Intuition versus Analysis

[sean457j]

I was hoping members who consider themselves to be successful poker players would post their thoughts on using intuition and analysis at the poker table. By intuition I mean that you are thinking along the lines of 'I think I have the best hand/I think the other person will fold to a strong bluff' where by analysis would include thinking about hand ranges, trying to work out quick EV calculations in your head, taking lots of notes on players tendencies.

Do you have to choose mainly one route or another, or could someone be entirely balanced, using their gut feeling in one situation and a detailed mental analysis in another?

[tarheeljks]

most of the time intuition is just reinforced by selective memory. obv some players have better instinct than others, but unless you've got esp analysis >>> attempted soul reading. (this is especially true online; some people just suck at playing live and will ooze tells). that being said once you've applied the analysis, sometimes you've just got to go w/your gut.

[_D&L_]

Reminds me of high school debate topics:

Which is better happiness or justice? ok how many units of each are we comparing? What is a unit of each look like? Is a unit of happiness like a fun-size candy bar, or a king size one? heh

At any rate, i'd point out that analysis isn't like a linear function. As they say, "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[sean457j]

[ QUOTE ]
Reminds me of high school debate topics:

Which is better happiness or justice? ok how many units of each are we comparing? What is a unit of each look like? Is a unit of happiness like a fun-size candy bar, or a king size one? heh

At any rate, i'd point out that analysis isn't like a linear function. As they say, "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point, I think you may be right from the point of view that it is incorrect for me to ask for quantative data on qualative notions. What I would like to know though is the personal opinions of people who have been successful. Do they feel they achieved success by thinking vigorously through all decisions or developing their intuition etc?

[_D&L_]

its a valid question - i just like to poke fun.

I think among the best players, their strategies were primarily forged through trial and error. Trying things, figuring out what worked, what didn't. You know classical pavlovian conditioning.

The guys with the pocket protectors, honestly, are facing an analytical challenge that only the very best among them have a chance of realy mastering from math/game theory point. And most of those with the aptitude (perhaps wisely), don't put their effort into solving poker.

Thinking u know the answer because u did some analysis, can cause a person to systematically overlook contrary results as anomalies. If they don't get the right answer the first time, they are slower to adapt. They need to figure out why they are wrong, the intuitive player just accepts that he's wrong and goes on to try something else.

[6471849653]

They are like the feeling and the thinking. It's impossible to remember everything one has learned in complex real life situations, but the feel (intuition, experience, subconscious analytical factors) will give a hint on the best course of action, that one puts together with the conscious analytical factors. It's a game of memory and logic; subconscious and conscious, and that makes it more interesting than pure math or no math at all.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]

Thinking u know the answer because u did some analysis, can cause a person to systematically overlook contrary results as anomalies. If they don't get the right answer the first time, they are slower to adapt. They need to figure out why they are wrong, the intuitive player just accepts that he's wrong and goes on to try something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

counterpoint: if you were to look at this in a scientific manner, those using "analysis" will have an easier time recreating their results than those operating based on intuition. the issue you are describing has to do w/egotism-- it's not an inherent pitfall of trying to think about the game analytically. by using an analytic method a player has the opportunity to identify their mistake whereas, someone who claims to operate solely using instinct/intuition must hope that their gut is correct next time.

your point about overlooking contrary results applies equally to both methods of playing. people don't remember the times when they made bad reads, only the times when they read someone's soul and made a sick laydown or hero call.

[_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.

[tarheeljks]

my point is that relying on intuition sets you up to be fooled by randomness more often than if you took a more analytical approach. the line b/t intuition and guessing is very murky, especially since the brain recognizes patterns so easily as to generate them falsely.

[Xibalba]

I'm not an expert here (look at my awesome post count!), but I wonder. Isn't intuition, particularly in a game like poker, a species of internalized knowledge & analysis. I mean, perhaps the intuitive person isn't really putting Villain on a range of hands and actively correlating the ratio of his blinks to his showdown strength, but perhaps he is subconsciously doing such processes. A guitar player may know all the music theory in the world, but there's a point in the middle of a solo where he really isn't considering which notes are in his current scale, but still doesn't go dissonant.

And I wonder if perhaps well-tuned intuition is the profit or cut loss in a WA/WB situation.