blonde poker forum

Is poker an art or a science ?

I've always thought of it in it's purest form as an artform.

But the modern successfull players seem to treat it as a science.

Where in this world of lies, damn lies and statistics, is the truth ?

It's a game.

... is Monopoly an art or a science?

All the online junkies will tell you it's a science, which maybe it is online.  Live poker, especially NL and PL (maybe not limit) is an art most definitely.  Whilst you still take into account pot odds etc etc, there are so many other variables.  You have to trust your instinct and your reads, and do without tools such as sharkscope and Poker Tracker.  It's about knowing when to make that huge call with bottom pair, or lay down your aces - something which science or maths is never going to tell you. 

didn't read the question, gonna guess art, was the first option, should be good :)up

can someone say for sure what it is please cos ive had a lumpy bet the answer is art, i'll be really disillusioned with the site if we dont come up with a definitive answer

I can't say for sure and to try would take far too much explaining. But fwiw imo Im leaning towards more of a science. Not saying there is no art but imo more than 51% sceince.

shit, i run bad

Just wait for a few more responces :) theres bound to be loads of people out there to disagree with me.

Is psychology an art or a science?

depends who you're talking about

Poker is considered to be an art by people who don't know enough about the science of poker.

Probably

Or is it considered to be a science by people who can't appreciate the artistry involved ?

Art? Science? Neither! It's just a game, and a largely luck-based game at that.

Science? Think CERN, think Hawkins, think DNA.

Art? Think Picasso, think Ballet, think Shakespeare, think The Beatles.

Phil Bull, the legedary Timeform founder, described horse racing, which many take as seriously as poker, as "the great irrelevance". Poker is just that.

We are getting just a tad above ourselves if we think of our hugely fun & entertainng pastime of poker as Art or Science.

Much better thread from bolt here.

End of this forum then, we all best go and get proper jobs

sigh! you just didn't give me enough time to fck it up yet ::)

(http://pokerdoodle.com/copyright/gabrielutasi/2008/05/051808poker_art.gif)

(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2005/02/16/image674454x.jpg)

[X]Kinboshi fucked the thread up for me ;D

[X] My pleasure.

Tikay, do you disagree then that poker is a skill?  Roulette is something I would consider as only a game.  The house has the advantage all of the time, even if there are those who think they can beat it.  Poker on the other hand is beatable long term if you are a better player than your opponents.  Although poker can neither be said to be an art or a science, it is still possible to say that it encompasses these elements.  I don't think we are silly enough to try comparing poker to biology, or poker to painting, but I think what the OP is getting at is which of these two things is more integral to winning.  Maths is a science, and it's fair to say that there is a large mathmatical element in poker.  There is also what I would describe as the instinctual element which could be described as an art.  

But if sticking a load of dirty clothes on an old bed is art, and setting fire to a schoolroom with a dodgy bunsen burner is science.

Then there must be a compromise, surely.

It's like calling the Sun a newspaper.  It is, of sorts, just without the newsy bits.

Well, poker is life....

And life is.....

What ?

I don't disagree at all that poker requires skill. A % of skill, the amount of which nobody can quantify, but it combines luck, & skill. But to suggest it's an Art or a Science, well.....

Long term, yes, better players will beat poorer players. A degree in Science or Art won't help much, though.

Out of two, I have to go for Science.

Reason - you can teach a computer to play Poker.

You can teach a computer to play any game - does that mean any game is a science?


Ditto: Most games have an element of skill. So Monopoly, Scrabble, Game of Life etc. are science?

Everything is science

Even art.

Take science.
Call it art.
Sell for $6 million.
Repeat.

(http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/T/T07/T07187_9.jpg)

Artist + Year > starter for 10.

Damien Hurst 1992??

Pharmacy??

Correct, well done.

Unsure why that is art or commands such a fee. I did see it in situ, along with cows/fly zapper/lost lamb. I may play a game of heads up in the Tate Modern and then sell the exhibit for a couple of million...

You might aswell one of the most recent displays was a crack in the floor! ::)

Clearly the words of a man running bad. When you run good it is most certainly a game of skill.

No, when I'm running good it's certainly a game of luck!

:D

If it wasn't for luck I'd lose every hand.  ;D

Poker imo is closer to a science than an art form.

The one game that gets closest to art form for me is Chess. Although I know some will argue that fencing can be considered as art too, but I will sit on the fence for that one :)

Pretty Much

The gag doesn't work like that. Fence is the punchline so you can't use it for the set-up aswell.

Try replacing fencing with a synonym. Swordfighting perhaps?


So the new gag reads...

I know some will argue that swordfighting can be considered an art, but I will sit on the fence for that one.

Read the old and the new aloud to yourself. Which sounds better?


Remember, cheesy puns are a science. :)

Can I use the excuse that i am on life tilt and havet slept in 48 hours please? :)

I was gonna mention as well:-

You cant teach a computer to play every game. A computer doesnt play chess when you play it, it calculates the best position in middlegame and endgames working many moves ahead. But it cannot interpret tactics and understad simple moves sometimes (2nd game of Kasparov v Deep Blue in 1997 for example). Without databases of over 2,000,000 games chess programs would be useless as they would have no idea on how to play openings.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that computers can be taught how to play games but they cannot play them well all of the time. Sorry for rambling on about chess on a poker forum :(

Oh and Cheesy puns FTMFW

I wouldn't worry about it. Chess is very similar game to poker in several respects. Also, many of the posters here are pretty decent chess players.


Personally I'm fascinated that a luck element exists in chess, even though it is a game of complete information.

Not just your opponent missing an important move or something like that, but the luck factor coming into play in your own moves too.

The human mind bing unable to extrapolate a given middlegame position into it's exponentially numerous consequences. A lot of the moves will be largely based on positional understanding and feel. The realtive likelyhood of the later consequences of many moves, even at the GM level, are unknown when the move is played.



When people are bemoaning their bad luck at cards, you will often here someone say something like, "you want a game with no luck where the best player wins all the time, go play chess."

It's a pet hate of mine. Why have more than two games to decide the world champion if this were true?

I'll be honest I haven't heard that saying as frequently but I have heard it.

Thats very true what you say about the luck. I'm only rated about 1400 (not bad for only 8 weks of pla I guess) and will say luck doesnt just come with the end position, but also with things like discovered attacks that you dont see. I dont know whether it is ignorance or bad luck to miss a forking opportunity, but things like that play a part too.

I always assumed the WC was played over one game till I actually started plaing chess. Its such a great game, and if I could become a GM or a least an expert I would work my arse off towards it. At least the only money I spend that way is on books, rather than potentially losing loads over the felt :)

Oxford dictionary definition of luck -


Not sure how chess fits into this.

The only time I ever saw luck come into play in a chess game was during the miners strike of 1974. Ted Heath pulled the plug on TV at about 7:30pm every night in an effort to save energy, so to combat the boredom, 5 of us clubbed up and bought a chess set. We played 10p a game, winner stop on.

Losing was dreadful, not only were you 10p out of pocket, you had rail 3 chess games before you got another turn.

This particular night, my uncle Dennis had me done up like a kipper, the result was merely a formality, it was mate in 3 moves. I reached out to knock over my king in the traditional gesture of surrender, but as I did so, I inadvertently flicked a piece of sausage from the fork of my brother Tracy, who was sitting next to me having his dinner on his knee.

The bit of sausage landed in my uncle Dennis's lap, and Cindy, a small black and tan terrier jumped up to retrieve it. Much to Tracy's dismay, the bit of sausage was a goner within a second, and in the process, one of my uncle Dennis's knackers suffered considerable collateral damage. He reacted by kicking the chess board up into the air.

I immediately demanded a rematch.

He whined and argued for all he was worth, we had the "It's not fair, you know I would have won" and "I can put the pieces back exactly as they were" speeches and everything, but I was having none of it.

We played a rematch, and with my uncle Dennis on "I wuz robbed"  damaged knacker tilt, I won the rematch easily.

So I can confirm, there is an element of luck in chess.

You say luck,

I say precise devious preplanning.  Thinking 2 moves ahead.

Physically executed to perfection.

I think that Tank's point is that when 2 players (at any level) get to an end game in chess - the exact layout of the board is not what either of them have planned for, they have not been specifically working towards that point. Both of them have been using their positional knowledge and feel (and tactical and strategic nous) to make it likely that they will be in a winning position in the end game.

They use their skill to make it more likely, but as they cannot by themselves engineer that winning position then it can only occur with some element of good fortune.

(Tank may be able to explain it better - particularly if I've just got the wrong end of the stick)

there is a lot of luck in poker,and even a top pro can be beaten hu by a beginner,
this would never happen in chess. luck would never play a part in the game. a grand master would beat a beginner 1000 times out of 1000.
the only time a poor player will beat a good player is if the good player is
not taking the game serious and does not concentrate on the all the moves he is making.
if 2 average players of the same standard play a game of chess,its mostly lack of concentration which leads to a mistake that decides the game.imo thats a flaw in the players game not luck

I think you explained it much better than I did Jon. That's exactly what I meant.

I agree with all of that but isn't a lapse in concentration by your opponent lucky for you?

imo ,part of the skill of being a decent chess player is concentration. if one of the players is liable to the odd lapse over a long game, i cant say the other player who has held his concentration has got lucky.

But it definitely isn't down to your skill that he made a mistake.

Also, if he has a lapse of concentration at one part of the game and makes a mistake, he can still recover.
If he makes the mistake at a different point of the game - he's doomed.
You're lucky if it's the second rather than the first.

Poker has a very low threshold of competence it is true. We've all heard of it taking a minute to learn and a lifetime to master. It is true that a complete noob to the game could beat the best player in the world after about 60 seconds of coaching.

I'm unsure how this argument extrapolates to saying that there is no luck involved in other games.

A professional football side could beat the high school girls team 1000 times out of 1000. Does this mean there's no luck in football?

in football no team can have total control over the ball,rebounds,the wind all sorts can happen to change a game, a chess player has total control of the board, if the chess player is good enough he will win

I am entering the USPGA tour next year, lucky for Tiger I'm sh!t at golf. >lot of luck in golf.

I think even though there is luck in poker there is a TON of room for skill in poker. Many of the attributes that lead to a win are not peculiar to poker though, like concentration, focus, patience, determination, cojones.
I also think that what a lot of decent poker players do is psychology: study someone's behaviour repeatedly, attribute it to a process going on in their bonce, and then predict future actions from it and understand future thought processes by means of it. Although it aint in a lab it certainly is psychology, and psychology is a science, last time I looked.

The fact that the online games have got ridiculously tough within the space of two or three years tells us ALL that there is a lot of skill involved. I do believe that skill can only be employed against competent players though. There isnt much point bluffing players who call down to the river with sod all, for example. things you may do against a solid thinking player who will fold 2nd pair sometimes. Or things like stop and go bluffs where same principle applies - the fish will call with bottom pair because he/she has something.

Poker is definately a science, I agree with the above quote. It is science (or more appropriately, maths!) that has created a tough to beat poker game online. Pot odds, implied odds, reverse implied odds, pokerHUD, pokertracker, and whatever things have been introduced to millions of players over the years. Maths in poker hax got more complex with more reasons to call shoves with junk, or to push yourself with junk thanks to a little something called Fold Equity.

Poker is cold calculation adn instinct and instinct is psychological, so no way is it an art form. I realise this contradicts what I say about chess, but the game of chess is elegant, and some of the chess compositions are just beautiful. You cant get compositions in poker that are beautiful.

Total control of what moves he makes yes, total control of their later consequences no.
You do see the  intellectual equivalent of a dodgy rebound, cruel deflection, lucky bounce, dodgy net cord etc if a chess player studys some of the top level games.

possible moves in chess: 10 x 10¹²⁰
number of atoms in the universe: 10 x 10⁷⁷

No-one's that good. Even if every computer in the world were to be put to the task, and every person in the world was building new computers, the sun would explode before the game of chess was solved.




I'm not talking about accidentally making the right moves to a winning combination. I'm not talking about casually knocking a few pieces across a board and getting lucky because your opponent didn't notice he could take your horsey.
I'm talking about high level chess players making positional moves in the middle of the game based on looking as far ahead as they can.

The evidence for this is that Grandmaster A doesn't always beat Grandmaster B.
You could attribute all such instances to statements like "Grandmaster B player played better on the day." This would not always be correct though. Luck does definatley exist in chess, I have seen it happen, I just can't explain it.

Im really sorry but I laughed out real loud when you typed horsey. Thats what i used to say when I was a kid at school playing the odd game :D

ADDENDUM

It seems to be people's insistence that because chess is a game of complete information then there is no luck


So it is technically a game of complete information (it is theoretically possible to know every possible position and how to win from them) - but nobody actually does know them (or anywhere near).

So it is not - in practise - a game of complete information, therefore it is not 100% skill.

Would a game of chess be boring if it was solved anyway? You just wouldnt lose anymore lol.

it'd be about as exciting as playing noughts and crosses. you'd think it was all skill until you were about 3 years old and then it'd be draws all the time unless your opponent was drunk or a tourist from somewhere like mongolia that doesn't play Os and Xs

I have 72 and go all in against AA. Flop comes 777. I win through luck, not skill. I cannot see what kind of flop will develop when my money goes in, so I win through luck, not skill.
Chess is different from this because I have conrol over the movement of my pieces which lead to a win. However, the fact that at point B my pieces happen to be in a configuration which places me in a very strong position is not 100% the result of me having chosen that specific result.
I have to make A move.
I do not know what my opponent will do.
I can only plan a certain number of moves ahead.
The fact that it all ended up this way was to an extent due to factors and patterns which I did not predict.
The fact that I was an agent in getting there does not mean that the full measure of my skill created the full measure of my success. Some of it was a happy accident.
Since it was a positive outcome, to some extent outwith my control and not totally due to reasonable human deficiencies in my opponent, it can rightly be called 'luck'.

Think someone should point out the sample size thingy. For chess variance is lower so sample size can be accordingly smaller for tests of skill, i imagine best of 10 and the best player would nearly always win. In poker the variance is infinetely bigger, i have no idea how many hands/games would need to be played to assess skill, but its probs 6figs+ (hands) once you take into account all the variables.

Art....my arse.

(http://daily.chictoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bum.jpg)

Shitting the bed can be an artform Alex :P