[HN Gopher] Teach Your Kids Poker, Not Chess ___________________________________________________________________ Teach Your Kids Poker, Not Chess Author : sxv Score : 19 points Date : 2022-05-19 14:23 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (momentofdeep.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (momentofdeep.substack.com) | coastflow wrote: | Poker may have good life lessons, but I would hesitate to | wholeheartedly recommend poker to children because the worst-case | scenario for the player is much worse than a player of chess. | From a research review paper [0]: "In the majority of situations, | gambling in adolescence does not appear to have obvious serious | negative consequences; however, in a number of cases it does. | There are several risk factors for adolescent problem gambling, | including parents with gambling problems, an earlier age of first | gambling activity, and greater impulsivity. Children of problem | gamblers tend to gamble earlier than their peers." | | A worst-case scenario for a player can arise due to "tilt" in | poker, aka a losing streak magnified by negative emotions. From | another review paper [1]: "Tilting is defined as "a strong | negative emotional state elicited by elements of the poker game | (e.g., "bad beats" or a prolonged "losing streak") that is | characterised by losing control, and due to which the quality of | decision-making in poker has decreased" [...] After a significant | loss, tilt occurs in three phases: (1) a dissociative phase | (disbelief, "unreality," unwillingness to "accept" the events), | (2) a phase of indignation and negative emotions (feelings of | injustice and unfairness), (3) and the chasing phase." | | Since real money can be at stake, especially if a young person | starts to play poker online, the consequences can be far worse | than a person who develops an unhealthy relationship with chess. | Though a research review paper suggests that these worst-case | scenarios do not happen to the majority of young poker players, | it can still happen to a significant number of them. | | [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945873/ | | [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5387767/ | JALTU wrote: | I can't help but mention that I play poker on commercial airline | flights against the programmed computer opponent. I have crushed | them three times in a row. I would've thought the programming | would have been a wee bit tougher, but maybe they want us to feel | good about ourselves and our card counting, pixel-reading acumen. | It works. | | Next time you're on a flight trying this out and you get an | invite to join a table against a passenger in the cheap seats, | that might be me. Watch your wallet. | dubswithus wrote: | You play for money? | dougmsmith wrote: | That thing you did was really smart and cool, you seem like a | clever guy. | Bostonian wrote: | There is an element of chance in chess. Whether an opponent plays | an opening you have recently studied and how many mistakes your | opponent makes is out of your control. The author says poker | teaches you to focus on the process rather than the outcome. A | chess player who wants to improve will not assume that winning a | game means he played well -- he will analyze the game later, | perhaps with a chess engine. | karpierz wrote: | Sure, but in the same sense that there's a chance in Chess | because you could be sick the day of your game and play worse | as a result. | | The game itself doesn't have intrinsic chance, but as with | everything in life, the players do. | | I do agree with your last point though, winning doesn't mean | you played well, it just means you played better than your | opponent. | zmgsabst wrote: | My experience is that it doesn't even mean you played better | than your opponent overall, just that you "made the second to | last mistake". | | I also think there's a larger element to reading your | opponent in chess than many people give it credit for -- what | are they planning? ...can you "tilt" them to make them play | worse? Etc. | | It's only at the very highest level you should expect people | to play nearly perfect games... and even those players | discuss the psychology (eg, Hikaru Nakamura is top 50ish and | discusses the role of psychology in high level chess). | na85 wrote: | >There is an element of chance in chess. Whether an opponent | plays an opening you have recently studied and how many | mistakes your opponent makes is out of your control. | | That's really not what's meant by chance. Chess is no more a | game of chance than tennis or golf. | | In poker, there's an element of randomness that's an explicit | core part of the game (the deck). | | No such mechanic exists in chess. | brianwawok wrote: | Hey tennis and golf have wind and ant hills and birds. That's | more "chance" than chess. | kvonhorn wrote: | > A chess player who wants to improve will not assume that | winning a game means he played well -- he will analyze the game | later, perhaps with a chess engine. | | You could say the same about poker. A player looking to improve | their game will review their hand histories, and plug hands | into PIO or HRC. | dragontamer wrote: | How about we play competitive Pokemon instead? | | Its got all the reads, bluffs, random chance, meta-gaming, math | and strategy, and none of the gambling. | | ------ | | Don't get me wrong. Poker is a great game. But if we're talking | about "reading" the opponent, relatively simple decisions that | have deep mathematical backgrounds... a large variety of | "simultaneous choice" video games (Pokemon, being a turnbased | game with 60% to 100% accuracy on common attacks), leads to very | rich gameplay, interaction and reads. | | I personally see Poker as just one game in a large family of | simultaneous-choice, random-chance, incomplete-information high- | skill gaming. | | Magic: The Gathering is another one. The cards your opponent | plays necessarily reveals information (the colors of cards | reveals what kind of strategies they are going for, and your | opponent chooses to reveal that information only when necessary). | I've won games by "holding onto lands" (worthless cards), | bluffing that I had a response against my opponent's moves. Just | delaying a turn or two (keeping them cautious) bought me the time | to draw the cards I really needed to turn the game around. | | And I've lost games by going all in (assuming my opponent was | bluffing, so I did a high-risk move), and lo-and-behold, my | opponent had the "combat trick" needed to break my attack. | aporetics wrote: | There's that famous thing Plato said: if you don't already know | Poker, don't bother applying to the Academy. | dougmsmith wrote: | Learning with random rewards, what could go wrong. Maybe teach | them DotA instead of baseball as well. | bush-bby wrote: | >However, it is important to distinguish poker from a pure game | of chance, like roulette. | | I feel like this is becoming an all too common trope on social | media and for young people, where poker is portrayed as a risky | but cool thing to do because you can convince people you're | skilled or better than others at it, and that means taking other | peoples money with skill. Which is indeed something cool. Sure | there's reading people. But it's a game of chance. Selling it as | something more has literally no benefit. | cableshaft wrote: | Poker is nowhere near as deep as chess, but it's deeper than | you're making it sound. It's not just about reading people, | especially for Texas Hold'em. Knowing probabilities and how | many outs for both your pocket and flop, turn and river, taking | your betting order/big and small blinds/your remaining chip | stack/whether someone raised for whether you should enter the | hand or not, knowing when to fold, etc. | | All of that can be done without reading people at all. In fact | in online poker, there's not much reading of your opponent you | can do usually, just judging based on their previous actions. | stu2b50 wrote: | I wouldn't really say that's a fair assessment either. I | don't think it's in any way clear that Chess is deeper than | Poker, or even by what metric you would determine such a | thing. | | Certainly in both games there are no competitors, human or | robot, that has solved the game. | schwartzworld wrote: | That's a naive view of poker, which is absolutely a game of | skill. You can't force a good hand, but you can use your | understanding of probability and human behavior to estimate the | value of the hand you are dealt. The bets you place can be more | important than the hands themselves. In fact, the best hand can | lose you a lot of money if you play it wrong. | bush-bby wrote: | Those two things, skill and chance, are not mutually | exclusive characteristics. My point is more so that poker | should not be treated as if all the skill in the world can | account for all the bad luck in the world. I mean there's a | reason there's no equivalent of the patriots in professional | poker. No one is going to win every single game every single | time. And I think that forgetting that in the games portrayal | is moderately dangerous. Because it is a game played with | money. Sure you can mitigate your risk of loss with skill, | but it's never 100% controllable, and that should be | acknowledged with more weight in my opinion. | kevinventullo wrote: | I think that is exactly the article's point: even with | perfect play, you can lose hands or even tournaments. But | over time, it is a statistical inevitability that you will | win on average. | | That is an important life lesson! If you're doing a | startup, you might execute perfectly and just hit a run of | bad luck and have to give up on that idea. That doesn't | mean you shouldn't try again! | philwelch wrote: | Most of the human condition has an element of chance to it. | Games like chess are extremely unusual in that respect. | quequeque wrote: | I would say there is no equivalent of the patriots as there | are far fewer teams in the NFL, a more suitable comparison | would be comparing the tournament-style WSOP to PGA(golf) | majors, where in the past 3 years (11 majors) there have | been 10 unique champions. Almost all sports games have some | element of chance where the better team does not always | win, the NCAA basketball tournament is another good example | of this, No one is going to win every single game every | single time. | NickRandom wrote: | I play poker and I used to play chess. Explaining the rules, | tactics and strategies of poker is a lot easier than chess. It | is also more exciting (subjective opinion rather than a | statement of absolute truth). | | The various strategies of poker (including playing 'hail Mary' | hands, I'm sick of you bluffing hands and more) versus the | play-book of chess (opening moves determine much). | | A single mistake in chess can be irredeemable. In poker (unless | you go all-in) a misstep can be rectified. | | Chess has an elitist/bookish stigma. Poker is for beers, snacks | and a game on the TV | dvt wrote: | > But it's a game of chance. | | This is _fundamentally_ incorrect. Knowing when to fold is | absolutely integral to being good at Poker (assuming tournament | /competitive play). In some cases, you might be absolutely | screwed by bad luck (like you can be in football if you tear | your ACL), but Poker is _not_ a game of luck. It 's a game of | probabilities and social engineering. | oh_sigh wrote: | You can tell poker isn't a game of chance, because you | consistently see the same handful of faces at/near the final | table for the world series of poker out of a field of many | thousands. | | You don't see that happen on other games of chance, only games | of skill. For example, there has never been a repeat winner at | the Rock-Paper-Scissors world championship. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-20 23:00 UTC)