[_D&L_]

[ QUOTE ]
the issue you are describing has to do w/egotism....
by using an analytic method a player has the opportunity to identify their mistake

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not just egotism. An analytical player wants to use his reason, to have a strategy that he fully understands. Now if his strategy is wrong, he needs to know why its wrong for him to fix it. He doesn't just go out and start playing by feel - that's the intuitive player.

Sometimes darwinian-like intuitive evolution beats reason. And here's why. The reason player likes rules that he can understand. Look at all these posts on 2+2. What should I do in this situation? Should I fold this, call this, or re-raise this? If there's uncertainty, the gametheoretic solution is most likely a weighted randomization between two or more of the options (and its not as simple as {1/3, 1/3, 1/3} as in rock, paper, scissors)

Now the intuitive player doesn't understand that, but he doesn't need to. His philosophy could be as simple as if opponent blinks twice, call, blinks three times - reraise. It could just happen by cosmic coincidence that players blink in the correct porportion that's needed to cause him to play optimally. If it doesn't, he may wise up and move on to his next superstitious intuitive belief (e.g. if i feel x number of butterflies in my stomach i fold), till he finds one that is profitable.

Are his intuitive beliefs well founded? Well in this case no. But they are correlated with profitability, and that's all he needs. The intuitive player isn't burdened by having to explain why his strategy works, just that it does. The analytical player is more likely to stick with what he can explain, and therefore his reason has a tendency to limit him.