Life In 19x19

Poker and Go seem so different.

Yet, out of all the strong players whose profile I barely understand, there are 3 who seem to be pretty good with poker: Jimmy Cha, Cornel, and his bro who's 2d (but more focused on poker). With chess, I've heard that a pro chess player switched sides in order to become a pro go player. There isn't much else.

The only thing that I could understand is the patience it takes.

What do you guys think?

runaway wrote:Poker and Go seem so different.

Yet, out of all the strong players whose profile I barely understand, there are 3 who seem to be pretty good with poker: Jimmy Cha, Cornel, and his bro who's 2d (but more focused on poker). With chess, I've heard that a pro chess player switched sides in order to become a pro go player. There isn't much else.

The only thing that I could understand is the patience it takes.

What do you guys think?

in poker you can be a beginner but can have some winning streak.
go...there is very little luck involved. its either you read or dont know how to read.

runaway wrote: ...there are 3 who seem to be pretty good with poker: Jimmy Cha, Cornel, and his bro who's 2d ...

Janice Kim too.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because for both being a strong poker player and being a strong go player it is helpful to have strong calculation abilities. Further, poker is a game that makes it much easier for one to turn a profit using those same abilities (a hobby you can make money doing is typically more attractive to maintain than a hobby you can't). The other thing could just be you happened to notice the poker players more, it would be interesting to see if there is a skew in % of strong players who also play poker vs. % of all people who play poker (or perhaps it would be better to compare the % of all go players instead).

the fact that both games have a (relatively) big online community might be a contributing factor (just like that there are a lot of computer scientists and manga enthusiasts who play Go)

The similarities between Go and Poker really interest me. Specifically, I’d like to compare playing a one day (perhaps 3 round) Go tournament to playing an entire (single day) No Limit Hold ‘em tournament *for moderately skilled amateur player of both games*.

Most Go players have a very good feel for what it takes for an amateur to enter a Go tournament at his or her rank and play well. In each game employ a strategy that provides the opportunity for a win. No major tactical blunders which instantly lose a game. Winning (for me) often comes down to being patient enough to wait for my opponent's blunder. Finally, if we are striving for a success in our ranking bracket, we aim for a winning record. A 3:0 record would be nice and might get us some prize to bring home.

How about in a Poker tournament?

First, for non-poker player, I’ll give a crash course in what I perceive to be the major drivers in a poker tournament.

1)In Poker, players are clearly competing for a finite number of chips (In a tournament chips never leave the table and only transfer from one player to another). The analogy to territory in Go is clear. But inversely from Go, instead of saying “the player with the most territory wins”, in poker we say the player with zero chips loses. This cycle repeats until only one player remains.

2)In Go, the value of a move generally decrease as the game progresses – we know the game is over when both players agree that there are no additional moves worth value.

In poker tournaments, the relative value of chips constantly depreciate. This is achieved by constantly raising the minimum allowable bet (maybe every 20 minutes). While a player with $10,000 in chips can afford to make 200x[$50 bet] (a common minimum bet size towards the beginning of a tournament), that same player could only afford 1x[$8,000 bet], (a common minimum bet size towards the end of a tournament). If you stack of chips approaches the minimum bet size, you will be constantly threatened with elimination.

3)In Poker, how you bet during a single, specific hand of cards is the tactical level. Being able make intelligent decisions of the value of your own hand is a tactical detail.

4)In Poker, your selection of which hands to play over a 6 hour tournament, or how your pattern of betting habits accumulate to be qualified as either aggressive or passive, are on the strategic level.

Okay, crash course is over.
We can see that by minor adjustments in the terms we use, the description of a Go player’s plan for a successful one day tournament are nearly identical to a Poker players plan for a successful one day poker tournament:

Employ a strategy in which you play hands that are favored to win. Avoid tactical blunders that lose chips and put you at a sudden disadvantage. Try to be in a position to profit from the mistakes of your opponents. If you play your top game for the six or more hours of the tournament, you gradually pull ahead giving yourself an advantage at the end of the tournament – when the winner will ultimately be decided.
---
I am a relatively new poker player, and never have been a particularly “strong” Go player, but comparing the two games really does interest me. I suspect I could write more about this topic than anyone here cares to read.

Some final topics which I’ll mention, but won’t really elaborate on:

* The pro poker scene in the USA has many similarities to the pro Go scene in Asia. (One major difference, for me, is proximity).

* Game review in Go can be surprisingly similar to Poker *tournament* reviews. Poker players generally find errors in their play by analyzing the math behind their play to see if a specific decision made during a game would be a long term winner or long term loser if repeated a million times (and then hopefully adjusting their strategy accordingly).

* Any Go tournament with an entry fee generally reward the players with the top results. This is very similar to Poker tournaments. Minor differences typically include how much a player is expected to pay to enter the tournament. (So why is only one of these activities considered “gambling”???)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some transfer of skills.

Some friends and I played texas hold 'em last night with a visiting (go) pro. She won, despite it being her second or third game...

I played poker for a few years while the pickings were good. For about a year I was bringing in about half my annual salary. I specialised in ring games but tournaments actually brought in more.

Since the wire act and other changes to poker houses the earn rate dropped too much for it t be worth it and in truth having played over half a million hands online (multi-tabling) the boredom got me.

As games go - they are completely different. Tournament strategy is very straightforward - almost mathematical (that's not to say it has a good return). Ring games are harder. Online in particular you need special software which overlays players profiles on actual tables - some houses have even moved to banning this type of software but it's impossible to track. The main edge it gives you is it tells you where the weak players are.

The mindset of the games is completely different. A good player will leave tables with other strong players - you fish for the weak and if that means moving down limits then you do that. It is really about slaughter of the weak.

Dealing with short term losses is a major factor. You're looking at a return for a good player of about 5% (often less) on turnover. On average at the peak I was making about $20000 of bets a month (you get 5% return which gives you $1000 + rake another 2% + bonuses + for British players poker is tax free). When you're do this you might realise that any mistakes you make can turn into a 5% loss so margins are tight. The stinger is that you need to play about 10k hands before you know if you're a good or losing player. Like many gambling games the variance is very large - this creates highs and lows and its these swings that gamblers strive for.

I know Janice Kim play but never played her I played Annie Duke, Doyle Brunsen and even Moneymaker in a tournament.

By many measures I'm a strong poker player... by all measures I'm rubbish at go. Go figure the correlation

'if your move doesn't work, you have to convince your opponent it does.'

i don't think go and poker are especially similar. it is more about interests - players are players and it doesn't so much matter what game they play. in 90's one of Czech top players left go and since then he is struggling to get to the top at Bridge (he is about 5th-15th in Czechia). i know about two good go players (~1d) who were also champions at Settlers of Catan. our current go champion is also pretty good at backgammon. at go tournaments free time is often spent by playing poker or oh hell. i also like many games, for example Mariáš and Rummy games

many skills are probably somewhat transferable, like reading, deduction, counting, etc., but i believe this again applies generally to most games

games are fun!

A major difference is the money.

I know this is an anathma to many players here but the "monetization" of go is very poor. There is little commercial sense around a game that lends itself to gambling. Although I think Magicwand has experience of gambling on go- I'd be interested to hear his point of view.

This is a good chance to ask a question about poker that's often bothered me. I do have a vague notion of how to play, but I haven't played poker and my experience of it is limited to the many scenes in westerns and the like (i.e. not regulated tournaments).

Maybe there's a lot of artistic licence being used with the rules there, but I can't quite get why the rich man doesn't always win automatically. Why can't he just say, "I raise you 25 million dollars" which no-one can match?

Well, assuming a no-limits game, if you don't have enough cash to match the current bet, you can go all-in (bet your remaining cash) - this lets you play out that hand, but the size of the pot will be limited to what you can meet. If there are other players any further bets would go into a separate pot.

John Fairbairn wrote:This is a good chance to ask a question about poker that's often bothered me. I do have a vague notion of how to play, but I haven't played poker and my experience of it is limited to the many scenes in westerns and the like (i.e. not regulated tournaments).

Maybe there's a lot of artistic licence being used with the rules there, but I can't quite get why the rich man doesn't always win automatically. Why can't he just say, "I raise you 25 million dollars" which no-one can match?

Finally something I know more about here

You can only bet the money that is on the table. If at the start of the hand you've got $200 in front of you then that's all you can bet on the hand.

Furthermore most houses will not allow you to take money off the table ( e.g you win $4k on a hand and you're instinct is to "bank" some of it - but you can't do this. If you bank you are considered to have left the table and both online and in casinos you can not return to the table for half an hour or so.

A table usually has a limit. For $1/$2 games you can only bring to the table about $400.

I play poker very often now, it's replaced my second favourite game Wordox (scrabble/othello game). Mathematics is very important in the game, as is strategy. It requires a lot of time to play though.

Javaness2 wrote:I play poker very often now, it's replaced my second favourite game Wordox (scrabble/othello game). Mathematics is very important in the game, as is strategy. It requires a lot of time to play though.

Well if you've got any questions then post... Then maybe you might give me some idea of how to use thickness!!!