Micro and Macro

[Tiltguru]

Great article. I have an interesting interpretation of this article. It could be used as an analogy for Internet poker as compared to live play. With the development of Internet poker and programs like PT,GT+ and PA many players will be making more specific situational decisions based on readily available stats. In live play you tend to use more general principles to make your decisions.
Old time players in generaly seem to be more feel, or macro type players while the new bread of players tend to rely more on stats.
It seems many Internet players will be prone to over complicating situations and causing themselves to make mistakes. Either by over thinking something or like you said
thinking of 10 things but forgetting 2 things.
I may be way off track. I really enjoyed the article regardless.

Cheers

[brick]

Great article. I liked it so much that I printed it to take with me to the casino. However, it's interesting how far poker jargon has come in the last few years. I showed the article to a long time poker player in the Seattle area, who has read a few books ect., and he was like "what the heck is this talking about?"

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
Great article. I have an interesting interpretation of this article. It could be used as an analogy for Internet poker as compared to live play. With the development of Internet poker and programs like PT,GT+ and PA many players will be making more specific situational decisions based on readily available stats. In live play you tend to use more general principles to make your decisions.Cheers

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I believe it's the opposite. When playing on the internet, I'm usually multi-tabling and don't know my players very well (even with stats) and will just tend to rely more on broad macro-concepts. But in a casino, I'm focused only on that one game, can see my opponent and know his particular style better, and can pick up tells. I think the micro-concepts are more important in casino.

But I agree that this was one of the best poker articles I have read in a very long while. In fact, the concepts discussed here can really be expanded into a Theory of Poker Vol 2, if Ed is so inclined.

[Tiltguru]

I see what you mean. I was actually thinking the same thing as I posted this thread. I also multi table, but I occasionally find myself getting bogged down by really small decision based solely on stats. ie: Should I re-raise a tight 1% PFR with Ako or just call. Then I look and see I only have 57 hands on him and then i start second guessing myself on something that is not really important.
I do not doubt micro poker can be important in both forms, but I think Internet players will be more prone to making mistakes based on this micro thinking because of the access to stats.

[GeniusToad]

dare i say best article this month?

i dare, indeed.

i'm definitely macro by nature but 2+2 has helped bring out the micro.

[ellipse_87]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a thought about seat selection that runs counter to what many pundits think. They talk about aggressive players on the right, passive players on the left, smelly players across the table, etc. I've read long sermons on the proper placement of the fellow with the nervous habit of knocking his chips over when he flops bottom two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funniest sentence I've read in a long, long time.

[mosquito]

I put off reading this article until today. Not so much saving the best for last, as waiting until my brain was functioning somewhere near it's zenith and not thinking about a zillion other things.

Clearly one the the better articles I have read. I wish there were more presentations that kept simple ideas simple and presented the more important simple ideas.

[RagnarPirate]

Excellent ideas. I would make one modification. I would call it principled decision making versus pragmatic decision making rather than macro versus micro. Pragmatism is the practice of removing context in order to make short term decsions based on a selective pool of information. Pragmatic decsions are easier to make because less consideration is needed, but less correct because some important context may have been ignored. Principled decisions are more complex and sometimes more counter-intuitive, but more "true" in the long run.

In a non-poker example consider the concept of free trade. Anyone with a modicum of objective economic knowledge knows that free trade is in the long term interest of all involved. It is the short term pragmatist who decries the dislocations and disruptions in the short run and advocates to block such policies.

How does this apply to poker? Well, that was the essense of the article. Acting on principle such as getting money in in position and keeping pots small with small cards are much more important than the pragmatic decision to raise 3bb or 5bb with aces utg. Pragmatic, recipe style playing without underlying guiding principles is a recipe for being a loser in poker (and life).

In addition, principle based decision making is actually applied to the "micro" level as well by good players. They really are not following a set formula. They are gathering all of the context possible, applying all of their understood principles and making principled decisions.

And, finally, the above is the reason that a good player can still handily beat robots. Despite perfect pragmatic instructions, robots are unable to consider the additional context of the situations.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent ideas. I would make one modification. I would call it principled decision making versus pragmatic decision making rather than macro versus micro. Pragmatism is the practice of removing context in order to make short term decsions based on a selective pool of information. Pragmatic decsions are easier to make because less consideration is needed, but less correct because some important context may have been ignored. Principled decisions are more complex and sometimes more counter-intuitive, but more "true" in the long run.

In a non-poker example consider the concept of free trade. Anyone with a modicum of objective economic knowledge knows that free trade is in the long term interest of all involved. It is the short term pragmatist who decries the dislocations and disruptions in the short run and advocates to block such policies.

How does this apply to poker? Well, that was the essense of the article. Acting on principle such as getting money in in position and keeping pots small with small cards are much more important than the pragmatic decision to raise 3bb or 5bb with aces utg. Pragmatic, recipe style playing without underlying guiding principles is a recipe for being a loser in poker (and life).

In addition, principle based decision making is actually applied to the "micro" level as well by good players. They really are not following a set formula. They are gathering all of the context possible, applying all of their understood principles and making principled decisions.

And, finally, the above is the reason that a good player can still handily beat robots. Despite perfect pragmatic instructions, robots are unable to consider the additional context of the situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great job of turning something simple and elegant into something complex and unwieldy.

Do you work for the government? Or are you in politics.....

[RagnarPirate]

Neither. I guess my writing is not as concise as it should be. I liked the article very much. My point was that it is not really macro vs micro (big picture vs. details) as much as it is acting on principles vs. acting on recipes. Is that better?

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither. I guess my writing is not as concise as it should be. I liked the article very much. My point was that it is not really macro vs micro (big picture vs. details) as much as it is acting on principles vs. acting on recipes. Is that better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tons. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif In some ways it is saying the same thing, still it furthers the discussion.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Great article. I have an interesting interpretation of this article.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know this is really weird crap...

I thought Micro poker was when you were really new and you played limits of 02/05 and Macro was when you moved up to hands over 25/50...

On a more serious note, I like the idea of tying the concepts together.

You don’t want to live and die by being 100% in either direction.

I like the Macro concept as that’s pretty much how I play in SNG’s.
Not so much because I’m a disciple of such things but, I’m a newbie and I can’t do the damn math before I start hearing beep beep beep…
How it takes me that long to figure out my freaken outs…

Nope… I’m apply the other concepts cause they work for me…

However I find I still have to be careful that I don’t start acting like Jodie Foster in Nell, spinning in the wind…

But I guess a lot of this stuff will come with more experience and study…

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the power of macro poker. You can often solve problems confidently with almost no analysis. The problem with analyzing the details is that it's almost certain that you'll forget some. You'll think of ten possibilities, but overlook two. Sometimes the two you overlook change your answer entirely; it's better to make judgments analyzing zero details if you can do so with reasonable assurance that you're correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

The overlooking of two cases is minor compared to the bigger picture. Against players essentially always having their bets, it's usually not worth the brain drain to calculate these numbers. Just fold. But other players are often making plays at the pot. That's what bayesian techniques is all about. You must learn to recognize which players are making constant plays at the pot. These players you must call.