and it does gets pronounced in certain competative sports even more. But it still is generally irrelevant. Every average person is capable of extreme accomplishments, given high quality information and enough time.

Btw Boxer is a good example of my point actually. He used to be the best player in the world, because of his thing for advanced counter strategies. I can imagine him sitting for days behind the computer, experimenting with different build orders, looking at timing and etc... Since he focuses on preplanned strategies, whats left then is to practice the micro in every game and not really think much about the build order (not true? he has never really been good at macroing) so this has let him get great at his micro than the other players.
And Id say Boxer isnt a genius, but that his general approach to the game was much better than everyone elses that would mindlessly put in 14h a day and improve their macro more than anything else...

But now that quality information is available to everyone, Boxer isnt all that strong in his field anymore. His passion that made him the best before, doesnt help him much anymore.

So he used to be the best player in the world and now hes not. I think that is just a very good example of how its not that much natural talent, but a whole array of different factors that dictate how good you get.

Now, the players that are dominating are most certainly genetically superior in playing BW than all the rest. But the cool thing is that Boxer was able to be the best in the world, because of applying a better approach to the game than everyone else at the time. I'd argue that he's actually not genetically superior in any way than his opponents, except if you consider curiousity to be a talent.

cmon beast, that's ridiculous. A person with 70 IQ will barely be able to read let alone discover the theory of relativity.

so let me get this clear. you think that every human being given enough practice could match the world record holder and memorize 67890 digits of Pi?

you think if we all tried hard enough that we could run a sub 10 second 100 meter dash?

that every average person is capable of equal achivements and there is no bell curve?

c'mon, dude you are being a bit ridiculous now.

On July 15 2008 21:45 Rhaegar wrote: Well to get good at abstract games, I'd say the ability to improve your game constantly is most important and its not really a talent.

Well, some people are reasonably better at learning then the others, without any visible factors that could explain the difference.

So I guess my point is, I dont think talent plays that much of a role in BW or Poker. A great coach and a shitload of practice will suffice too.

some people can be given a coach and never succeed, and some can coach themselves fairly well. Some people have talent for sports- they become sportsmen and some people have talent for improving people- they become coaches, often due to genetically set physical limitations.

Btw the word talent is horribly undefined, i hate it! Always makes me argue with ppl for hours at a time. Reality is driven by cause and effect, but all the things leading towards you winning Ongamenet for example are so many, its nearly impossible for a human being to perceive what part of them he can control. (i realize my english is starting to fail me)

Well i believe talent has a real easy definition, of course people will try to spin it any way they like, but dont they do it to anything anyway?
Talent is first and foremost a set of genetic predispositions to succeed in one or multiple areas, and second of all, a combination of life factors that has influenced persons ability for succeeding in one or multiple areas, while being unrelated to actual practice. Second part is arguable of course.

I think you're not really trying to understand what im saying. I said in plain words that genetic advantage is real. But its importance depends on the goal. Some competative sports are designed in a way that will heighten this importance. But the fact remains that every average person is generally able to do what every other person is capable of and especially if given more time than him.

Is 70 IQ so low? I'm not familiar with how its calculated (im fairly certain its pretty inaccurate and unreal anyway) . I consider my mom fairly dumb, but Id think that if she devoted 300 years to studying physics as her goal in life shed be able to discover the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, particle theory, string theory and probably more...

I think IQ is mostly a measurement of how fast one thinks and nothing else. I've come to this conclusion from the fact that I used to think pretty fast when i was say 16 year old, but was quite dumb now that I think of it. Now I think as fast as before, but I feel im 10 times smarter than I was. That improvement is based on curiousity and learning how to think correctly, not on a genetic factor obviously.

On July 16 2008 01:38 TenBagger wrote: Rhaegar, I'm gonna have to disagree with you again. I think you opinion is based partly on the fact that you have succeeded at everything you put your mind to, giving you the illusion that anyone can do it as long as they try hard enough. Well, you're probably much smarter than most people in the world. There are a lot of people in this world that just flat out lack the mental capacity to excel at certain things.

you make a pretty good point, i dont think it would be boasting to say that I, and most of the both liquid sites regulars have intelligence exceeding that of average. We might take many things for granted.

Let me give a couple examples. I have a good friend that I've known for many years. OK, let me compound racial stereotypes and mention that he's black. We both went to the same high school, one of the top schools in the country, so you can't use the excuse that he's lacking the same education and opportunity. Well, he's a smart guy and very gifted in language. He's an excellent writer and his ability to freestyle rap is unbeliveable. But you know what, he is fucking horrible in math. He always failed it in school and when I tried to teach him basic concepts in poker, he just couldn't grasp it. I am certain that NO amount of practice or training will make him a top poker player. Same holds for BW, Backgammon, Chess, Go and other games that utilize that section of your brain. Maybe with enough effort, he may become average or slightly above average. But I am absolutely sure that no amount of practice could make him a long term winner at mid to high stakes. He just doesn't have the natural ability to do so.

This example doesnt suit the point youre trying to argue. It is clear that he doesnt and never had any interest in math related areas. Of course you will never excel at anything unless you're genuinely interested in the subject.

Remember Rhaegar, only one person can win a OGN Starleague. Only one person can win a Wimbledon and the Masters. If the entire world were completely fair and everybody had the same access to training and practice, well there still will only one winner. There still will be a last place. That is what I'm talking about when I mention the word talent. Sure there are a tremendous number of factors that lead to a champion, but talent will always remain the biggest factor. I think you are grossly underestimating the importance of talent.

Well when it comes to OGN it really isnt the talent that is the biggest factors, but rather ability to play under pressure and choosing the right strategy.
Its hard to deny of course that July has more talent then Mumuyng, but despite winning last OSL, does he have more talent then Best? Probably not, and most likely Best will do much better then July next OSL. In this kind of extreme pool of genius its outside factors that play the biggest role.

On July 17 2008 18:42 Rhaegar wrote: Show nested quote + On July 17 2008 17:27 TenBagger wrote:   On July 17 2008 14:32 Rhaegar wrote: TenBagger, I just wanted to give an example that information is more important than anything else. If I apply that concept to your GO example.. If someone solved GO useing great mathematical skills and a supercomputer and I was to apply this solution to different game situations and study the results, eventually I'd become the best player in the world, at least for a while. Natural talent as far as those games go, would be the speed in which one is able to extract quality information. Having a great learning tool (that noone else has) to help me gain the needed information faster, basically will make me much smarter for purposes of the game. you obviously don't understand the game of GO. Deep blue may beat kasparov but the world's fastest computer would still not be able to beat a novice in GO. You could use every tool in the universe, study for all of eternity and you'll never come close to beating Lee Sedol. There does not exist any tool that can help you in that regard besides the power of your own brain. The game of GO as it stands now is unsolvable and is unique in that no amount of raw supercomputing can do anything close to what human intelligence can do. That is why it is the holy grail of AI and also wy it is such a great example for this discussion. It is a game that is uniquely dependent on the intangible, unquantifiable, beauty that is natural human intelligence. And someone like Lee Sedol can do things with his mind that others are just incapable of doing, regardless of how much effort they put in. That is the natural talent that I'm referring to. Just like all of us on this forum are incapable of running a sub 10 second 100 meter dash. It doesn't matter how long we train, our bodies were just not built for it. In the same way, it doesn't matter what you can possibly do, you will NEVER ever be able to beat Lee Sedol in GO. I dont know how to play go well, but there is a flaw in your argument. I'm fairly certain that the game of GO like everything is ruled by cause and effect relationships. And so a mathematical model of it can be made. I'd guess the problem of GO is that there is no easy way for a human to simplify the math so that it can give him good decisions without solving the entire tree. Thats what is done in chess, thats what is done in poker. Ultimately a perfect solution for the game is only possible by solving the whole game tree, but you can use a whole array of other tools that can help you pick good moves. If it's possible to construct a workable mathematical model of GO, i cannot agree that its impossible to play better than this guy. And I'm fairly sure its possible. But the problem is most simple models will require an incredible compuational power, so more advanced math and solutions are needed. And there are some ways in which the brain thinks better than a standart computer program. I'd guess that the ability to think in pictures and to evaluate them makes the game much easier for a human to find good moves, than for a regular programming approach, that is unable to use those tools. I'm a bit tired and don't know if that came out too well, but I hope my point is somewhat understandable. I guess this guy has an advantage over everything else that is strongly pronounced by the nature of the game, being well suited for the human brain and not suited for the standart programming tools that are used now. This does not mean his advantage is impossible to overcome. Someone with great knowledge of advanced nath and programming (even maybe brain science and neural networks) should be able to construct a workable model and when he does, it might be enough to give a normal player an edge.

beast, do some research into this and you'll realize that you are completely wrong on this topic. all the top minds in artificial intelligence are working on this and still the best they can do is to beat a novice about on par with say a D+ on ICCUP. They are so many light years away from beating a pro, let alone a top pro like Lee Sedol.

http://www.aihorizon.com/essays/goai/intro.htm

is a very basic description. you can also google GO and AI and get more information on this topic.

There is a point where it isn't just about gaining information but rather to process it. Human intelligence is not all created equal and there are people (such as tom) that are more talented than others. There are things where it isn't about how much you practice or how much information you gather but rather about how much your brain can do with that information. And the human mind is so complex than you can't just apply a mathematical model to it. It does things that computers cannot and it doesn't matter how much information you have.

On July 17 2008 19:21 Rhaegar wrote: I think you're not really trying to understand what im saying. I said in plain words that genetic advantage is real. But its importance depends on the goal. Some competative sports are designed in a way that will heighten this importance. But the fact remains that every average person is generally able to do what every other person is capable of and especially if given more time than him.

Then i agree with you. However i think you and Tea are trying to jump to extremes too much. Surely practice is the most important part of success, but there is no denial that some people are just one level above everyone else for no apparent reason.

Is 70 IQ so low? I'm not familiar with how its calculated (im fairly certain its pretty inaccurate and unreal anyway) . I consider my mom fairly dumb, but Id think that if she devoted 300 years to studying physics as her goal in life shed be able to discover the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, particle theory, string theory and probably more...

70 is extremely low. I dont believe in IQ test tho.