[NT] Which type are the best cards players...

[Rajah]

I am an ENTP. But I loose. May be, I am not a smart ENTP or the one who cheats...

INTPs.

I disapprove of your username.

 

[Yomama99]

I'm gonna have to go with the xxTPs Those xxTJs can keep a straight face but the TPs have the ability to stay a step ahead or if they're not they're ready to recoup and re-manipulate the odds in their favor.

I usually pull the "I'm goofy and new to this game" routine. Then the rest of the game all I have is a silly grin to piss off people.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I think anyone who thinks they can calculate/estimate odds on the fly without a system in place (NT or otherwise) is just fooling himself/herself.

Perhaps I am merely fooling myself, but I think having a working knowledge of probability is a significant advantage in poker. For example if I have two hearts and the flop shows 2 hearts and a club, then I know to get a flush on one draw I have a 9/47 probability, which is approximately 20%. If there are two draws remaining then I know my chance of a flush is approximately 40%. I know the true odds are actually a bit less than that, but it gives me a good idea of what kind of odds I'm up against if I'm betting on a flush.

Also knowledge of probability can help a lot in developing principals as you learn to play. For example, even though a flush beats a straight, the chance of getting a flush on a flush draw is higher than the change of making a straight on a straight draw (even more so on an inside straight draw). Thinking about these sorts of things beforehand can help you work out good principals for play.

 

[INTJMom]

I can see the ability of an INTP to get inside other people's heads a great advantage in poker.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

WHee, just won my second game of Texas hold'em I've ever played, with 6 people playing Fun game.. I just bluffed almost all the time.. I mixed all the signals so much, but kept poker face all the time.. I just follow whatever I expected all the players to think and bluffed in what I consider the most effective time for it. I figured it out in the first game that I shouldn't play most of the rounds..

I just folded whenever the stakes got too high for my bluff.. and I didn't reveal my hand very often, so that no-one was able to find out the high level of bluffing I used. I also inserted some "signs" of supposed bluffing one or two times, to "teach" them how to spot my bluffing. Seems like they took the bait!

 

[Splittet]

WHee, just won my second game of Texas hold'em I've ever played, with 6 people playing Fun game.. I just bluffed almost all the time.. I mixed all the signals so much, but kept poker face all the time.. I just follow whatever I expected all the players to think and bluffed in what I consider the most effective time for it. I figured it out in the first game that I shouldn't play most of the rounds..

I just folded whenever the stakes got too high for my bluff.. and I didn't reveal my hand very often, so that no-one was able to find out the high level of bluffing I used. I also inserted some "signs" of supposed bluffing one or two times, to "teach" them how to spot my bluffing. Seems like they took the bait!

Haha, brilliant, you sound like a natural.

 

[scantilyclad]

i play texas holdem regularly with a group of friends. I ALWAYS lose. I usually come in 4th place out of 12, which isn't bad, but i never win. My best friend (INTP) wins regularly and my other good friend (ENFJ) has won more games than anyone in the past 2 years, so i don't really know which types are better at the damn game. I just know that i can't win.

 

[prplchknz]

I'm probably the least competive person I know, so when I play cards I usually lose. Though I'm awesome at speed and can beat my mom at gin and somehow I manage to beat people at checkers despite not caring enough to really think out my moves. I suck at chess for that reason I do best with games that use reflexes and instincts oppose to strategy and logic. Also if I lose I don't care that much of course my brother has to win at everything.

 

[wildcat]

I am an ENTP. But I loose. May be, I am not a smart ENTP or the one who cheats...

The good player knows when to quit.

 

[miss fortune]

The good player knows when to quit.

which would make me a HORRIBLE cards player! I tend to rely on luck, lying, reading other players mannerisms and stubbornness to win! all in all though, I win more than lose

 

[wildcat]

So they all say.
A truly good player does not lose.

Dick was good.. if he saw his chances nil he left the table.. you are not tied to the chair exactly you know.

And he became the President.
In Casablanca he also knew when to quit.

 

[INTJMom]

The good player knows when to quit.

Oh no... I can't stop it... here it comes...


You got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run

 

[wildcat]

Oh no... I can't stop it... here it comes...


You got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run

Dick did not run.
A helicopter fetched him from Casablanca.

But I think it amounts to the same thing.

 

[ygolo]

Perhaps I am merely fooling myself, but I think having a working knowledge of probability is a significant advantage in poker. For example if I have two hearts and the flop shows 2 hearts and a club, then I know to get a flush on one draw I have a 9/47 probability, which is approximately 20%. If there are two draws remaining then I know my chance of a flush is approximately 40%. I know the true odds are actually a bit less than that, but it gives me a good idea of what kind of odds I'm up against if I'm betting on a flush.

Also knowledge of probability can help a lot in developing principals as you learn to play. For example, even though a flush beats a straight, the chance of getting a flush on a flush draw is higher than the change of making a straight on a straight draw (even more so on an inside straight draw). Thinking about these sorts of things beforehand can help you work out good principals for play.

Yes. There are some situations that are clear like that (though you may have actually underestimated the odds of the two draw case), and having some knowledge of probability is better than saying "I feel it". As for principles of play, that seems like something to be worked out before you come to the table, not when you are already there.

I have a stats major friend who claims to play strictly by the odds but has lost every time we've played (Not necessarily because people are stealing his blinds or because he is getting bluffed--I think he calculates the odds wrong).

If he had worked out the odds ahead of time, and had a way of remembering them in particular situations, that would be a different thing.

But he was trying to estimate on-the-fly (for every hand), and failing miserably. That seems like hubris.

If he had a system of counting outs, etc. that would be different also. But he thought, somehow, having graduated with an M.S. in statistics automatically gave him amazing calculating prowess. I don't believe he played poker that much more often than I did, so his calculations needed to be fast and accurate w/ no check against experience.

I prefer the observed long-run frequency method (since I haven't worked out the odds ahead of time, it was a spur of the moment decision to play). Using observed frequency has the added benefit of automatically pulling in the playing styles of players at the table. By this, I mean observing what types of hands are winning (keeping track) and who at the table is winning that way and how often (again keeping track). Not a fool-proof system by any means, and you have to play extremely tight early on, but it has had an amazing way at working in many situations where I don't know the theoretical odds.

Of course, who is at the table has to be stable. I told my sister to taking our winnings and head to bed when people decided to change where they sat after we were winning all night. (The observations would be less valid then).

 

[Sandy]

I win a lot... and I am not even competitive. I can usually tell when someone's bluffing.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Yes. There are some situations that are clear like that (though you may have actually underestimated the odds of the two draw case), and having some knowledge of probability is better than saying "I feel it". As for principles of play, that seems like something to be worked out before you come to the table, not when you are already there.

I have a stats major friend who claims to play strictly by the odds but has lost every time we've played (Not necessarily because people are stealing his blinds or because he is getting bluffed--I think he calculates the odds wrong).

If he had worked out the odds ahead of time, and had a way of remembering them in particular situations, that would be a different thing.

But he was trying to estimate on-the-fly (for every hand), and failing miserably. That seems like hubris.

If he had a system of counting outs, etc. that would be different also. But he thought, somehow, having graduated with an M.S. in statistics automatically gave him amazing calculating prowess. I don't believe he played poker that much more often than I did, so his calculations needed to be fast and accurate w/ no check against experience.

I prefer the observed long-run frequency method (since I haven't worked out the odds ahead of time, it was a spur of the moment decision to play). Using observed frequency has the added benefit of automatically pulling in the playing styles of players at the table. By this, I mean observing what types of hands are winning (keeping track) and who at the table is winning that way and how often (again keeping track). Not a fool-proof system by any means, and you have to play extremely tight early on, but it has had an amazing way at working in many situations where I don't know the theoretical odds.

Of course, who is at the table has to be stable. I told my sister to taking our winnings and head to bed when people decided to change where they sat after we were winning all night. (The observations would be less valid then).

I think your friend is a bit dillusional about his ability to calculate odds. However the main advantage of probability is against opponents that you are not used to. The most important skill in poker is to learn how to play specifically against the other people you are playing with. This is far more important than probability even if you do have the brain equivalent of a calculator. Probility is there to give you an advantage against opponents that you are not familiar with.

 

[ygolo]

I think your friend is a bit dillusional about his ability to calculate odds. However the main advantage of probability is against opponents that you are not used to. The most important skill in poker is to learn how to play specifically against the other people you are playing with. This is far more important than probability even if you do have the brain equivalent of a calculator. Probility is there to give you an advantage against opponents that you are not familiar with.

I can see that. If some people are clearly being silly, I will take their money.

 

[563 740]

Interview with high stakes online pro "Durrr"

If that boy ain't INTP...

 

[mippus]

Almost all of this thread is about poker. Interesting. I am a bridgeplayer, and the skills needed there are not the very same as in poker. Yes, there is also statistics, memory and calculation, but what I like a lot in bridge is the communication and convention part of it.
I find it very hard to think of a "typical bridgplayer's type". Any ideas on that?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Almost all of this thread is about poker. Interesting. I am a bridgeplayer, and the skills needed there are not the very same as in poker. Yes, there is also statistics, memory and calculation, but what I like a lot in bridge is the communication and convention part of it.
I find it very hard to think of a "typical bridgplayer's type". Any ideas on that?

The best bridge player I've known was an INTP. He was known to be the best player in my city and is often paid money to be someone's partner. He was a math professor where I worked.