Main Date: 05 Jul 2007 07:50:00 From: Zero Subject: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? HI, I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of the three games and also good at another as well. Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are inactive). Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon. Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and poker has more luck than skill.   Date: 30 Jul 2007 21:39:14 From: Iceman Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 30, 11:55 pm, EG <grunfe...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > That's a reflection of the short-term luck factor in poker. In poker > > any reasonable player can win one single tournament, and even the best > > players aren't that much better than the field. David Sklansky > > estimates that the best tournament players have an EV of only about > > double the buy-in. In chess, even a difference of 200 rating points > > means that the better player will virtually always win. Put ten > > grandmasters together, and you can't be sure that the 2740 will win > > and not the 2680. But have a field of hundreds of players of greatly > > varying abilities, and it will almost always sort closely by ratings - > > you won't see a 1400 win a major open event ever. > > But all these professional players win all the time. I think they > have much higher Expected Values than you give them credit for. Many of the top pros enter literally dozens of events every year - you have to view their wins and final tables in the light of how much they are paying to enter events overall. Players like Bill Boyd and Stu Ungar may have had a massive advantage back in their time, but in the modern poker world no one has that great a record against the much larger and stronger fields that are common today.   Date: 30 Jul 2007 20:55:52 From: EG Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? But all these professional players win all the time. I think they have much higher Expected Values than you give them credit for. On Jul 5, 6:36 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jul 5, 3:04 pm, Ron <ronaldinh...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > In article <1183654186.773683.58...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > The best chess computers today are probably slightly better than the > > > best human players (10 years ago the best computers and top humans > > > were about at the same level), but it wouldn't be a total blowout. > > > That's not true. The best computer (Hydra) is substantially stronger > > than the best humans. The best computers which run on > > commercially-available hardware are "probably slightly better than the > > best human players" but that's not the same thing. > > I left the computer world 10 years ago, and wasn't aware of Hydra. I > figured it was inevitable that computers would eventually beat the > best human players. > > > > But the best computer programs are only at the level of a strong > > > amateur in bridge, a mediocre amateur in poker (except in heads-up > > > limit holdem where the computers are pretty strong), and an advanced > > > beginner in go. > > > The interesting thing about poker, though, is how well amateurs do > > compared to professionals. While it's true that the best professionals > > consistently do a lot better than the best amateurs, in poker you > > consistently see tournaments won by a player of mediocre skills who > > happened to get the best cards. > > That's a reflection of the short-term luck factor in poker. In poker > any reasonable player can win one single tournament, and even the best > players aren't that much better than the field. David Sklansky > estimates that the best tournament players have an EV of only about > double the buy-in. In chess, even a difference of 200 rating points > means that the better player will virtually always win. Put ten > grandmasters together, and you can't be sure that the 2740 will win > and not the 2680. But have a field of hundreds of players of greatly > varying abilities, and it will almost always sort closely by ratings - > you won't see a 1400 win a major open event ever.   Date: 17 Jul 2007 08:08:21 From: Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 5, 6:44 pm, Richard <blueghos...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jul 5, 1:34 pm, David Nicoson <bigda...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I think the correlation between good poker players and good chess > > players isn't anything deeper than to say smart people are good at > > games. > > I have to disagree with this one. As a chess player, I've seen plenty > of strong players at tourneys who are clearly below average > intelligence. None of them are grandmasters, but they're strong > amateurs or even low level masters. > I have a friend who plays a lot of backgammon and poker (both mostly live play), and his comparison of the two games is this: He likes the backgammon 'scene' because there are so many extremely bright people involved. He is referring to the people you would meet at a major tournament, not necessarily all the riff-raff you find on the Internet. With poker in many ways he detests the game because of all of the really stupid people you have to deal with, who have nothing more to their game than all that aggressive posturing that goes with live poker play. And the dumber they are, the more aggressive and boorish they become. He continues to play poker because 'that's where the money is', and supplements a comfortable living with live money games. But if money is not the object, he'd much rather hang out with backgammon players than poker players. Actually he says he'd rather hang out with most ANYONE than the kind of people you meet in live poker rooms. -- Gregg C.   Date: 17 Jul 2007 14:17:57 From: Will in New Haven Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 16, 10:34 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net > wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:03:05 -0000, Will in New Haven > > > > > > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > >On Jul 16, 3:35 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 16, 3:15 pm, Will in New Haven > > >> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > >> > You also have to realize that NLHE tournaments are not all of poker. > >> > While very important right now, NLHE and tournaments were historically > >> > sideshows. When poker was not all that popular, there were still many > >> > people grinding out a respectable amount of money out of limit games > >> > of holdem, stud and and, at one time, lowball and draw. A bad player's > >> > chances in any of those other variations is lower than it is in NLHE, > > >> In NLHE tournaments, bad players don't do that badly, unless you're > >> talking deep money, slow structure events. > > >Really bad players don't do that badly in quick events. Many people > >consider Moneymaker and some others bad players but they are so much > >better than the bad players you want to see at a cash table that it is > >silly to call them bad. The sneering wannabes that call them bad are > >not generally anything but fans who resent not seeing a name player > >winning. > > Most of the 'no-names' you see at the events are generally hardcore > online players. All the 23-and-under crowd pretty much. > Online players play a great many hands. This will either break them or teach them. > > > > > > >> NLHE capped buy-in cash games do reduce the skill factor somewhat, but > >> as long as it's a 100-150 BB cap, the bad players will still do worse > >> on average than in most limit games. Draw and stud-8 might be > >> exceptions. A 40-50 BB cap makes the luck factor high. But limit > >> holdem and stud a bad player can win as much as 30-40% of his sessions > >> (and even the best players in mid-limits will generally only win > >> 60-70% of the time). > > >> In deep money NLHE cash games, the bad players will do much worse than > >> in any limit game. > > >Bad players who buy in deep are going to get killed. As a prominant > >poster has argued, mediocre or even bad players can survive and feel > >good about themselves by buying in shallow. > > >> > although the number of weaker players willing to play NLHE makes it > >> > the "caddilac of poker." > > >> Well, that was definitely true in 2003, and is still pretty much true > >> right now. But the ratio of good/mediocre/bad players keeps becoming > >> less and less favorable. > > >It is not getting less favorable nearly as quickly in most casino > >venues as it is online. Part of it is bad players going broke. Part of > >it is bad players becoming less bad. Many casino players don't play > >often enough to go broke or learn anything, bless them. Numerous > >infrequent players make for profitable games. > > Foxwoods attracts them, I'm sure. Or Mohegan Sun. The Sun has not had poker in years but they are opening a room in their new building when it is done. Foxwoods attracts many infrequent players. The quality of play in a local bar tournament is better, because the players are there every week and eventually some things sink in, than it is at the smaller tournaments at Foxwoods. People who play more often do learn. Some of them very slowly. Will in New Haven -- > > > > > > >Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 16 Jul 2007 20:03:05 From: Will in New Haven Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 16, 3:35 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jul 16, 3:15 pm, Will in New Haven > > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > > You also have to realize that NLHE tournaments are not all of poker. > > While very important right now, NLHE and tournaments were historically > > sideshows. When poker was not all that popular, there were still many > > people grinding out a respectable amount of money out of limit games > > of holdem, stud and and, at one time, lowball and draw. A bad player's > > chances in any of those other variations is lower than it is in NLHE, > > In NLHE tournaments, bad players don't do that badly, unless you're > talking deep money, slow structure events. Really bad players don't do that badly in quick events. Many people consider Moneymaker and some others bad players but they are so much better than the bad players you want to see at a cash table that it is silly to call them bad. The sneering wannabes that call them bad are not generally anything but fans who resent not seeing a name player winning. > > NLHE capped buy-in cash games do reduce the skill factor somewhat, but > as long as it's a 100-150 BB cap, the bad players will still do worse > on average than in most limit games. Draw and stud-8 might be > exceptions. A 40-50 BB cap makes the luck factor high. But limit > holdem and stud a bad player can win as much as 30-40% of his sessions > (and even the best players in mid-limits will generally only win > 60-70% of the time). > > In deep money NLHE cash games, the bad players will do much worse than > in any limit game. Bad players who buy in deep are going to get killed. As a prominant poster has argued, mediocre or even bad players can survive and feel good about themselves by buying in shallow. > > > although the number of weaker players willing to play NLHE makes it > > the "caddilac of poker." > > Well, that was definitely true in 2003, and is still pretty much true > right now. But the ratio of good/mediocre/bad players keeps becoming > less and less favorable. It is not getting less favorable nearly as quickly in most casino venues as it is online. Part of it is bad players going broke. Part of it is bad players becoming less bad. Many casino players don't play often enough to go broke or learn anything, bless them. Numerous infrequent players make for profitable games. Will in New Haven --     Date: 16 Jul 2007 22:34:53 From: Patrick Volk Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:03:05 -0000, Will in New Haven <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote: >On Jul 16, 3:35 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jul 16, 3:15 pm, Will in New Haven >> >> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: >> > You also have to realize that NLHE tournaments are not all of poker. >> > While very important right now, NLHE and tournaments were historically >> > sideshows. When poker was not all that popular, there were still many >> > people grinding out a respectable amount of money out of limit games >> > of holdem, stud and and, at one time, lowball and draw. A bad player's >> > chances in any of those other variations is lower than it is in NLHE, >> >> In NLHE tournaments, bad players don't do that badly, unless you're >> talking deep money, slow structure events. > >Really bad players don't do that badly in quick events. Many people >consider Moneymaker and some others bad players but they are so much >better than the bad players you want to see at a cash table that it is >silly to call them bad. The sneering wannabes that call them bad are >not generally anything but fans who resent not seeing a name player >winning. Most of the 'no-names' you see at the events are generally hardcore online players. All the 23-and-under crowd pretty much. > >> >> NLHE capped buy-in cash games do reduce the skill factor somewhat, but >> as long as it's a 100-150 BB cap, the bad players will still do worse >> on average than in most limit games. Draw and stud-8 might be >> exceptions. A 40-50 BB cap makes the luck factor high. But limit >> holdem and stud a bad player can win as much as 30-40% of his sessions >> (and even the best players in mid-limits will generally only win >> 60-70% of the time). > >> >> In deep money NLHE cash games, the bad players will do much worse than >> in any limit game. > >Bad players who buy in deep are going to get killed. As a prominant >poster has argued, mediocre or even bad players can survive and feel >good about themselves by buying in shallow. > >> >> > although the number of weaker players willing to play NLHE makes it >> > the "caddilac of poker." >> >> Well, that was definitely true in 2003, and is still pretty much true >> right now. But the ratio of good/mediocre/bad players keeps becoming >> less and less favorable. > >It is not getting less favorable nearly as quickly in most casino >venues as it is online. Part of it is bad players going broke. Part of >it is bad players becoming less bad. Many casino players don't play >often enough to go broke or learn anything, bless them. Numerous >infrequent players make for profitable games. Foxwoods attracts them, I'm sure. Or Mohegan Sun. > >Will in New Haven   Date: 16 Jul 2007 12:35:16 From: Iceman Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 16, 3:15 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote: > You also have to realize that NLHE tournaments are not all of poker. > While very important right now, NLHE and tournaments were historically > sideshows. When poker was not all that popular, there were still many > people grinding out a respectable amount of money out of limit games > of holdem, stud and and, at one time, lowball and draw. A bad player's > chances in any of those other variations is lower than it is in NLHE, In NLHE tournaments, bad players don't do that badly, unless you're talking deep money, slow structure events. NLHE capped buy-in cash games do reduce the skill factor somewhat, but as long as it's a 100-150 BB cap, the bad players will still do worse on average than in most limit games. Draw and stud-8 might be exceptions. A 40-50 BB cap makes the luck factor high. But limit holdem and stud a bad player can win as much as 30-40% of his sessions (and even the best players in mid-limits will generally only win 60-70% of the time). In deep money NLHE cash games, the bad players will do much worse than in any limit game. > although the number of weaker players willing to play NLHE makes it > the "caddilac of poker." Well, that was definitely true in 2003, and is still pretty much true right now. But the ratio of good/mediocre/bad players keeps becoming less and less favorable.   Date: 16 Jul 2007 19:15:54 From: Will in New Haven Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 16, 3:00 pm, bob <bob_k...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 11, 1:01 am, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > But if you look at the tournament records, the same people seem to > > cash year to year (Greg Raymer took like 5th in an event at this WSOP, > > Phil Ivey won the HORSE event for the second year in a row, Freddy > > Deeb got a bracelet, and Mike Matusow cashed). > > Since it is just finishing up it is interesting to look at the final > table of 9 for this years WSOP. How many of them are "name" players? > Let's say this means they show up on the WPT database or have at least > $10,000 in lifetime winnings in any WSOP or WSOP circuit event. > > Bob Koca You also have to realize that NLHE tournaments are not all of poker. While very important right now, NLHE and tournaments were historically sideshows. When poker was not all that popular, there were still many people grinding out a respectable amount of money out of limit games of holdem, stud and and, at one time, lowball and draw. A bad player's chances in any of those other variations is lower than it is in NLHE, although the number of weaker players willing to play NLHE makes it the "caddilac of poker." Will in New Haven --   Date: 16 Jul 2007 12:00:33 From: bob Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 11, 1:01 am, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net > wrote: > > But if you look at the tournament records, the same people seem to > cash year to year (Greg Raymer took like 5th in an event at this WSOP, > Phil Ivey won the HORSE event for the second year in a row, Freddy > Deeb got a bracelet, and Mike Matusow cashed). Since it is just finishing up it is interesting to look at the final table of 9 for this years WSOP. How many of them are "name" players? Let's say this means they show up on the WPT database or have at least $10,000 in lifetime winnings in any WSOP or WSOP circuit event. Bob Koca   Date: 16 Jul 2007 11:52:13 From: bob Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 15, 11:29 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jul 14, 1:05 am, bob <bob_k...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 10:08 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > The "best theoretical strategy" is not known, even for heads-up > > > holdem, but surely would depend a lot on how your opponent plays. > > > For heads-up holdem, basic game theory tells us that there is indeed > > an optimal theoretical strategy. It doesn't depend on the opponent's play though. > > You are mixing up the ideas of theoretical strategy and practical strategy. > > No, you're mixing up the difference between a generalized optimal > strategy and the best exploitative strategy against a particular > opponent. You used the phrase "best theoretical strategy" and then said it depends on how the opponent plays. Do you equate the meanings of "best theoretical strategy" and "best exploitative strategy"? I've always seen "best theorectial strategy" to mean the game theoretical optimum strategy which assumes an optimal opponent. I agree completely with the last two paragraphs you wrote about how exploitative strategies can do better practically and existence of optimal strategies so it seems we just disagree on nomenclature. Bob Koca   Date: 15 Jul 2007 20:29:05 From: Iceman Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 14, 1:05 am, bob <bob_k...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 13, 10:08 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > The "best theoretical strategy" is not known, even for heads-up > > holdem, but surely would depend a lot on how your opponent plays. > > For heads-up holdem, basic game theory tells us that there is indeed > an optimal theoretical strategy. It doesn't depend on the opponent's play though. > You are mixing up the ideas of theoretical strategy and practical strategy. No, you're mixing up the difference between a generalized optimal strategy and the best exploitative strategy against a particular opponent. The optimal strategy could never be beaten in a heads-up match with alternating buttons. But it wouldn't win nearly as much against a bad player as an exploitative strategy that is designed to take advantage of that bad player's specific mistakes. Game theory tells us that there is an optimal strategy for certain forms of poker, but not necessarily for others. Heads-up limit poker with a limited number of bets per round would have a theoretical solution - since it is a zero-sum two player game with a finite decision tree.   Date: 15 Jul 2007 20:22:16 From: Iceman Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 15, 11:18 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net > wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:36:37 -0700, bob <bob_k...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Anyways it is an irrelevant calculation. By 75% hand in the article > >it clearly meant a hand that gives a 75% > >chance of winning an all-in. Not a hand that is one of the 75% bests > >hands for you. > > I said 1 in 4 hands, and you disagreed. Also, I just quoted the > numbers, and know that all hands aren't created equal ( For any given > pocket pair, there are 6 ways to get it (.45%). For x-y suited, there > are 4, (.30%). For x-y unsuited, there are 12 (.90%)) Only AA, KK, QQ, and JJ are above 75% all-in against a random hand. In a heads-up freezeout against someone moving all-in every hand, unless the money is extremely deep you can't wait for one of those hands without your stack likely being very depleted by the time you get one. > The worst hand is AA vs. A-9 (PP covers the over card, and if the 9 is > a suit of the ace it adds about 1%). Not PP vs. PP (PP v. PP needs > only 1 card, while covered over card requires 2). No - the worst situation heads-up all-in preflop is KK vs. K2 with the 2 in the same suit of one of the first player's kings.     Date: 16 Jul 2007 22:27:42 From: Patrick Volk Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:22:16 -0700, Iceman <oneofcold@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Jul 15, 11:18 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:36:37 -0700, bob <bob_k...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > Anyways it is an irrelevant calculation. By 75% hand in the article >> >it clearly meant a hand that gives a 75% >> >chance of winning an all-in. Not a hand that is one of the 75% bests >> >hands for you. >> >> I said 1 in 4 hands, and you disagreed. Also, I just quoted the >> numbers, and know that all hands aren't created equal ( For any given >> pocket pair, there are 6 ways to get it (.45%). For x-y suited, there >> are 4, (.30%). For x-y unsuited, there are 12 (.90%)) > > >Only AA, KK, QQ, and JJ are above 75% all-in against a random hand. >In a heads-up freezeout against someone moving all-in every hand, >unless the money is extremely deep you can't wait for one of those >hands without your stack likely being very depleted by the time you >get one. That's where the size of the blinds come in. No blinds, 75% then. If you see the cards and no blinds, it's potentially 95.6% or something like that. > >> The worst hand is AA vs. A-9 (PP covers the over card, and if the 9 is >> a suit of the ace it adds about 1%). Not PP vs. PP (PP v. PP needs >> only 1 card, while covered over card requires 2). > > >No - the worst situation heads-up all-in preflop is KK vs. K2 with the >2 in the same suit of one of the first player's kings. Closer at least.   Date: 15 Jul 2007 19:36:37 From: bob Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 14, 10:33 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net > wrote: > > Ok, the top 51 hands (there are 169) is 24% of the time. > The top 42 is 20% of the time. > I don't see how you go from top 51 hands out of 169 gives 24%. Did you do 51/(51+169) = .2318 and round? That seems how you got the 20% figure as 42/(42+169) = .199. Also, why not 42/169. Also why not worry about if the cards are suited or not? Anyways it is an irrelevant calculation. By 75% hand in the article it clearly meant a hand that gives a 75% chance of winning an all-in. Not a hand that is one of the 75% bests hands for you. > > The calculator says 11%, and that's not the worst hand (the worst is > 5.3%) > > AA against KK has a probability of 18%. > > And your poker calculator appears to be using Monte Carlo analysis, no > pun intended (it says 13% on AA v. KK, but it's really 17%). > > http://wizardofodds.com/holdem/calculator/handstrength2/(it's quicker > too) Agree that you site is better. Mine never gives anything near 13% though for AA vs KK though. For the worst hand     Date: 15 Jul 2007 23:18:11 From: Patrick Volk Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:36:37 -0700, bob <bob_koca@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Jul 14, 10:33 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> Ok, the top 51 hands (there are 169) is 24% of the time. >> The top 42 is 20% of the time. >> > > > I don't see how you go from top 51 hands out of 169 gives 24%. Did >you do 51/(51+169) = .2318 and round? >That seems how you got the 20% figure as 42/(42+169) = .199. Also, >why not 42/169. Also why not worry about >if the cards are suited or not? > > Anyways it is an irrelevant calculation. By 75% hand in the article >it clearly meant a hand that gives a 75% >chance of winning an all-in. Not a hand that is one of the 75% bests >hands for you. I said 1 in 4 hands, and you disagreed. Also, I just quoted the numbers, and know that all hands aren't created equal ( For any given pocket pair, there are 6 ways to get it (.45%). For x-y suited, there are 4, (.30%). For x-y unsuited, there are 12 (.90%)) > > >> >> The calculator says 11%, and that's not the worst hand (the worst is >> 5.3%) >> >> AA against KK has a probability of 18%. >> >> And your poker calculator appears to be using Monte Carlo analysis, no >> pun intended (it says 13% on AA v. KK, but it's really 17%). >> >> http://wizardofodds.com/holdem/calculator/handstrength2/(it's quicker >> too) > > Agree that you site is better. Mine never gives anything near 13% >though for AA vs KK though. >For the worst hand The worst hand is AA vs. A-9 (PP covers the over card, and if the 9 is a suit of the ace it adds about 1%). Not PP vs. PP (PP v. PP needs only 1 card, while covered over card requires 2).   Date: 14 Jul 2007 20:34:21 From: Raccoon Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 14, 7:33 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net > wrote: > And the article qualifies further as making a match against an amateur > a 25-point one. Why not a 1-point one? Because a 1-point match isn't long enough for a superior player to fully demonstrate his superior skill. A 1-point backgammon match is too short for fair comparison to, say, a chess game with professional time control. Similarly, if Phil Ivey and I were to play _one hand_ and one poker hand only for all the marbles, I know what my chances in that contest would be! Frigo's article refers to one by Bill Robertie that appeared in Inside Backgammon in 1992. That's where the 25-point match length comes from. Robertie was attempting to quantify the complexity of various games: Go, Chess, Scrabble, Poker, Backgammon, Draughts, Blackjack, Craps, Lotteries, Roulette. He took chess as an example: take the best player in the world; find someone who beats the best player in the world 25% of the time; find someone else who beats that second player 25% of the time; and so on until you reach the bottom of the barrel -- an absolute beginner. The number of skill differentials between best in the world and absolute beginner is what Robertie called a "Complexity Number." The more skill differentials, the greater the Complexity Number, the more complex the game. Robertie's list: Go 40 Chess 14 Scrabble 10 Poker 10 Backgammon 8 Draughts 8 Blackjack 2 Craps 0.001 Lotteries 0.0000001 Roulette 0 Why a 25-point match? Because that's what Robertie thought would make for a meaningful comparison to chess and other games. He explained: "We can now apply this process to any game, although we may have to give some thought as to what constitutes a meaningful contest. In chess, a single tournament game of four to five hours seems reasonable. In backgammon it would probably be a 25-point match, in scrabble perhaps a best of five series, and so on." A 25-point backgammon match should also take about 4 to 5 hours. See David Montgomery in the rec.games.backgammon thread "Which is greater: luck or skill" beginning Aug 29 1995. In chess, I believe, a players with a 200 rating point advantage has an expected score of 0.75. Similarly in backgammon, the player with a 200 point advantage rates to win 75% of the time -- in a long 25-point match, that is, not a 1-point quickie. > The article as well made mention of a professional > environment, a 25-point match, while for poker, > that lassitude isn't given. Feel free to suggest some other format for a poker contest, lasting 4-5 hours, that you believe would be approximately comparable in the amount of skill required by one professional game of chess, or one 25- point backgammon match, or a game of Go.   Date: 14 Jul 2007 07:07:07 From: Will in New Haven Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 14, 1:05 am, bob <bob_k...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 13, 10:08 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > The "best theoretical strategy" is not known, even for heads-up > > holdem, but surely would depend a lot on how your opponent plays. > > For heads-up holdem, basic game theory tells us that there is indeed > an optimal > theoretical strategy. It doesn't depend on the opponent's play though. > You are > mixing up the ideas of theoretical strategy and practical strategy. As > backgammon example is > suppose I have two checkers on my 3 point vs my opponent who has 2 on > his ace point. The theoretically > optimal cube play for me is to not double. Practically though it might > be a double (if my opponent is so bad as > to pass such positions). That would be the backgammon equivalent of a bluff then? Will in New Haven -- "Have faith in the Yankees my son and remember the great Dimaggio." Ernest Hemingway, THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA > > Bob Koca   Date: 13 Jul 2007 22:05:46 From: bob Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 13, 10:08 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > The "best theoretical strategy" is not known, even for heads-up > holdem, but surely would depend a lot on how your opponent plays. For heads-up holdem, basic game theory tells us that there is indeed an optimal theoretical strategy. It doesn't depend on the opponent's play though. You are mixing up the ideas of theoretical strategy and practical strategy. As backgammon example is suppose I have two checkers on my 3 point vs my opponent who has 2 on his ace point. The theoretically optimal cube play for me is to not double. Practically though it might be a double (if my opponent is so bad as to pass such positions). Bob Koca   Date: 13 Jul 2007 21:52:45 From: bob Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 13, 11:48 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net > wrote: > I think the methodology is suspect. He tries to make poker a 2-player > equivalent game, which it isn't. I agree that multi player poker is more complicated than 2 player poker. But my posting the link was in response to your comment about 5% winning chances against a poker expert. If you are refusing to consider the 2 player version what did you mean then by saying "Where you against Kramnik might leave you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games, it would be more like 10-190 if you played Phil Ivey or someone." > If Ivey waits for a 75% sure thing (he mentions 10-10, which > is the 7th best hand out of 169 different ones... But your chances of > getting that or better are less than 5%!). Not sure what you are getting at it since this is an if-then statement without the then portion. Note though that the chances of getting such a good hand being low argues that it is hard for the expert to have a high winning% for the match. > Informally thinking about it, if the blinds are 10% of the stack, > and my 75% hand comes 1 out of 4 times (A-x, K-x Q-x, and any PP). Of > course, I could get a hand worse than the all-in guy, but just as > easily I could get one that has more of a 90% chance. I should hit > before I go less than half of his stack. You get a 75% hand or better after 2 cards much less than 1 out of 4 times. > > A raw beginner (someone who has just learned the basic rules and a few general strategies) would have almost no chance of defeating a world-class expert in a 25-point match > The expert would almost certainly be greater than a 95% favorite > > This is a bit of apples and oranges. Poker isn't a 2-player game, > but I think you'd have to say a RAW beginner (keep in mind, the 'new > faces' you see in poker have been playing online for years, and for > money) would have about the same chance in poker. So you seem to be holding to the 5% figure for 2-player poker. After two cards the worst situation to be in would be 2-7 off suit vs AA of those same suits. In an all-in situation this gives more than 12% to the 27 player (http://www.holdempoker4u.com/poker_calculator.html). Can you see why that means the all-in player has at LEAST a 12% chance of winning the match regardless of how small the blinds are compared to the starting totals? This is a very crude lower bound. A better lower bound, though still crude would be the chance of winning if one has 2 unknown cards vs. AA. If a mathematical argument doesn't sway you, you could try a simulation out for yourself. You don't even need another person there. Just pay the blinds and always assume that the opponent's action will always be "all-in" and see what % of the matches you can win. > There is extreme volatility as a result of the dice > Single game winning chances can swing 5 to 10% on the opening moves and up to 100% in late game situations > > Game winning chances swing 100%? But skill is still involved? Huh? > The possibility of certain rolls in certain situations swinging the game does not preclude that there may have been skill involved prior to that point. He never said that the backgammon is devoid of luck. > I would also posit that a good yardstick is the level of play of > computers in the game. They put forth a strong game (albeit at the > whim of the dice) of backgammon. How about poker? > I agree that computers play backgammon much better than poker. It is a game more suited to computers though so I don't see how that necessarily is proof that it is a game requiring more skill for humans. Bob Koca     Date: 14 Jul 2007 22:33:12 From: Patrick Volk Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:52:45 -0700, bob <bob_koca@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Jul 13, 11:48 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net> wrote: >> I think the methodology is suspect. He tries to make poker a 2-player >> equivalent game, which it isn't. > > I agree that multi player poker is more complicated than 2 player >poker. But my posting the link was >in response to your comment about 5% winning chances against a poker >expert. If you are refusing to consider >the 2 player version what did you mean then by saying "Where you >against Kramnik might leave >you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games, it would be more like 10-190 >if you played Phil Ivey or someone." And the article qualifies further as making a match against an amateur a 25-point one. Why not a 1-point one? > > >> If Ivey waits for a 75% sure thing (he mentions 10-10, which >> is the 7th best hand out of 169 different ones... But your chances of >> getting that or better are less than 5%!). > > Not sure what you are getting at it since this is an if-then >statement without the then portion. Note though that the >chances of getting such a good hand being low argues that it is hard >for the expert to have a high winning% for the match. I'm getting at he seems to not know what he's talking about when it comes to poker. > > >> Informally thinking about it, if the blinds are 10% of the stack, >> and my 75% hand comes 1 out of 4 times (A-x, K-x Q-x, and any PP). Of >> course, I could get a hand worse than the all-in guy, but just as >> easily I could get one that has more of a 90% chance. I should hit >> before I go less than half of his stack. > > You get a 75% hand or better after 2 cards much less than 1 out of >4 times. Ok, the top 51 hands (there are 169) is 24% of the time. The top 42 is 20% of the time. > > >> >> A raw beginner (someone who has just learned the basic rules and a few general strategies) would have almost no chance of defeating a world-class expert in a 25-point match >> The expert would almost certainly be greater than a 95% favorite >> >> This is a bit of apples and oranges. Poker isn't a 2-player game, >> but I think you'd have to say a RAW beginner (keep in mind, the 'new >> faces' you see in poker have been playing online for years, and for >> money) would have about the same chance in poker. > > So you seem to be holding to the 5% figure for 2-player poker. >After two cards the worst situation to be in >would be 2-7 off suit vs AA of those same suits. In an all-in >situation this gives more than 12% to the 27 >player (http://www.holdempoker4u.com/poker_calculator.html). The calculator says 11%, and that's not the worst hand (the worst is 5.3%) AA against KK has a probability of 18%. And your poker calculator appears to be using Monte Carlo analysis, no pun intended (it says 13% on AA v. KK, but it's really 17%). http://wizardofodds.com/holdem/calculator/handstrength2/ (it's quicker too) > Can you >see why that means the all-in player >has at LEAST a 12% chance of winning the match regardless of how small >the blinds are compared to the starting totals? >This is a very crude lower bound. A better lower bound, though still >crude would be the chance of winning if one has 2 >unknown cards vs. AA. If the blinds don't exist, then I'm at 82%. If the blind is high enough to not give me a choice, then it's 50%. If we allow seeing the players cards, it is 95%. The article as well made mention of a professional environment, a 25-point match, while for poker, that lassitude isn't given. > > If a mathematical argument doesn't sway you, you could try a >simulation out for yourself. >You don't even need another person there. Just pay the blinds and >always assume that the opponent's >action will always be "all-in" and see what % of the matches you can >win. If I take the lowest of the 25% hands (A7s), and the average hand (Q-7 of different suits) I get 23%. > >> There is extreme volatility as a result of the dice >> Single game winning chances can swing 5 to 10% on the opening moves and up to 100% in late game situations >> >> Game winning chances swing 100%? But skill is still involved? Huh? >> > > The possibility of certain rolls in certain situations swinging >the game does not preclude that there >may have been skill involved prior to that point. He never said that >the backgammon is devoid of luck. If I make the same statement about poker, it's called luck. He pretty much said it is luck. > > >> I would also posit that a good yardstick is the level of play of >> computers in the game. They put forth a strong game (albeit at the >> whim of the dice) of backgammon. How about poker? >> > > I agree that computers play backgammon much better than poker. It >is a game more suited >to computers though so I don't see how that necessarily is proof that >it is a game requiring >more skill for humans. It's the intangibles... All of the information in chess and backgammon is on the table. There is probability in the backgammon dice, which isn't known, and cannot be known until the dice are thrown. I think the thing that rankles me about the analogy is he tries poker at the worst case, and backgammon at the not-so-worst case. Out of a field of 6,000 players in this years WSOP, there still are 3 former world champions (I think the top 100, and 2 or 3 more cashed). > >Bob Koca >   Date: 13 Jul 2007 19:08:17 From: Iceman Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 13, 7:54 pm, bob <bob_k...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 13, 6:24 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Stacks of 10,000 each in a heads-up freezeout with 50-100 blinds. > > > If you just go all-in every single hand, even if your opponent uses a > > mathematically perfect counter strategy, he only has a 61% chance of > > winning. > > Could you point me to more about where this is calculated please. David Sklansky's tournament poker book. > Also can you confirm that you are considering the best practical strategy vs an all-in all the time > player and not the best theoretical strategy. Yes - it is the best possible strategy against a player who moves in every hand. The "best theoretical strategy" is not known, even for heads-up holdem, but surely would depend a lot on how your opponent plays.   Date: 13 Jul 2007 16:54:33 From: bob Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 13, 6:24 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com > wrote: > > Stacks of 10,000 each in a heads-up freezeout with 50-100 blinds. > > If you just go all-in every single hand, even if your opponent uses a > mathematically perfect counter strategy, he only has a 61% chance of > winning. > Could you point me to more about where this is calculated please. Also can you confirm that you are considering the best practical strategy vs an all-in all the time player and not the best theoretical strategy. Bob Koca   Date: 13 Jul 2007 15:24:55 From: Iceman Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 13, 6:16 pm, bob <bob_k...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 11, 1:01 am, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > In chess, no matter how much you study, the odds of being able to hold > > your own against Kramnik or Kasparov in their primes is next to zero. > > Mastery in this sense is not going to happen, and if it does, you > > would be one of a dozen or so people who can make a decent "living" > > from chess. > > > The disparity is less in poker, because of the variability. Where you > > against Kramnik might leave you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games, > > it would be more like 10-190 if you played Phil Ivey or someone. > > I think your 5% estimate is not even close. In 2 person play Frank > Frigo argues that someone > who knows the rules (even a 10 year old child) could be taught within > a few seconds how to win about 25% vs. a > World class player in poker. His argument is good. Stacks of 10,000 each in a heads-up freezeout with 50-100 blinds. If you just go all-in every single hand, even if your opponent uses a mathematically perfect counter strategy, he only has a 61% chance of winning.   Date: 13 Jul 2007 15:16:05 From: bob Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 11, 1:01 am, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net > wrote: > > In chess, no matter how much you study, the odds of being able to hold > your own against Kramnik or Kasparov in their primes is next to zero. > Mastery in this sense is not going to happen, and if it does, you > would be one of a dozen or so people who can make a decent "living" > from chess. > > The disparity is less in poker, because of the variability. Where you > against Kramnik might leave you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games, > it would be more like 10-190 if you played Phil Ivey or someone. > I think your 5% estimate is not even close. In 2 person play Frank Frigo argues that someone who knows the rules (even a 10 year old child) could be taught within a few seconds how to win about 25% vs. a World class player in poker. His argument is good. Read http://www.gammonlife.com/writers/06frigo2.htm Bob Koca     Date: 13 Jul 2007 23:48:31 From: Patrick Volk Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:16:05 -0700, bob <bob_koca@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Jul 11, 1:01 am, Patrick Volk <pjv...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> In chess, no matter how much you study, the odds of being able to hold >> your own against Kramnik or Kasparov in their primes is next to zero. >> Mastery in this sense is not going to happen, and if it does, you >> would be one of a dozen or so people who can make a decent "living" >> from chess. >> >> The disparity is less in poker, because of the variability. Where you >> against Kramnik might leave you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games, >> it would be more like 10-190 if you played Phil Ivey or someone. >> > > I think your 5% estimate is not even close. In 2 person play Frank >Frigo argues that someone >who knows the rules (even a 10 year old child) could be taught within >a few seconds how to win about 25% vs. a >World class player in poker. His argument is good. Read >http://www.gammonlife.com/writers/06frigo2.htm > >Bob Koca I think the methodology is suspect. He tries to make poker a 2-player equivalent game, which it isn't. He then goes on to say the dice winning moves can cause swings of 100% towards the later game... If that isn't pure 'probability' (a.k.a luck) I don't know what is! As far as the all-in, all the time strategy, if it's known, it changes. If Ivey waits for a 75% sure thing (he mentions 10-10, which is the 7th best hand out of 169 different ones... But your chances of getting that or better are less than 5%!). Informally thinking about it, if the blinds are 10% of the stack, and my 75% hand comes 1 out of 4 times (A-x, K-x Q-x, and any PP). Of course, I could get a hand worse than the all-in guy, but just as easily I could get one that has more of a 90% chance. I should hit before I go less than half of his stack. Let me interject a few more things: >Every decision in Backgammon is a skillful decision In poker, it probably doesn't have to be, but it should be. You should be aware of the game you're playing, and the effect position has. >With the exception of forced moves, every choice requires a skillful assessment of alternatives Very true in poker. Alternatives offer different levels of risk and reward. >Some choices carry more weight than others but all are affected by some amount of skill Very true in poker as well. >A raw beginner (someone who has just learned the basic rules and a few general strategies) would have almost no chance of defeating a world-class expert in a 25-point match >The expert would almost certainly be greater than a 95% favorite This is a bit of apples and oranges. Poker isn't a 2-player game, but I think you'd have to say a RAW beginner (keep in mind, the 'new faces' you see in poker have been playing online for years, and for money) would have about the same chance in poker. >There is great parity among top players >Among experts, it is rare to win more than 60% of open level matches over the long haul Very true in poker. >There is extreme volatility as a result of the dice >Single game winning chances can swing 5 to 10% on the opening moves and up to 100% in late game situations Game winning chances swing 100%? But skill is still involved? Huh? >Skill is based on more than just the fundamental knowledge of the game Very true in poker. Backgammon, you certainly have to take into account your opponents play. Knowing what beats what in poker is fundamental knowledge. Knowing what starting hands play well, and what plays well with lots of players, and knowing position, pot odds, how to deal with tight players, loose players, and passive and aggressive ones as well is not fundamental knowledge. >Temperament, preparation and execution matter a great deal Patience is probably the main asset a poker player has. Temprerament, and execution matter as well (preparation isn't detailed). I would also posit that a good yardstick is the level of play of computers in the game. They put forth a strong game (albeit at the whim of the dice) of backgammon. How about poker?   Date: 13 Jul 2007 23:17:17 From: Oleg Goryunov Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? "Zero" <talltree0@yahoo.com > wrote news:1183647000.948824.132690@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > HI, > > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of > the three games and also good at another as well. > > Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington > and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also > high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating > and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are > inactive). > > Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon. > > Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess > backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and > poker has more luck than skill. > > The question is how the games correlate with intellect or better to say with the general factor of intellect. All the games are not for the only player. Thus the rating of a player not quite exactly determines his abilities. There are games for the only player with more exact appraisement of the game abilities, for example this one http://www.mail-tech.com/rit-en.html   Date: 12 Jul 2007 20:27:32 From: Will in New Haven Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 12, 4:16 pm, Deadmoney Walking <tbones...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 12, 4:06 pm, Will in New Haven > > > > > > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > > On Jul 12, 3:50 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 -0700, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> > > > wrote: > > > > >On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <mikim...@imeil.fi> quoted someone else: > > > >> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at > > > >> > backgammon and poker. > > > >and replied: > > > >> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be > > > >> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players > > > >> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If > > > >> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need > > > >> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top > > > >> cases who are good at both of them). > > > > Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a > > > >TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster - > > > >and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to > > > >the chess game. > > > > If you had a room full of chess grandmasters, and/or chess computers that > > > can play at that level, and had a different grandmaster or computer make > > > each individual move, without communicating with each other in any way, > > > each would be just as likely to make the proper move in any given situation, > > > without having any shared "strategy." > > > Strategy does not have to be shared. Strategy is decision-making on a > > larger scale and a deeper time-scale than the tactical. On the other > > hand, it is a truism in chess that tactics take precedence over > > strategy. A mate in one if you don't move your king (a tactical > > situaton) is more important than the need to move your bishop to make > > your development less one-sided (a strategic consideration) > > > Another example, where "strategy" is misused, is the common habit of > > baseball commentators calling the decision whether or not to bunt or > > hit and run a strategic decision. Those are tactical decisions. This > > is so long-established that it never gets criticized but actual > > strategic decisions involve who to keep on the squad, who gets to play > > against certain pitchers, etc. > > > Will in New Haven > > > -- > > > Dilletantes study tactics > > Students study strategy > > Experts study logistics - military saying- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Actually, outside of chess, I have never seen such a bright line in > between strategy and tactics. For most people, they mean the same > thing. That is certainly true but the distinction is a useful one. For instance, in the Designated Hitter debate, the people who don't like it claims it removes a great deal of strategy, like bunting and other stuff centered around how badly Pitchers hit. The people who like the DH accept that this is strategy, although it isn't, and say it is faily standardized and unintereting. Either side might be right on its entertainment value but they are both wrong when they call it strategy. The strategy decision that the DH eliminates is "Can I put Frank Thomas in at First Base and put up with the fact that he is immobile and never throws the ball and is just plain awful because he is still one of the best hitters around and much better batter than anyone else I have to play the position?" Now THAT is an interesting strategic decision. Just whether or not to have Thomas or a similar player on your squad is major strategy. It might even transcend strategy and be a policy decision. Now I am one who will always put the hitter in the lineup unless I have someone who hits almost as well but sometimes it is going to cost you some runs, maybe a game. Will in New Haven -- - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 12 Jul 2007 18:23:49 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? "Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote in message news:1184272052.366855.188260@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 12, 4:16 pm, Deadmoney Walking <tbones...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 12, 4:06 pm, Will in New Haven >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: >> > On Jul 12, 3:50 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo> wrote: >> >> > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 -0700, "edi...@netpath.net" >> > > <edi...@netpath.net> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <mikim...@imeil.fi> quoted someone else: >> > > >> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at >> > > >> > backgammon and poker. >> > > >and replied: >> > > >> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one >> > > >> to be >> > > >> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker >> > > >> players >> > > >> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or >> > > >> secondarily. If >> > > >> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not >> > > >> need >> > > >> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are >> > > >> top >> > > >> cases who are good at both of them). >> > > > Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a >> > > >TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster - >> > > >and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to >> > > >the chess game. >> >> > > If you had a room full of chess grandmasters, and/or chess computers that >> > > can play at that level, and had a different grandmaster or computer make >> > > each individual move, without communicating with each other in any way, >> > > each would be just as likely to make the proper move in any given >> > > situation, >> > > without having any shared "strategy." >> >> > Strategy does not have to be shared. Strategy is decision-making on a >> > larger scale and a deeper time-scale than the tactical. On the other >> > hand, it is a truism in chess that tactics take precedence over >> > strategy. A mate in one if you don't move your king (a tactical >> > situaton) is more important than the need to move your bishop to make >> > your development less one-sided (a strategic consideration) >> >> > Another example, where "strategy" is misused, is the common habit of >> > baseball commentators calling the decision whether or not to bunt or >> > hit and run a strategic decision. Those are tactical decisions. This >> > is so long-established that it never gets criticized but actual >> > strategic decisions involve who to keep on the squad, who gets to play >> > against certain pitchers, etc. >> >> > Will in New Haven >> >> > -- >> >> > Dilletantes study tactics >> > Students study strategy >> > Experts study logistics - military saying- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> Actually, outside of chess, I have never seen such a bright line in >> between strategy and tactics. For most people, they mean the same >> thing. > > That is certainly true but the distinction is a useful one. For > instance, in the Designated Hitter debate, the people who don't like > it claims it removes a great deal of strategy, like bunting and other > stuff centered around how badly Pitchers hit. The people who like the > DH accept that this is strategy, although it isn't, and say it is > faily standardized and unintereting. Either side might be right on its > entertainment value but they are both wrong when they call it > strategy. > > The strategy decision that the DH eliminates is "Can I put Frank > Thomas in at First Base and put up with the fact that he is immobile > and never throws the ball and is just plain awful because he is still > one of the best hitters around and much better batter than anyone else > I have to play the position?" Now THAT is an interesting strategic > decision. Just whether or not to have Thomas or a similar player on > your squad is major strategy. It might even transcend strategy and be > a policy decision. Now I am one who will always put the hitter in the > lineup unless I have someone who hits almost as well but sometimes it > is going to cost you some runs, maybe a game. > > Will in New Haven > I think the line between tactics and strategy is not at all as clear as you imply, even in chess. I think the "strategy" term is applied to pinch hitting for the pitcher because although it is a short term decision, it has long term consequences (you lose your pitcher for the rest of the game) I think few would consider the Frank Thomas question you posed as "interesting" even if they would characterize it as "strategic". The DH rule to a certain degree decouples offense and defense - so in some sense "simplifies" the decisions to be made - however it still leaves managers making roster choices that are second-guessed at every step. So the argument in favor of the DH would be that the complexity is not significantly affected, but the quality of play (both hitters and pitchers) is increased.   Date: 12 Jul 2007 13:16:25 From: Deadmoney Walking Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 12, 4:06 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote: > On Jul 12, 3:50 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 -0700, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> > > wrote: > > > >On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <mikim...@imeil.fi> quoted someone else: > > >> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at > > >> > backgammon and poker. > > >and replied: > > >> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be > > >> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players > > >> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If > > >> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need > > >> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top > > >> cases who are good at both of them). > > > Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a > > >TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster - > > >and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to > > >the chess game. > > > If you had a room full of chess grandmasters, and/or chess computers that > > can play at that level, and had a different grandmaster or computer make > > each individual move, without communicating with each other in any way, > > each would be just as likely to make the proper move in any given situation, > > without having any shared "strategy." > > Strategy does not have to be shared. Strategy is decision-making on a > larger scale and a deeper time-scale than the tactical. On the other > hand, it is a truism in chess that tactics take precedence over > strategy. A mate in one if you don't move your king (a tactical > situaton) is more important than the need to move your bishop to make > your development less one-sided (a strategic consideration) > > Another example, where "strategy" is misused, is the common habit of > baseball commentators calling the decision whether or not to bunt or > hit and run a strategic decision. Those are tactical decisions. This > is so long-established that it never gets criticized but actual > strategic decisions involve who to keep on the squad, who gets to play > against certain pitchers, etc. > > Will in New Haven > > -- > > Dilletantes study tactics > Students study strategy > Experts study logistics - military saying- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Actually, outside of chess, I have never seen such a bright line in between strategy and tactics. For most people, they mean the same thing.   Date: 12 Jul 2007 20:06:16 From: Will in New Haven Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 12, 3:50 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo > wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 -0700, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> > wrote: > > >On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <mikim...@imeil.fi> quoted someone else: > >> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at > >> > backgammon and poker. > >and replied: > >> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be > >> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players > >> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If > >> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need > >> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top > >> cases who are good at both of them). > > Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a > >TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster - > >and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to > >the chess game. > > If you had a room full of chess grandmasters, and/or chess computers that > can play at that level, and had a different grandmaster or computer make > each individual move, without communicating with each other in any way, > each would be just as likely to make the proper move in any given situation, > without having any shared "strategy." Strategy does not have to be shared. Strategy is decision-making on a larger scale and a deeper time-scale than the tactical. On the other hand, it is a truism in chess that tactics take precedence over strategy. A mate in one if you don't move your king (a tactical situaton) is more important than the need to move your bishop to make your development less one-sided (a strategic consideration) Another example, where "strategy" is misused, is the common habit of baseball commentators calling the decision whether or not to bunt or hit and run a strategic decision. Those are tactical decisions. This is so long-established that it never gets criticized but actual strategic decisions involve who to keep on the squad, who gets to play against certain pitchers, etc. Will in New Haven -- Dilletantes study tactics Students study strategy Experts study logistics - military saying   Date: 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 From: editor@netpath.net Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <mikim...@imeil.fi > quoted someone else: > > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at > > backgammon and poker. and replied: > You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be > an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players > are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If > it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need > to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top > cases who are good at both of them). Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster - and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to the chess game. No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com     Date: 12 Jul 2007 15:50:46 From: A Man Beaten by Jacks Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 -0700, "editor@netpath.net" <editor@netpath.net > wrote: >On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <mikim...@imeil.fi> quoted someone else: >> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at >> > backgammon and poker. >and replied: >> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be >> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players >> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If >> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need >> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top >> cases who are good at both of them). > Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a >TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster - >and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to >the chess game. If you had a room full of chess grandmasters, and/or chess computers that can play at that level, and had a different grandmaster or computer make each individual move, without communicating with each other in any way, each would be just as likely to make the proper move in any given situation, without having any shared "strategy."   Date: 11 Jul 2007 13:04:26 From: Zero Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? in chess you know how good a person's position is because all the pieces are on the board. in poker, the cards are hidden so you are basing in on less concrete information. On Jul 11, 2:06 am, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > Problem with poker is the "know where I'm at" factor. If I plunked > down the 10 Gs to play at WSOP, there will likely be a learning curve, > aside from things like going all in with AA pre-flop and getting > knocked out. I don't know how "steep" that curve would be, because I > play online only, but I'm not going to put up that kind of money to > find out, as well as dealing with possible bad luck. I've don't well > on online tournaments by letting the loose players self-destruct, and > in limit ring games by trying to tell what kinds of patterns I'm > dealing with. If I played in a bunch of WSOPs already, my opinion may > be that I have a good enough advantage that it would be worth the bad > luck risk. > > In chess, you know exactly where you are at, but if you play in a > class tournament, like the world open, you will likely be up against > more than a few ringers, or players who just improved their games a > lot recently, which amounts to the same thing from your perspective. > > In backgammon, I know exactly where I'm at, and I know where the other > player is at. If he/she is not as good, then I'll keep playing that > person. In chess, you would have to be a ringer yourself to achieve > this, which is something I won't do. In poker, I would want a lot of > experience against certain kinds of players in person before I would > be willing to put down some good money, like at a WSOP event (assuming > I did well, obviously), but I'd still be concerned about a string of > bad luck blowing out my money for entry fees. I don't like this > possibility in the common backgammon tournament format either, because > I've had really bad luck in long matches, and wouldn't want to get > knocked out of the tournament due to bad luck. Basically, it makes > sense to keep the "pros" coming back, while giving the "schmoes" > enough of a chance to finish in the money to get enough of them so > that there is a constant fund of them, and the way to accomplish this > is to have a format that almost guarantees that if you play very well > you will at lest make a little something. > > As to what Guerre said, that may be true if you don't have enough > players and/or there are not enough rounds. But if it's a 30 round > Swiss system tournament, for example (of 5 pt matches), I'd want to > play in it if there were a few hundred players or more. I think I'm > playing on a level that would just about guarantee cashing in this > situation (assuming the top 10% or more cash in).   Date: 11 Jul 2007 08:08:29 From: Hank Youngerman Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker?? I don't think ANY bridge player remembers every card played. The story is told about a player in the mid-70's who met another player and was wildly impressed by the fact that the latter could remember the auction, result, and opening lead on all 26 hands. (That's how Jeff met Eric, and they have been considered the strongest pair in the world for about 20 years.) Certainly some players remember particular hands for a long time. I remember a hand from the semifinals of the national team championship in 1999 where I was in 7NT and had to guess which opponent held the Queen of Clubs. (Coincidentally, it was against the self-same Jeff and Eric. I got it wrong. The player at the other table holding my cards, who has more masterpoints than any other person alive, also got it wrong.) I imagine some chess players remember the same thing, and likewise with backgammon players. But I don't think anyone remembers all the cards played over a session of bridge. The fact is that you don't even look at most of the cards. Let's say that I hold the AKxx of trumps in one hand and the Qxxx in the other. I will simply play two high trumps, and if both opponents follow suit, a third round. I will remember that they split 3-2 in the opposing hands, but not which opponent held which cards. I may not even remember who had the 3 and who had the 2, unless it gives me a probability indication about the location of cards in another suit. On Jul 11, 2:31 am, fdesse <casec...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 5, 10:47 am, wayne.vin...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 8:50 am, Zero <talltr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > HI, > > > > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at > > > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of > > > the three games and als