logic vs math

just want to know if you can be honest with yourself here. assume 10 NL. assume villain is LAGgy.

parenetheses represent total pot value.
lets say you have QJo in a limped pot pf ($.25). you have position.
flop comes Q Q 5 rainbow.
villain leads with a pot-sized bet ($.50). you raise 3X his raise ($1.25).
villain shoves over with his remaining $9.50.
you??

call right? you are top set and essentially even money with a call. you only need to be right about half the time to profit. and with top set, you are certain to be right better than half the time. right? logic is there, and so is the math.

easy one.

but lets say the stacks are deeper... say villain shoves over w/ $20? crazy thought here, but how about shoving over you with $50? into a $1.25 pot?

can you take this chance? or is it easier to toss away your $1, and wait for a better situation?

after all, the math is still the same, right? still even money, but how many of you honestly have the balls to call such a psychotic overbet?

now do the same assuming villain is a rock. if you called before, do you now? still even money, right?

all i'm trying to say is that sometimes your brain has to kick in and overrule the math. this may be one of those times...the deeper stacks get.

depends how often villain bluffs right? If you have a reasonable idea, it'll effect the math. Math and logic are the same thing. If you're missing that variable, then you can't complete the math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liam^

...Math and logic are the same thing. If you're missing that variable, then you can't complete the math.

---

what variable? please explain how they are the same, iyo.

Logic is a system of principles of reasoning. In this case, if your call is not profitable, you don't make it. You use math to come to this logical conclusion.

As for the variable, I mean factoring in the percentage chance it's a bluff. If he's bluffing you have him beat for sure, so you can add that to his range. If he's bluffing 80% of the time he makes a huge bet, our odds are massively improved, if its more like 5-10% chance, then our odds are reduced.

If you're not a fan of variance, you'll fold it. That's not really listening to logic though, if you ask me. Logically speaking if the call is EV+ you make it I think.

They are the same because you have to adjust the math to account for the range of hands you think villian would make the play with. If in example 1, you think he's doing it with any pair, then easy call. If in example 2, you think he's only doing it with 55/KQ+, then it's an easy fold.

I think it will do more for your game to not limp QJ in position here than it will to worry about the math of the situation. I'm a big proponent of a raise or fold philosophy preflop. Even more so if you're in position. Take control of the hand. You'll like the results.

i am prolly splitting hairs here, but...

if you have to "adjust" the math due to logical reasoning, doesnt that say that they are two different factors you are using?

i am not trying to be an ass, and there is no point to my question...i just thought it was funny that some of you guys say that logic and math are the same thing.

in my mind, you use logic to put villain on a hand (clearly not a mathematical process...to me). and then use math to determine whether or not the call/bet/fold has positive or negative value.

i guess this post could be summed up w/ blah, blah, blah.

or as seinfeld puts it...i raised, he RRed, and yadda, yadda, yadda, i took his stack. ;)

Logic and maths aren't exactly the same or we probably wouldnt bother to have 2 words for them. Mathematics is based on logic, and logic can be considered to be a branch of mathematics. When you play poker you don't explicitly calculate the numbers because it would take too long. Instead of saying there is a 90% chance of this guy having a hand this time you say this guy probably has a hand because he is raising and he is passive.

One thing is for sure. If you work out a logical mathematical expression for EV and then chose the option which doesn't maximise it then you are behaving illogically and irrationally and you are costing yourself money.

In your example if we think we are up against a favorable range then we call (provided we are bankrolled enough to be playing in the game in the first place). If we put him on too tight a range then we fold. This is regardless of stack size although stack size can influence the range we put him on. There are 2 factors why we should usually be less inclined to call when the stacks are larger. They are both logical and mathematical.

1) As the stacks increase, there is proportionally less dead money. If we have 22 and there is a gazillion dollars in the pot and we have to call 1 more then we call and hope to suck out. Better odds = looser calling range for obvious reasons.

2) As the stacks increase most rational villains will push allin with a tighter range. With a gazillion dollars in the pot and $1 effective stacks he would be correct to push with any 2 in the hope you misclick fold. With $1 in the pot and a gazzillion dollar stacks even the most retarded of villains isnt going to be overbet bluffing very often. Made hands are affected in the same way. Most villains will push allin with QT here for half pot and want a call. Most of them will be far less inclined to overbet push with a few times the size of the pot behind.

If you happen to find someone who does not adjust to stack sizes, and can be value pushing Qx as well as maybe overbet bluffing with 23o then you call here every time with QJ for as many times the size of the pot as you have infront of you. The logic and the maths always agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chopper

parenetheses represent total pot value.
lets say you have QJo in a limped pot pf ($.25). you have position.
flop comes Q Q 5 rainbow.
villain leads with a pot-sized bet ($.50). you raise 3X his raise ($1.25).
villain shoves over with his remaining $9.50.
you??

call right? you are top set and essentially even money with a call. you only need to be right about half the time to profit. and with top set, you are certain to be right better than half the time. right? logic is there, and so is the math.

---

With top trips you are certain to be ahead half of the time????? Well if you believe this in this situation then you call because the math tells you to. Your Logic got you to the "Im ahead half the time," and if you are wrong, that is your undoing. NOT THE MATH

If you were slightly more careful, put your opponent on a range, based on the situation and reads and the board, then found out your probability to win against that range, your "logic" may say something different. These probabilities may argue for a fold.

Please stop fighing the mathematics and try to understand what they mean. The maths is easy to do, there are programs everywhere that will even do them for you. The hard part of poker is hand/situation/opponent reading. I.e. getting to those probabilities via a logical process. If you get there and then ignore the mathematics, then you are wasting your time. If you use the mathematics you only make bad decisions when your logic is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

Please stop fighing the mathematics and try to understand what they mean. The maths is easy to do, ...

---

i have read, and re-read your posts, and pelion's too. and i think we are all saying the same thing, as much as you want to think we are not.

i am not fighting the math. we all use it all the time. if not, we might as well play partypoker on friday night 2 years ago...when everyone seemed to push any two, and would bulff, and bluff with nothing...only with the hopes of pushing you off a pot (thats where a lot of those guys got their jollies, i am convinced).

we are just disagreeing with the symantics of how we arrive to the correct decision...and we are probably going through the same motions.

you are probably a winning player, i know i have been (at lower stakes), but neither one of us got that way w/o using both logic and math, appropriately.

The name of your topic though, is "Logic vs Math", even if they aren't literally the same, where to they contradict eachother?

It may not be easy to see this, but logic doesn't really play much of a part in this except at the most basic levels.

E.g.:
H1: I want to make money.
H2: Making decisions entirely based on maths will earn me the most money.
Conclusion: I want to make decisions entirely based on maths. (by modus ponens)

EVERY DECISION should be mathematically based. You have a lot of variables, you put them through some equations to work out your EV, and there you have it. If it's + you do it, if it's - you don't.

The thing is, it's such complex maths that you can't actually work it out properly, so you just do some quick approximations and off you go. Things like:
- what range of hands can I put him on,
- what range of hands does he put me on,
- will he fold/call/push if I raise,
- blah blah blah more complex variables of the game

are based on data you have acquired by watching either this player or others similar. This data is all numbers, hands and actions. You throw this data through a calculation and make your decision. Your data is often flawed, your mathematics is often flawed, but you try your best.

The maths may be as simple as this example:
I've seen this guy reraise lots with crap hands. I reckon my two pair is good most of the time, so I'm pushing.

lots = a number
crap hands = a range.

I didn't do an accurate calculation because I just didn't have the time, but it's something.

In summary, it's the logical thing to use mathematics, and so we do in all decision. An example of not using logic is Youngdro, who doesn't use mathematics, but rather calls when the stars align or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyingPenguin

It may not be easy to see this, but logic doesn't really play much of a part in this except at the most basic levels.

E.g.:
H1: I want to make money.
H2: Making decisions entirely based on maths will earn me the most money.
Conclusion: I want to make decisions entirely based on maths. (by modus ponens)

EVERY DECISION should be mathematically based. You have a lot of variables, you put them through some equations to work out your EV, and there you have it. If it's + you do it, if it's - you don't.

The thing is, it's such complex maths that you can't actually work it out properly, so you just do some quick approximations and off you go. Things like:
- what range of hands can I put him on,
- what range of hands does he put me on,
- will he fold/call/push if I raise,
- blah blah blah more complex variables of the game

are based on data you have acquired by watching either this player or others similar. This data is all numbers, hands and actions. You throw this data through a calculation and make your decision. Your data is often flawed, your mathematics is often flawed, but you try your best.

The maths may be as simple as this example:
I've seen this guy reraise lots with crap hands. I reckon my two pair is good most of the time, so I'm pushing.

lots = a number
crap hands = a range.

I didn't do an accurate calculation because I just didn't have the time, but it's something.

In summary, it's the logical thing to use mathematics, and so we do in all decision. An example of not using logic is Youngdro, who doesn't use mathematics, but rather calls when the stars align or something.

---

QFT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sashimi

The name of your topic though, is "Logic vs Math", even if they aren't literally the same, where to they contradict eachother?

---

it came from another thread where i was arguing/debating that i am "feel"/logic based in my decisions. and, some others were saying that everything is math based.

i was just trying to defend myself by saying i use logic to narrow down the maths before i do the math. i dont solely operate with math.

and, also, that there are a few occasions where your "logic" will overrule the math in a decision...because of your read of a situation/villain...making you fold when the math says you should call/bet.

that one didnt go over well, but i figure i will do it my way (with points well taken), and they will do it theirs. there's not just one way to be profitable playing poker...we all have our methods.

granted, i play lower stakes...where my "margin for error" is much larger than those debating me. i can get away with a lot more mistakes and still remain profitable because my opponents are weaker...and will make more than i will.

although, one could argue that the higher you play, and the less margin for error you have, the more important logic becomes in narrowing down the math.

but i wont do that... ;)

I really don't understand this thread. Surely you use experience and reads to put opps on a range of hands, then use maths to decide the most +EV play. Logic is used to put opps on a range of hands, so it's just working out a variable to plug into the maths. It's not logic vs. maths, you need them both...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badgers

I really don't understand this thread. Surely you use experience and reads to put opps on a range of hands, then use maths to decide the most +EV play. Logic is used to put opps on a range of hands, so it's just working out a variable to plug into the maths. It's not logic vs. maths, you need them both...

---

would you agree there are some situations where your "common sense" tells you that you are beat, but the math says you can call?

if so, you used logic against the math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chopper

would you agree there are some situations where your "common sense" tells you that you are beat, but the math says you can call?

if so, you used logic against the math.

---

Common sense is your subconscious doing math, so no, there's fundamentally no difference.

Ok Im not really sure why you arent getting this yet. I think it has something to do with you not really understanding the whole comparing pot odds Vs equity thing when deciding whether to call or fold.


For example you say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chopper

would you agree there are some situations where your "common sense" tells you that you are beat, but the math says you can call?

if so, you used logic against the math.

---

Yes I agree that there are some situations where for one reason or another you feel that you are probably beat but the maths says you can call. But you are wrong to say you used logic against the math.

I feel I have a 10% chance that I am ahead. Common sense is telling me I am probably beaten. I have to call $1 into a $100 pot. The math says I call. THIS ISNT ILLOGICAL! I havnt used logic against math. Ive used logic and math to come to the correct decision.

Mathematically my EV is positive for the call. Logically I want to make money over the long run and if I make this call a million times I will be a rich man.

If instead there is a 10% chance I am ahead and I have to call half pot I fold just like logic and math tell me to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chopper

There are a few occasions where your "logic" will overrule the math in a decision...because of your read of a situation/villain...making you fold when the math says you should call/bet.

---

No! No there aren't. Like you said yourself you use your logic to put him on a range and then you plug it into some math equation along with every other piece of information you have and you come to ONE decision. There is no way for the "logic decision" and the "math decision" to contradict themselves because you use both logic and maths together to come to one single conclusion.

It sounds more to me like you are talking about situations where you are saying "I think I am 50% to win but he's betting really big so I think I'm more likely to be behind". That isn't logic Vs maths. This is logic Vs wishful thinking. The point is if you have some kind of overriding gut feeling that you are behind, and it has some logical cause (e.g. he checked much quicker than usual, he bet slightly smaller/bigger than usual or whatever) then you should factor that into your logical range and then apply the exact same maths to it. There is no situation when logic and maths give you different results unless for some reason you logically put him on a range and then put a different range into your maths.

Perhaps you should give an example because I really dont think you are understanding what we mean by logic. In any case you probably apply it well enough at the tables so I'm guessing this whole discussion is just semantics.

i agree that the whole thing is just semantics, but it seems to be entertaining all the same, to me. i dont know why.

i have tried giving the examples i can think of, and, to me, they ARE showing that logic, common sense, whatever, are overrriding the math.

you guys are all saying that it is I that is not getting the concept, and the majority rules, so i guess i am reluctantly saying i am wrong.

i still feel that we are all saying the same thing, just using different terminology.

that "overriding gut feeling" to which you refer is what i am calling "instinct" or "logic" because it is based on a couple of things...

knowing how strong your hand is in relation to the board ON MOST OCCASIONS.

and, knowing the betting tendencies of your villain.

combining those together creates the logic to which I am referring.

and, imo, it absolutely can make you go against the math of pot odds, implied odds, equity, fold equity, etc.

ever make a crying call when you are certain you are beat? that usually is the opposite...math overriding your "logic."

maybe i should be saying "instincts." but, to me, using your instincts and trusting your intuition is logical. its using your past experiences of a situation you've been in before to come to a better conclusion of the right play. to me, very logical in its origin.

after all this, i think we are all using the term differently. it wouldnt be the first time i've used a word incorrectly.

i'm just amazed not ONE person has seen where i am coming from. everything cannot be black and white with rules and definitions. there is room for interpretation. if not, we would all be calculating our odds of crossing the street...eating greasy cheeseburgers, etc. but, i guess thats math, too, if you break it down. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chopper

ever make a crying call when you are certain you are beat? that usually is the opposite...math overriding your "logic."

---

You aren't sure you are beat. If you were 100% sure you were beat, you'd fold for even a $1 bet on a $100 pot. Crying call is when you think you are probably beat.. probably being quantifiable, let's say 80% sure you're beat. Then with this information you can use exact mathematics to decide whether to call or not. (1% to call for 20% to win = call)

The math is always correct. However there is no math in a vaccuum, you need assumptions to do math on. To get to those assumptions you can use your instinct or logic or whatever you want to call it.

this thread really sucks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chopper

and, also, that there are a few occasions where your "logic" will overrule the math in a decision...because of your read of a situation/villain...making you fold when the math says you should call/bet.

---

It is this point, and only this point, that boils my piss. Do it your way fine, but heed this at least. Make a bad decision, lose expected value. Make that same bad decision everytime in that situation, lose the same amount everytime.

Overruling the Maths can only ever lose you money and is the most irrational illogical thing that anyone can talk about doing.

Despite whatever method you use to arrive at ranges and their 'weight' or proportion of occurrence to ignore the results of the math from this is throwing money away and/or being results oriented.

It is the reads, logic, hand reading skills, psychology and other stuff that form the basis for the maths which enables us to make our decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuddyWicket

It is the reads, logic, hand reading skills, psychology and other stuff that form the basis for the maths which enables us to make our decision.

---

this is basically what i am trying to say.

i guess i am the only person in the world, though, that will throw away what happens to be the best hand...at the time...to avoid a potentially expensive decision in a marginal situation.

say, you check from the BB. you have 9Ts, and flop comes 9 6 2 w/ two suited (not yours). i check/fold the flop here most times. now, i most likely have the best hand here...most of the time. i know there are higher pockets, and a couple sets maybe, but, i still am best most times. however, i will fold to any aggression, usually. i'm just too vulnerable here.

if you believe in the theory "bet when ahead," you MUST bet here, and try and end the hand now, or at least get some information...not that a call will tell you much at a $10 table. but, at lower stakes, they dont fold...making this a -EV bet, to me (i havent used pokerstove on this), when it comes to the liklihood that the hand is going one or two more cards...and by the end, you are prolly not going to be best.

that is what i mean by "logic overruling math." but, i guess my critics will say, "the logic says you are vulnerable, and the MATH of your vulnerablility demands you dont bet right away?"

i guess what i am saying is: i throw away math, unless i improve, and use logic/experience to tell me i will not be best by the river most times, and look for a reason to fold. if it checks down, and i win, so be it. if it checks, and i spike another 9, then, my logic...and math...change dramatically.

hopefully, you see kind of what i mean. i cannot think of another way to say/show it.

if not, thats fine, this thread can be done, and we can move on to other more important discussions...thanks for humoring me all the same. :)

But the point is that if it is a -EV bet then it is the correct mathematical decision to not bet. There is no contradiction there.

Depends on your belief in your abilities. I don't think you're the only person to have certain doubts about their math. You need the math right and believe that your reads are solid. If you have doubts about these, not calling in places where you believe its only marginal might actually be +EV.

its a well known fact tho that if your on a rush or feeling lucky, add 10% to your chance to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apunisher

its a well known fact tho that if your on a rush or feeling lucky, add 10% to your chance to win.

---

Definately. You have to factor in those luck odds otherwise your Maths will be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apunisher

its a well known fact tho that if your on a rush or feeling lucky, add 10% to your chance to win.

---

i'd like to see a formula for those calcs... ;)

I often fold what is probably the best hand if others are showing strength, or the board is terrifying, or there are too many opponents willing to stay in. But TPWK - and if I'm playing 9Ts then I am likely to have position - I will bet properly and, if I get called, I will evaluate the turn.

Let's look at the hand who will call your bet here:

Hands that are way ahead:

Overpairs, two pairs (unlikely), sets, stronger 9s. There aren't a lot of these hands out there., and certainly they should bet the flop most of the time.

Hands you are ahead of:

Flush draw: shouldn't call because of your bet size, but often do. This is good because you are giving them bad odds.

Straight draw (78): ditto.

Gutshot: you're playing 10NL - T8 or 45 may well call. Way ahead.

Underpair: will often call down on a dry flop. You're massively ahead.

Worse 9: will usually call. You're massively ahead

Overs: Have 6 outs twice. No straight draws immediately available. You are well ahead.

Combos: only combos available are lower pair + FD (and probably an overcard). You are roughly 50/50 here; but bear in mind that if the flush completes, it'll be easier for you to get away from strength, so in reality you are slightly ahead.

So, I hope this indicates how -EV it is not to try and bet at a pot with top pair with position and without strength from villains.

While following a link from the poker coach thread I found this - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=0#Post4574146

I agree w/chopper here.
I think that we use logic and math to find different parts of the question: 'what is the correct play here?'
We combine logic and math to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geanosssss

I agree w/chopper here.
I think that we use logic and math to find different parts of the question: 'what is the correct play here?'
We combine logic and math to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

---

No-one should ever agree with chopper here. This is not a problem that any serious or thinking person should get wrong. Chopper's argument changes like 2x10^73 times throughout this thread yet he fails to make a decent point for the following reason.

Mathematics is the absolute key in poker and is the only thing that determines whether or not you win or lose long term. Getting the mathematics right is basically the topic of this forum, and the reason that 90% of us are not making an absolute shit load is that we are not quite getting it right yet. That's ok. Our bad.

Ignoring the mathematics is absolutely dumb and advocating it, completely horrendous. THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE MATHS IS WRONG. IT IS ONLY EVER YOU THAT IS WRONG. Maybe you are wrong with the maths or estimated the terms in your equations wrong. Thats why we are not perfect. Thats why we post on these forums.

Anyone ever questioning the validity of the mathematics of poker is uneducated and I will correct them. Anyone continuing to raise objections will be flamed and if necessary proved wrong. The whole world has been built on mathematics and poker obeys the same laws. You can't change them, so quit trying and concentrate on improving. Chopper is wrong here. End of story.

I'm with Gingerwizard. I'd explain it a little differently though:

The math can never be outright wrong. But the quality of your math can vary based on your information. We all know this, so often we question our math when a decision seems marginal since our information is always a little sketchy. In a ring game, a +EV decision is always right, even the "call $1 into a $100 pot" decision. This assumes that your BR is not down to your last buyin, which assumes that you are playing stakes that you can afford. Our goal is always to make the best decisions we can with the info we have.
As to "knowing you're beat" but the math says call: why do you know you're beat? I'd submit that it is mathematical, in the sense that it is a result of a pattern. You've played gazillions of hands of poker. You've seen skads of similar situations. Your internal alarm klaxon is blaring that you're beat. On the surface you are evaluating your opponents actions which seems non mathematical. But I think you're recognizing a pattern and patterns are mathematical.
In poker, a lot of our math is less like x+y=z with 2 known variables and more like advanced physics where some variables are known and some unknown and some are approximations that change as information gets better.
I'd also say that this is what seperates the truly gifted poker players from everyone else. All of us can, and most of us here have learned to do the basic highschool math of poker. If any of us are ever going to take the poker world by storm and become the next Negranu or Ivey we have to master the "physics" as well as the basic math. It'd be cool if someone from FTR could do it some day. My mind doesn't work that way so I'll just stick mostly with the math :-)