'How a $10k poker win changed how I think'
September 6, 2021 6:54 PM Subscribe
When amateur player Alex O'Brien unexpectedly won an online poker tournament, little did she know that she'd be pitted against one of the game's most controversial players. "Just what had I let myself in for? And who even was Dan Bilzerian?" Related: With a study completed in December 2016 and published in Science in March 2017, DeepStack became the first AI capable of beating professional poker players at heads-up no-limit Texas hold'em poker.
That was a really fun read. As someone who loves chess and has always hated (me personally engaging in) gambling, it maybe opened my eyes a bit. Maybe I sold poker a little short in my brain as a strategic game.
Also, fuck that weird Instagram guy. If you really want to prove a thesis, then go succeed at Bridge or Mah Jongg or something where you are in serious danger of getting beaten by 80 year-old women.
posted by Avelwood at 8:50 PM on September 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
Also, fuck that weird Instagram guy. If you really want to prove a thesis, then go succeed at Bridge or Mah Jongg or something where you are in serious danger of getting beaten by 80 year-old women.
posted by Avelwood at 8:50 PM on September 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
Her book, The Truth Detective, is coming out in February, 2022.
posted by eye of newt at 10:11 PM on September 6, 2021
posted by eye of newt at 10:11 PM on September 6, 2021
Her disgusting opponent does play poker at very high limits. He also loves to act out his fantasy of being a male pig by using his money to rent/attract young women to pose with him.
In the poker community he is not considered to be a winner at the stakes he plays.
His money apparently comes from the money his father embezzled and managed to hide from authorities.
On an unrelated topic, while Jen Shahade is a fun person, a good poker player, and an excellent chess player, she does not hold the grandmaster title. She holds the Woman Grandmaster title, one of a few titles which FIDE added to encourage and recognize women players. Her “regular” FIDE title is International Master. That said, she could easily beat a patzer like me blindfolded giving rook odds.
posted by Warren Terra at 11:10 PM on September 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
In the poker community he is not considered to be a winner at the stakes he plays.
His money apparently comes from the money his father embezzled and managed to hide from authorities.
On an unrelated topic, while Jen Shahade is a fun person, a good poker player, and an excellent chess player, she does not hold the grandmaster title. She holds the Woman Grandmaster title, one of a few titles which FIDE added to encourage and recognize women players. Her “regular” FIDE title is International Master. That said, she could easily beat a patzer like me blindfolded giving rook odds.
posted by Warren Terra at 11:10 PM on September 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Somehow “woman digs deeply into poker, gets top level coaching, and writes about it” has become a somewhat popular topic.
Maria Konnikova came to poker via psychology and journalism. She wrote the book “The Biggest Bluff” which describes her poker learning and adventures. She concentrated on live games as opposed to online games. Her dream coach was Erik Seidel, a very successful pro who came up in the days of live games. She claims in her book that he had never coached anyone before and I believe it. Seidel is an excellent player in both cash games and tournaments and has stood the test of time, having made his living from poker for around 40 years.
The online game is at once different from and similar to the live game. Tournaments are quite different from cash games. The coaches O’Brien mentions in this article are well respected because they are at the top of the game currently. I believe Busquet has moved into coaching more than playing but he is still in the top tier of heads up knowledge. Fedor is flat out scary good as a tournament player.
posted by Warren Terra at 11:27 PM on September 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Maria Konnikova came to poker via psychology and journalism. She wrote the book “The Biggest Bluff” which describes her poker learning and adventures. She concentrated on live games as opposed to online games. Her dream coach was Erik Seidel, a very successful pro who came up in the days of live games. She claims in her book that he had never coached anyone before and I believe it. Seidel is an excellent player in both cash games and tournaments and has stood the test of time, having made his living from poker for around 40 years.
The online game is at once different from and similar to the live game. Tournaments are quite different from cash games. The coaches O’Brien mentions in this article are well respected because they are at the top of the game currently. I believe Busquet has moved into coaching more than playing but he is still in the top tier of heads up knowledge. Fedor is flat out scary good as a tournament player.
posted by Warren Terra at 11:27 PM on September 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Fun article! Makes me wish I could afford fancy poker coaches :D But let's be real: being coached by experts in any field is tons of fun.
I tried to find if the heads up match ever happened, but couldn't find any info on it!
posted by wooh at 2:00 AM on September 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
I tried to find if the heads up match ever happened, but couldn't find any info on it!
posted by wooh at 2:00 AM on September 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
This 2014 Victoria Coren interview about her own poker career is worth reading. Here she is in the chess comparison:
The thing about poker is that you can’t solve it like backgammon or even chess. There are elements of chance and elements of personality. [British novelist] Martin Amis said: “On a chessboard, the properties and powers of a bishop are fixed. In poker, it’s all wobbled through the prism of personality.” And that’s very true. Any personality can affect the game, and anyone can win it. Yes, there are large numbers of young people approaching it very mathematically, but it’s perfectly possible to beat them.
posted by Paul Slade at 6:05 AM on September 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
The thing about poker is that you can’t solve it like backgammon or even chess. There are elements of chance and elements of personality. [British novelist] Martin Amis said: “On a chessboard, the properties and powers of a bishop are fixed. In poker, it’s all wobbled through the prism of personality.” And that’s very true. Any personality can affect the game, and anyone can win it. Yes, there are large numbers of young people approaching it very mathematically, but it’s perfectly possible to beat them.
posted by Paul Slade at 6:05 AM on September 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
It was fascinating. So much of the article seemed relevant to my own sport, fencing, even to the probabilities shown in the charts. I am constantly calculating the probability of my opponent's next action and deciding on my own action in light of that range of possibilities, usually choosing from a small subset of my own actions and preparations. I can beat an opponent who makes the correct decisions, much more easily than someone who chooses actions randomly and unpredictably, and I'm better off planning for the competent opponents than trying to figure out the random ones, though I lose to the random novices occasionally.
Losing is also intensely important for later wins. Not too long ago, I entered a tournament a few weeks before my target event, and did abysmally; it was great prep for winning my target event, which I did. People often delay entering tournaments until they think they're good enough, but they should be entering tournaments as early as possible so they know what it's like to compete and what they need to do, with the idea that in the beginning they will lose and they will learn. (Some coaches disagree with me on that).
Most players, as the writer says, are not doing any of the thinking that the top competitors are doing. They are hoping to win, instead of doing what is necessary to win. They are trying to figure out what their opponents are doing, and looking for "tells" instead of playing their own game. Or they are over-valuing their opponents' skill instead of deciding to do what's most logical in the moment.
And finally, though fencing is inclusive (most clubs are too small for women to practice separately from men, and many local events are mixed-gender; fencing as a world community is comfortable with trans people who compete in gender-specific events), there are still many guys who automatically think women's fencing is inferior.
I'm not at the highest level, mind you. I deliberately train to win a subset of events that it is realistic for me to win. But that's another reason the article resonates. Very useful.
posted by Peach at 6:49 AM on September 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
Losing is also intensely important for later wins. Not too long ago, I entered a tournament a few weeks before my target event, and did abysmally; it was great prep for winning my target event, which I did. People often delay entering tournaments until they think they're good enough, but they should be entering tournaments as early as possible so they know what it's like to compete and what they need to do, with the idea that in the beginning they will lose and they will learn. (Some coaches disagree with me on that).
Most players, as the writer says, are not doing any of the thinking that the top competitors are doing. They are hoping to win, instead of doing what is necessary to win. They are trying to figure out what their opponents are doing, and looking for "tells" instead of playing their own game. Or they are over-valuing their opponents' skill instead of deciding to do what's most logical in the moment.
And finally, though fencing is inclusive (most clubs are too small for women to practice separately from men, and many local events are mixed-gender; fencing as a world community is comfortable with trans people who compete in gender-specific events), there are still many guys who automatically think women's fencing is inferior.
I'm not at the highest level, mind you. I deliberately train to win a subset of events that it is realistic for me to win. But that's another reason the article resonates. Very useful.
posted by Peach at 6:49 AM on September 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
Tournaments and these sponsored events are one thing, but I find the metagame of the high-roller cash game world to be much more interesting. To play for big money, consistently at a high level, requires far more than skill at the game. Bankroll management and relationship management, e.g. knowing when to pull back because otherwise the billionaire you just took several million from won't want to play next month. Making sure you're fun to play against (for a given rich guy's definition of fun), i.e. playing loose enough that there's good action, while not letting variance get so big that your bankroll is at risk. Not to mention managing the risk of dealing with a lot of people who made their money in decidedly shady ways, on their own home turf (sometimes in their own casinos!).
posted by Jobst at 8:50 AM on September 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Jobst at 8:50 AM on September 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
The thing about poker is that you can’t solve it like backgammon or even chess
True, but only kind of trivially. You can generate fairly mechanical optimal strategies that are most likely to lead to winning. There's a table of such in the linked article for one specific configuration.
Thinking that there isn't such an underlying probabilistic structure results in the Hollywood Bluff and Body Language thinking that she had to unlearn.
posted by bonehead at 10:29 AM on September 7, 2021
True, but only kind of trivially. You can generate fairly mechanical optimal strategies that are most likely to lead to winning. There's a table of such in the linked article for one specific configuration.
Thinking that there isn't such an underlying probabilistic structure results in the Hollywood Bluff and Body Language thinking that she had to unlearn.
posted by bonehead at 10:29 AM on September 7, 2021
Wait, so when is the face-off? Has the match against Bilzerian happened already? That first Alex O'Brien article is from May 2021.
posted by MiraK at 10:45 AM on September 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by MiraK at 10:45 AM on September 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
You can generate fairly mechanical optimal strategies that are most likely to lead to winning. There's a table of such in the linked article for one specific configuration.
A game with more than two players is very different from heads-up.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:45 AM on September 7, 2021
A game with more than two players is very different from heads-up.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:45 AM on September 7, 2021
A game with more than two players is very different from heads-up.
I've always found heads up poker to be easier than the larger game. Those cards in the article about what to do are way more useful heads up than in the larger game, when some random person can get lucky with a bad betting strategy.
I'd say this Bilzerian guy shows you don't have to be particularly good at poker if your income is higher than the stakes.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:10 PM on September 7, 2021
I've always found heads up poker to be easier than the larger game. Those cards in the article about what to do are way more useful heads up than in the larger game, when some random person can get lucky with a bad betting strategy.
I'd say this Bilzerian guy shows you don't have to be particularly good at poker if your income is higher than the stakes.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:10 PM on September 7, 2021
I'm not sure what the table of starting hands in the article actually represents; I get the impression it's someone's starting range, not a recommendation of how to play. (Just in case anyone was thinking of using it for anything.)
The other thing is that the table only deals with how to play the first bet on the first two cards. It tells you nothing about what to do on or after the flop/turn/river, or how to play back if your opponent bets back against you on the first two cards.
Finally, having played a lot of holdem in clubs for real money, I can say this: Memorizing a table like that might be helpful when you first start--it's not a horrible heuristic for approaching the game as a beginner--but if anyone really thinks you can play high-level poker with that kind of tactic, well... message me for a game, I'll host!
posted by mikeand1 at 12:52 PM on September 7, 2021
The other thing is that the table only deals with how to play the first bet on the first two cards. It tells you nothing about what to do on or after the flop/turn/river, or how to play back if your opponent bets back against you on the first two cards.
Finally, having played a lot of holdem in clubs for real money, I can say this: Memorizing a table like that might be helpful when you first start--it's not a horrible heuristic for approaching the game as a beginner--but if anyone really thinks you can play high-level poker with that kind of tactic, well... message me for a game, I'll host!
posted by mikeand1 at 12:52 PM on September 7, 2021
Bilzerian.. Bilzerian.. why is that name so familiar
posted by elkevelvet at 2:14 PM on September 7, 2021
posted by elkevelvet at 2:14 PM on September 7, 2021
« Older The Jewish folk song everyone in Japan knows | Gravity in Multiply Connected Space Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I'd never seen the charts before for playing Texas Hold'em. The chess-poker crossover is pretty interesting, too.
posted by Anonymous at 7:39 PM on September 6, 2021