Your scripts? - Page 2

I am interested in seeing less like a "script" and more like a general flow of ideas that enters their head in various situations from someone especially in live poker :o

the hell was i warned for?

Shit just got real in here

On May 29 2011 18:40 Night2o1 wrote: I am interested in seeing less like a "script" and more like a general flow of ideas that enters their head in various situations from someone especially in live poker :o

Yeah that's what I was hoping for as well
When it gets later in the session my script or flow or whatever you want to call it always starts with 'metagame' and 'what did villain do to me recently' and my brain always skips all that boring stuff like my hand strength and villain's range and my range and the fact that check fold might be better than a 3 barrel all in at NL25.

Everyone has these scripts, but in poker most of them are part of the intuitive thought process as the information processed is too complex to assess it rationally (my hypothesis, many people disagree) => they are automatic and you don't even have to realize them. Because people find it hilarious it makes me think that they don't realize them, and there is no way Dogmeat is clicking buttons with how successful he is, even when he is completely auto piloting . When you are auto piloting the intuitive part of the brain (that rarely gets tired, is great at multitasking and is instant) takes over, but it has all these scripts running simultaneously and you don't even have to think about them.

But some people (Nanonoko) have got the intuitive thought process better suited for poker than others (me), and if you think hard enough and just observe yourself play it shouldn't be hard to try to dissect what decisions drove your actions on each street. You can see this process all over the place with people making videos like Giggy or Niman - he acts on a street within barely 0.5s, and when he gets to video he goes on a 30 minute rant explaining all factors that drove his decision, and he always says 'oh and...' after talking, as he realized what more his intuitive thought process has done (and they never provide all the factors). And this could be called 'scripts' as you had to train and 'script' this automatic response before having it.

intuition = experience.
Just play a lot and don't think too much about this stuff.

Probably a good idea to think through your decision making process once in a while. Especially today when most people mass-table and most actions are processed without much thinking (automatic-robotic).

I also think you underestimate how much Nanonoko has worked on his game in similar fashions like these. And now it's easy to call everything he does "intuition".

Spastic link by intuitive thought process I mean the one defined by Kahneman as this:


You probably see it as something inherited, but although it is slow learning, it is indeed programmable and you can insert 'scripts' through your rational thought processes through hard work and practice.

E.g. I am a goalkeeper in floorball where the balls can go up to 100 miles/hr, little of the reactions I make are rational, but the skill and programming of my intuition came through directed learning and practice. Or someone learning chess, at first they need to rationally think about every move but eventually through practice they program their intuition. By saying that Nanonoko uses intuition in vast majority of situations with only a light control from System 2 is not saying he hasn't done the hard work, quite the opposite.


I was hoping that some of you guys could try to access your intuition and tell me what scripts weight your decisions. I will do the same later in the week when my mind stops focusing on this as I want to get an unpolluted picture, in one of my weak hours.

You will see that my intuition is programmed incorrectly, to e.g. give large weighting on my thought of not being outplayed, my ego and what my mood is and what creative play I can make, I know that know even without playing.

wow...

Can we at least know what the warnings were related to so we don't post something similar?

Stupid posts in a manner of "Flop: BET Turn: BET River: SHOVE AND LOOK AT MY CARDS LOLZ."

i have a pretty lazy method of thinking about the way i play my hands, but it works pretty well for me. Basically every 2 months or so, or whenever i move up a limit i drop down to 6 tables so i can think about how to play hands, and it also allows me to gather notes more easily. Then when i have a good amount of notes/stats and a general idea of how to play vs the regs i 10-12 table. Then i move up to another limit and start 6 tabling again. I think if you only 4 table you move up limits too slowly, and if you only 20 table you'll be stuck at low limits forever, unless you have godlike photographic eyes and memory.

On May 30 2011 05:32 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Spastic link by intuitive thought process I mean the one defined by Kahneman as this: You probably see it as something inherited, but although it is slow learning, it is indeed programmable and you can insert 'scripts' through your rational thought processes through hard work and practice. E.g. I am a goalkeeper in floorball where the balls can go up to 100 miles/hr, little of the reactions I make are rational, but the skill and programming of my intuition came through directed learning and practice. Or someone learning chess, at first they need to rationally think about every move but eventually through practice they program their intuition. By saying that Nanonoko uses intuition in vast majority of situations with only a light control from System 2 is not saying he hasn't done the hard work, quite the opposite. I was hoping that some of you guys could try to access your intuition and tell me what scripts weight your decisions. I will do the same later in the week when my mind stops focusing on this as I want to get an unpolluted picture, in one of my weak hours. You will see that my intuition is programmed incorrectly, to e.g. give large weighting on my thought of not being outplayed, my ego and what my mood is and what creative play I can make, I know that know even without playing.

I still would not call it intuition.

Intuition applies more to something you understand or know (immediately) without being able to explain why.

Using psychological terms I would rather define the process as something procedural; ie. things you have learned cognitively and can apply without much conciouss awareness.

However I understand what you are saying and this doesn't need to be a semantic discussion.

And to the river part, I think its worth adding the question: if I bet for third time, am I ever getting called by worse?

This is a concept a lot of micro/low stakes players are missing, betting on rivers for value even they can not get third street of value, and they are getting only called by hands that already beat them.

In the example script provided I would eliminate the question "How strong is my hand?" because your equity calculations versus your situation should cover that. I would also integrate the actions repertoire into the actual script instead of just being the options available. That way you know the path and decisions that have to me made in order to end at what kind of result. If done correctly, I think you could theoretically run any hand through your script and it would play out what you feel is optimal for your game, and if not you either scripted it incorrectly or found a leak in your thought process that is allowing you to make suboptimal decisions.