The Science of Tilt

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
From the article:
"Tilt is when a gambler who wants to make the most money he can over the course of a gambling situation employs a wagering strategy other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation."

This can't be right! Well, it sure SEEMS a poor definition of Tilt, to me anyway. Being on Tilt is a feeling - a very emotional feeling, and it leads to poor play. They are in fact distinct. For example, something happens at the table, and I go on tilt. I suddenly have the urge to call with a hand I normally wouldn't, then dig real real deep, and make my usual fold. Then I go for a walk, knowing I'm on tilt, and knowing I need to calm down before playing again. This is what I do.

So no bad hands played. Was I on tilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you weren't. You almost went on tilt, but avoided it by digging "real deep" then leaving the table.

You'd have been on tilt if you'd called, rebought, and stayed playing differently than you usually would to maximize your EV in that game.

[rrrorrim]

Tilt to me is when emotion clouds - and thus harms - your game. Emotion can also be beneficial to poker, but only in rare, specific ways (I say specific simply because it's so difficult to maintain absolute control over your emotions; it's like walking on a knife's edge).

So, by the above definition:
100% lack of tilt = complete emotional control

This is why I think almost every poker player is almost always on tilt, just to varying degrees. I would guess that many pros experience tilt just as often but to a lesser degree than fish. The best pros go on tilt practically never, since they have filtered out nearly all emotion from their game.


Maybe Hellmuth (the other 98% of the time) can maintain such complete emotional control and make the right decisions, that he has to have a release valve and blow up and look silly the other 2%... :P

What do you guys think of my view of tilt?

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article:
"Tilt is when a gambler who wants to make the most money he can over the course of a gambling situation employs a wagering strategy other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation."

This can't be right! Well, it sure SEEMS a poor definition of Tilt, to me anyway. Being on Tilt is a feeling - a very emotional feeling, and it leads to poor play. They are in fact distinct. For example, something happens at the table, and I go on tilt. I suddenly have the urge to call with a hand I normally wouldn't, then dig real real deep, and make my usual fold. Then I go for a walk, knowing I'm on tilt, and knowing I need to calm down before playing again. This is what I do.

So no bad hands played. Was I on tilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you weren't. You almost went on tilt, but avoided it by digging "real deep" then leaving the table.

You'd have been on tilt if you'd called, rebought, and stayed playing differently than you usually would to maximize your EV in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

His response to the situation (leaving) could be viewed as tilt because he gave up the expected value he would have enjoyed had he been able to stay and play his normal game.

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article:
"Tilt is when a gambler who wants to make the most money he can over the course of a gambling situation employs a wagering strategy other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation."

This can't be right! Well, it sure SEEMS a poor definition of Tilt, to me anyway. Being on Tilt is a feeling - a very emotional feeling, and it leads to poor play. They are in fact distinct. For example, something happens at the table, and I go on tilt. I suddenly have the urge to call with a hand I normally wouldn't, then dig real real deep, and make my usual fold. Then I go for a walk, knowing I'm on tilt, and knowing I need to calm down before playing again. This is what I do.

So no bad hands played. Was I on tilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you weren't. You almost went on tilt, but avoided it by digging "real deep" then leaving the table.

You'd have been on tilt if you'd called, rebought, and stayed playing differently than you usually would to maximize your EV in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

His response to the situation (leaving) could be viewed as tilt because he gave up the expected value he would have enjoyed had he been able to stay and play his normal game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. So, after "digging deep," and avoiding tilt in his last hand by playing correctly, his subsequent leaving the table would constitute a form of tilt because chosing not to play at that point "employs a wagering strategy [in this case, the strategy employed is to refrain from wagering] other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation [which would otherwise be to play in a +EV game]."

So, again, nice point.

And I like the article's definition.

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article:
"Tilt is when a gambler who wants to make the most money he can over the course of a gambling situation employs a wagering strategy other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation."

This can't be right! Well, it sure SEEMS a poor definition of Tilt, to me anyway. Being on Tilt is a feeling - a very emotional feeling, and it leads to poor play. They are in fact distinct. For example, something happens at the table, and I go on tilt. I suddenly have the urge to call with a hand I normally wouldn't, then dig real real deep, and make my usual fold. Then I go for a walk, knowing I'm on tilt, and knowing I need to calm down before playing again. This is what I do.

So no bad hands played. Was I on tilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you weren't. You almost went on tilt, but avoided it by digging "real deep" then leaving the table.

You'd have been on tilt if you'd called, rebought, and stayed playing differently than you usually would to maximize your EV in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

His response to the situation (leaving) could be viewed as tilt because he gave up the expected value he would have enjoyed had he been able to stay and play his normal game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. So, after "digging deep," and avoiding tilt in his last hand by playing correctly, his subsequent leaving the table would constitute a form of tilt because chosing not to play at that point "employs a wagering strategy [in this case, the strategy employed is to refrain from wagering] other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation [which would otherwise be to play in a +EV game]."

So, again, nice point.

And I like the article's definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you guys avoided my point, albeit nicely. I conceed that leaving the table and not playing would fall under the author's definition of tilt. But, for the hand I played, and folded correctly, was I on tilt? To me, there is no question at all, I was. According to the article, I wasn't. So which is it? Tilt is clearly an emotional state. Playing badly, or whatever, is a RESULT of tilt. Is the author really saying something different than that?

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article:
"Tilt is when a gambler who wants to make the most money he can over the course of a gambling situation employs a wagering strategy other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation."

This can't be right! Well, it sure SEEMS a poor definition of Tilt, to me anyway. Being on Tilt is a feeling - a very emotional feeling, and it leads to poor play. They are in fact distinct. For example, something happens at the table, and I go on tilt. I suddenly have the urge to call with a hand I normally wouldn't, then dig real real deep, and make my usual fold. Then I go for a walk, knowing I'm on tilt, and knowing I need to calm down before playing again. This is what I do.

So no bad hands played. Was I on tilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you weren't. You almost went on tilt, but avoided it by digging "real deep" then leaving the table.

You'd have been on tilt if you'd called, rebought, and stayed playing differently than you usually would to maximize your EV in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

His response to the situation (leaving) could be viewed as tilt because he gave up the expected value he would have enjoyed had he been able to stay and play his normal game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. So, after "digging deep," and avoiding tilt in his last hand by playing correctly, his subsequent leaving the table would constitute a form of tilt because chosing not to play at that point "employs a wagering strategy [in this case, the strategy employed is to refrain from wagering] other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation [which would otherwise be to play in a +EV game]."

So, again, nice point.

And I like the article's definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you guys avoided my point, albeit nicely. I conceed that leaving the table and not playing would fall under the author's definition of tilt. But, for the hand I played, and folded correctly, was I on tilt? To me, there is no question at all, I was. According to the article, I wasn't. So which is it? Tilt is clearly an emotional state. Playing badly, or whatever, is a RESULT of tilt. Is the author really saying something different than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

You were not on tilt in the hand you mentioned. You almost tilted, but you didn't.

As defined by the article, tilt is not an emotional state. It is a manner of play. And I think the article's definition is more useful than any other that I've seen.

If your emotional state did not change your manner of play from one in which you maximize your expectation to some other less optimal way, then you may have been "sad" or "mad" or "angry" or "upset," but you were not on tilt.

In fact, if I loved to gamble when I'm feeling good, but I played a more solid game when I was mad about some big loss that I'd just incurred while gambling, then I'd be on tilt when I was feeling good because I'd be -EV gambling, but I'd be playing to maximize my EV when I was mad or upset in order to grind my money back. Now, most people do not respond like that. Most people regard the utility of the chips/money they win in a poker game a long an S-curve like the one in the article. As a result, when they lose a lot, they get to a point where they feel losing another big pot has much has less perceived negative utility than winning a big pot would have in terms of positive utility, even though the absolute dollar value of the win/loss would be the same. In practice, that will mean that they become much more willing to try to double up on a 36% flush draw for their stack on a flop despite the fact that they would otherwise know to fold when the pot odds do not justify that risk.

Tilt, as definined by the article, is a manner of behavior not a feeling. And treating it as a manner of behavior is much more valuable. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the S-curve indicates a "winners" tilt in which deep stack "winners" might make -EV calls for "just one buy-in" when they are way ahead for a session because the total utility of another buy-in win or loss is about equivalent when some people are at the extreme right side of the S-curve. This makes very, very deep stack, multi-buy-in winners bad targets for bluffing.

In your case, you didn't "tilt" until you left the table, assuming that the table was otherwise +EV except for your feelings causing you to give up additional hands during that session.

If you were miserably depressed at the table, but made the same decisions that you would otherwise make, then you are not on tilt. The point of the article that "tilt" if not a feeling, is a manner of play that often result from emotions.

[uDevil]

Albert said:

[ QUOTE ]

The point of the article that "tilt" if not a feeling, is a manner of play that often result from emotions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite agree.

Sparks said:

[ QUOTE ]
Tilt is clearly an emotional state. Playing badly, or whatever, is a RESULT of tilt. Is the author really saying something different than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I got from article was that though emotion may be a sufficient condition for identifying tilt, it is not necessary. If you rely on monitoring your emotional state to identify tilt, you may at times be on tilt without realizing it.

The definition of tilt used in the article is useful because it allows for better recognition and avoidance. That means I can limit its impact on my bankroll. If at times that means leaving the table, that's fine.

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
You were not on tilt in the hand you mentioned. You almost tilted, but you didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was on tilt. But, I avoided making bad decisions because of my awareness of my emotional state.

According to McCauley's definition I was not on tilt. I'm just a card player without any citable credentials on the subject (other than my experience in casinos) but I will nevertheless, respectfully, disagree with McCauley.

He writes: "Tilt is when a gambler who wants to make the most money he can over the course of a gambling situation employs a wagering strategy other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation."

This is simply wrong. Tilt IS an emotional state. That is its definition in principle and it is very usefull to know that; likely more useful than the definition McCauley provides and certainly not "dangerous," as he posits.

I don't disagree with the S-curve, or Prospect Theory at all. They both seem reasonable and are likely an integral part of why people make certain questionable plays in poker. But what of the players who make those plays in the normal course of their session? Are they on tilt? Are bad players permanently on tilt? Of course not, and that is why the McCauley article misses.

Tilt should, and does, have a definition: and that definition is essentially an emotionally charged state a player comes under (which is NOT his normal condition), following some perceived injustice or equivalent.

The reason emotion HAS to be fundamental to the definition of tilt is because without emotion, you simply have bad play. What McCauley has gone through pains to define, is essentially just a description of why some people play bad, and no more. Players who make bad decisions, chasing long shots, perceiving one play as acceptable based on recent events, are simply bad players. Bad play based on Prospect Theory is nothing more than bad play. But a player playing badly on tilt, is something that is VERY important to recognize, and useful.

I believe McCauley got it just about 180 degrees wrong when attempting to remove emotion from the definition of tilt.

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the article:
"Tilt is when a gambler who wants to make the most money he can over the course of a gambling situation employs a wagering strategy other than the highest expected-value pattern of wagering he generally has the ability to adopt for that situation."

This can't be right! Well, it sure SEEMS a poor definition of Tilt, to me anyway. Being on Tilt is a feeling - a very emotional feeling, and it leads to poor play. They are in fact distinct. For example, something happens at the table, and I go on tilt. I suddenly have the urge to call with a hand I normally wouldn't, then dig real real deep, and make my usual fold. Then I go for a walk, knowing I'm on tilt, and knowing I need to calm down before playing again. This is what I do.

So no bad hands played. Was I on tilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you weren't. You almost went on tilt, but avoided it by digging "real deep" then leaving the table.

You'd have been on tilt if you'd called, rebought, and stayed playing differently than you usually would to maximize your EV in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]

His response to the situation (leaving) could be viewed as tilt because he gave up the expected value he would have enjoyed had he been able to stay and play his normal game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Upon review, this is pretty tortured logic cleary seeking to shoehorn my actions into the McCauley definiton of tilt. I WAS on tilt, and specifically because I recognized tilt as an emotional state, I was able to avoid potential bad play. I will be so bold as to say that the McCauley definition is in fact itself, somewhat dangerous. He should have taken the word tilt out of the entire article, and kept it to a discussion of Prospect Theory and how it relates to poker, which is pretty interesting actually.