kohlberg and poker

[thelonius]

First there is Kohlberg's theory Moral Development:

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)

1. Obedience and punishment orientation
2. Self-interest orientation

( What's in it for me?)

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity

( The good boy/good girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation

( Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)

5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles

( Principled conscience)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development


I know that I have to do a better job of making a connection to poker
and
moral development. Lets start with the basic premise from Kohlberg. As
stated on the Wikipedia page, Kohlberg believed that logic and morality

develop through constructive stages. He felt that logical and moral
progress
helped to develop an individual's sense of justice (i.e. fairness,
correctness or concept of right action). Kohlberg was actually
expanding on
the writings of a french developmental philosopher named Piaget. Piaget

believed that the brain was hard wired to develop in a certain manner,
different for different people, but also in discernible phases. Thing
that
was cool about Kohlberg, is that he suggested that development was an
experiential process. In other words, the more that an individual
participates in an activity, and the more that individual pauses to
reflect
on the events that have occured in the individual's experience, the
clearer
is his sense of justice -- or right action.

Smart people can disagree on a variety of topics. It is possible that
upon
reading Kohlberg's theory, that you may find that he is in left field.
If
this is the case, then it doesn't make any sense to try to apply his
reasoning on development to poker. But for those who think that
experience
and reflection lead to logical development, I would like to try to take
his
theory and jump into poker.

I've said it repeatedly. I believe that poker is a game of
situational
ethics. But I think that I need to be more clear about what I mean by
this
statement. To do this, I would like to contrast Poker from a game like
Chess. Chess is a game that is based on absolute values. The players
have
equal pieces, all of the positions are known to both opponents. In
fact, the
only advantage in the game is that the first move is made by white.
While
there are some positional advantages on the board which can slightly
alter
the values of the pieces, the real advantages come from the players'
ability
to out think their opponents.

But poker is not like this. The biggest reason for this difference is
that
most of the information that effects a poker play is unknown. In
addition to
this, the values of the hole cards can swing drastically as more cards
are
revealed. Thus, the Poker situation is dynamic and ever changing. Its
up to
the poker player to make his best choice in light of the information
that he
can gather. This best choice, or moral decision is what a poker player
must
be concerned with at all times.

I want to make sure that I am clear about one thing. When I am
talking
about morality, I don't mean that there is one correct play in every
situation. In fact, by suggesting that poker is a game of Situational
Ethics, I am suggesting just the opposite. In chess, you could say that

there is a mathematically correct play, but with poker, damn near all
of
your choices are unclear. As a player, all you have is your opinion.
So, as
a player seeks to develop, it is incumbent upon him to make sure that
his
opinion is as advanced as possible, drawing upon all of his experiences
and
learning of people who have mastered the game.

I'm going to try to go farther to connect this, but I wanted to see
if
anyone is with me before I move on.

[bmorganonap]

i feel bad you wrote all this and no one cares.

[JavaNut]

Did not bother to read the Wiki pages, because there is one fundamental flaw in this which has been stated in the poker litteratue many times.

Poker is counter intuitive. Any reward/punishment theory in poker will fail, as you can play correct and lose and play very wrong and win. The human mind need a pure intellectual approach to analysing poker, once feelings are involved as they will be in a reward/punishment theory the theory will fail.

In checkers or chess you can't lose by making a good move in poker you can. And if you make a bad move in checkers or chess your opponent has to make bigger mistakes for you to win, that is not so in poker.