Logic and intuition: what is more important in poker?
My dictionary defines intuition as "the process of joining to the right conclusion without reasoning or rational thinking." Based on this definition, we can determine that it is impossible to learn the intuition in the same manner as logic. I once believed that intuition - it's just a rare natural gift. However, David Sklansky, Professor Arthur Reber and other people convinced me that intuition can be developed, albeit with the help of a very complex and difficult to describe the process. Problems of development of intuition, we will discuss in the section "What is better - the logic or intuition?"
Many people call intuition "flair", and many right-brain thinking, do not try to analyze it. In general, since the analysis - logical process, it is completely the opposite of intuition. Intuition does not involve the commission of a series of successive actions necessary to come to a final conclusion - you just feel that your argument is true, but can not explain exactly why.
In his book "Super System» (Super System by Doyle Brunson) Doyle Brunson wrote: "Every time I use my intuition, I remember the previous events. And while I'm doing it unconsciously, I am reminded of a similar situation (or close to it), and then analyze how to play my opponent or someone else. Then I begin to understand that the enemy is bluffing
, or that I can apply here some welcome and take the pot. But in fact, I subconsciously spend analysis. "
Brunson and many other people who think the right hemisphere, do not know how they came to their conclusions. Flack once said this: "It seems to me that I have an amazing poker intuition - a kind of sixth sense. I do not read books, because I do not want to be under someone's influence. And I do not discuss hands away from the other players, because I believe that you can not teach, as well as to describe. "
We intuitive players have a gift, just as natural for them as, for example, an amazing game of Michael Jordan for himself. When someone is blocked, he immediately replied: moved their hands, twist your body and with the power of throwing the ball a little higher than usual and with a slightly different spin. He could never tell how it does it. He did it purely instinctively.
Some of the great poker players have the following gift: they remember how you were playing any particular hand, remembers the expression of your eyes at the moment, or "feel" you on how you iterate through your chips, and on the basis of this information, make absolutely the right decision . If you ask them how they do it, they will hardly be able to explain to you - for them it is just a "feeling".
After studying psychology and teaching for many years, I am still amazed at some people's intuition. I once worked for a few months with one person. My wife looked at him for two minutes, said he was a dishonest man, and that I should not trust him. Later I realized that I had to listen to it then, but she was never able to explain to me how she felt. She just knew it.
My dictionary gives several definitions of this notion, and many of them include such epithets as "formal", "reasonable", "determined" and "fundamental". What is important is that the inferences are made on the basis of unambiguous and clearly defined methods by which you can bring them to other people. Thus, logical thinking - this process clear, while intuition - vice versa.
Chris Ferguson, champion of the World Series of Poker
2000, David Sklansky and Mason Melmut - a classic example of the logical-minded people. They divide the decision-making process into several steps, carried out successive arguments are always clearly explain how to come to a final conclusion. The name of a newspaper column, which leads David - "Fighting nechѐtkim thinking" - speaks of his commitment to a formal and unambiguous logic, and the books he wrote himself and in collaboration with Mason Melmutom, Ray Zee and Ed Miller, too, is strictly logical.
In his book, "Playing with a positive expectation» (. Getting the Best of It by David Sklansky, page 67) Sklansky, comparing the importance of "play the cards" and "Games for competitors," says: "There is a third factor, more important than the previous two - the logic. When I speak of logic, I mean a formalized way of thinking, which is characterized by the frequent use of such revolutions as-if ..., then ... ".
Logical decision-making process consists of two parts, which are interconnected. Assumptions must be expressed very clearly. The argument must contain a sequence of statements such as "if ... then ..." probably should be assigned to each possible outcome and be a complete description of the risk and reward. For example, if you think logically, you can say to yourself: "If I raise, the X% chance I will win the pot immediately with a Y% chance I can get a free card and the Z% probability could outbid his rival. Neither of these options is not in itself justify the raise, but since they all give me a positive expectation, I have to raise. "
Sklansky and his co-authors always convince readers to think logically, to a clear sequence and understand why they are taking this or that decision, and not just rely on the senses. One of my wonderful partner in bridge once expressed the same idea: "As long as you can explain to me why you made the bid or played one or the other card, I will never be angry with you, because then I can correct your mistake. For example, if you tell me that played the queen of clubs because they thought that the king had left you, I'll walk with you the situation and show you why you should have to think that you have it right. But if you played the lady, quite without thinking - that's when I really got angry. " It was one of the best pieces of advice I've ever received - as a card, and all. Doing your thought process consistent, we can improve it.