Is Poker Playing a better test for would be presidents?

[pokervintage]

Let's look at an iteresting comparison between the games of chess and poker. Big Blue beat Kasparov. A computer has yet to beat a pro poker player. (By pro I do not mean Phil Laak or some other purely tournament player).

I believe that one difference between the two games is that chess can be learned and one can play at an expert level by following previously developed procedures. Poker can also be learned but when faced with a decision things learned in the past concerning similar situations are not as valuable as they are in chess. One must reason continuously to be an expert poker player and not follow some mechanical procedure.

pokervintage

[warrantofice]

yah i'm going to say thats wrong.

do you play chess? and do you play high level chess? I would guess you might answer yes you play chess but on what regularity?

Both games, are games of skill, but poker contains a large element of luck. You could not beat a top chess player 1 out of 10 times however you have a decent shot to beat a pro poker player 4 out of 10 times perhaps even greater.

Poker deals with uncertainties and chess deals with finite knowlegde. In poker you don't know what your opponents cards are and you don't know what cards will come on the flop. In chess you see everything so it becomes a game of skill at out witting your opponent confusing him into making poor plays and setting him up later.

The thing about chess is that computers haven't cracked that either, well not atleast to win or tie 100% of the time. The thing is that during (there are 3 basic parts of chess the early game/mid game/later or finishing game) the mid game there are so many different permutations that not even a computer could figure it out, they did some bbc story a couple of months back about finally cracking checkers - chess is so many many so many many times more complicated it will take a long time till we have the "perfect" chess program.

With poker though, well its very subjective because your evaluating and judging your play so many times through out a hand. There are obv. good and bad plays in poker, however when talking about a good play well there are so many different tactics to take that its difficult to proper judge it or to say that playing one way is better than another.

I believe that there will be or are already computer programs that can beat lower limits of nl texas holdem but it will take sometime before they are capable of continiously beating the pro's.

2cent

[hitch1978]

Not to forget that in poker you can make 100% the correct plays from start to finish and still lose a game/hand.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to forget that in poker you can make 100% the correct plays from start to finish and still lose a game/hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot compare poker with chess on the basis of wins and losses of games vs hands or anything that remotely resembles a score card. Trying to compare results is a meaningless undertaking.

I do agree with the fellow above that high level chess demands quite a bit of thinking and manuevering. But Sklansky wasn't talking high level chess. He was talking end game 3 move checkmates. Well those situations are easily worked out by computers. There is no manuvering or inducing errors. These plays are calculated and implemented without regard for the skill of the opponent. Very few if any decisons in poker are made without the, i'm sure you've heard it, "it depends" qualifier.

Each and every poker decison requires reasoning. You cannot play poker by rote. End game chess is different. You can play quite a bit of end game chess by rote.

pokervintage

[hitch1978]

I agree and that is what I was trying to say.

If you are advocating a 'poker test' for candidates, then how can you score it? When top players can disagree about the optimal stretegy at any point?

Chess is a game of finite information, and in being so, can be a method of measuring ones decision making process within it. Not so in poker. Or at least it's not as cut and dried.

What method of implication are you advocating for your trial?

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at an iteresting comparison between the games of chess and poker. Big Blue beat Kasparov. A computer has yet to beat a pro poker player. (By pro I do not mean Phil Laak or some other purely tournament player).

[/ QUOTE ]

they've spent like a kazillion hours programming the computer to play chess.

[ QUOTE ]

I believe that one difference between the two games is that chess can be learned and one can play at an expert level by following previously developed procedures. Poker can also be learned but when faced with a decision things learned in the past concerning similar situations are not as valuable as they are in chess. One must reason continuously to be an expert poker player and not follow some mechanical procedure.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

In poker amateurs routinely beat the experts. No way in a chess match.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
In poker amateurs routinely beat the experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they don't. And I take it that you are referring to professional poker players when you say experts. The fact is that professional poker players live off of amatuers.

pokervintage

[hitch1978]

*head asplode*

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
What method of implication are you advocating for your trial?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have a panel of experts evaluate their knowledge and poker skills. Let the poker community vote on the experts. We could start with Sklansky. Please no tournament pro's unless they also have a many year record of winning (honestly) in live action.

Pokervintage

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In poker amateurs routinely beat the experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they don't. And I take it that you are referring to professional poker players when you say experts. The fact is that professional poker players live off of amatuers.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

The last six WSOP main events were won by unknown amateurs. When was the last time you heard of a international grand master losing a single game to a player with a rating under 2400?