Quatum Physics-A discussion

I was thinking about this when I was playing a donk who would play in the dark every so often. Cat in Box theory suggests that the meer fact of observation of cat will determine whether is dead or not. Until the cat is observed dead or not inside the box it's in a state of superposition. This explains wave function collapse. Can the act of observation kill the cat?

Now when i was playing this guy, as I said before he would play without looking at his cards. Are the odds increased by not observing your hand? Set aside the fact that your opponents can't read you, and you can focus more on your opponents. Are the statistical odds increased that your hand will be the winning hand by not looking at your hand? Cat in box theory suggests that your odds of winning VS 1 opponent would be 50% no matter what on the river just by not looking at your hand. If another party entered the equation, amazingly you still have 50% to win even though you have 2 other people at showdown. This is explained by the double slot experiment. There might be something to playing in the dark....

it depends on ur opponents

Well yes and no. Theorists suggest that you can determine if the cat is dead or not in the box by observing the environment, but still the act of observation can kill the cat. So by observing your opponents actions you can inadvertently cause a wave function collapse and thus reduce your odds. I suggest if you play in dark, according to science anyway... keep your eyes closes hands over your ears and push your chips in. You get 50% all the way to the river. Good odds for any gambler. As a player I would not suggest to play this way, but if the mood to gamble strikes your mood, you should try this.

I think that as a good player you should be able to look at your cards, still be able to pay attention to your opponents and their reactions, and still be able to be mindful of your own actions, sometimes even redirecting them

sounds like he was just messing with people which works sometimes too

Observation killed the cat,
Satisfaction brought him back.

Killedaguy said:

but still the act of observation can kill the cat.

Click to expand...

The Schrödinger's cat illustration doesn't posit that the act of observation actually kills the cat.

Killedaguy said:

So by observing your opponents actions you can inadvertently cause a wave function collapse and thus reduce your odds. I suggest if you play in dark, according to science anyway... keep your eyes closes hands over your ears and push your chips in. You get 50% all the way to the river. Good odds for any gambler. As a player I would not suggest to play this way, but if the mood to gamble strikes your mood, you should try this.

Click to expand...

In simplest terms, the argument was that unobserved matter actually exists in all possible states until observed. So it's not really a matter of having 50% chance of winning. Based on your post, without viewing your cards, your hand is winning, losing, and tied (all possible states) all at the same time until observed.

[ ] Quantum Physics
[x] This thread sucks
[x] C9 is being an ass

c9h13no3 said:

[x] C9 was born an ass and just grew bigger

Click to expand...

FYP

Schrödinger's cat is an illustration of the paradoxes that quant mechanics poses when it's theories are applied on a macroscopic level. Erwin Schrödinger point was to show EXACTLY the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation, which was that the cat be either alive or dead UNTIL the observation, an interpretation that Schrödinger argued, and I agree, is wrong because the cat is either alive or dead NO MATTER the observation. And how the odds should be improved by not looking at your cards I've no idea, except for if you're a really terrible player. If nobody looks at his or her cards the probability of winning is 1/N, but since you are the only one who's playing blind you have a disadvantage, which may not be able to describe in mathematics prior an experiment as human reactions are not mathematical factors. But if you did a quantitative research on this, it's very obvious that the results would favour the player/players who looks at his/their cards.

However, an off-topic note. Playing cards blind could be useful practice for beginners as it teaches how to play differently depending on position, stack-size in relation to blinds, etc. Even if one doesn't see the cards he or she is playing, it's useful to get the habit of playing more hands in late position than in early position.

This thread explains alot when you meet players who play any two cards.
I'm not one to over analyze poker like what is being done here, so I can't really add much to this thread than what I already have but this:
When any player choses to play blind against me, the cat is dead.

What do you think we mean when we use ranges? When a 6/6 raises preflop we say any of the 6% are in his range. We talk about all the hands that make sense. If you play blind your range the entire time is ATC. If you never fold you will win 50% of hands HU but know that especially if he knows you're playing blind the pots you win will be much smaller than the ones he wins. Not quite sure what the amazing revelation was tbh, perhaps you could explain it? How would this possibly give you an advantage?

I agree with Shinedown. Playing a person that plays in the dark is just the same as playing someone who is playing any 2 cards. You need to adjust your play to someone who is playing in the dark as you would an any 2 card player. As I am sure you experienced they wil indeed suckout. but skill and experience should always provail.

Hope this helps