Leggo Poker Every Tool You Need To Win

sauce123

Mar
11
2009
TV TILT
Posted in Poker | View Comments (14)
 

So I dont watch tv much, but im living with friends who do, and im of course totally bewildered by half of it.

so today im watching cash-cab, and this group of four tourist retiree types get in the cab. i am of course initially pre disposed to hate on them as they are all loud, overweight and not new york city model hot like 60% of the ppl on the show, and are wearing mumu type garments and fannypacks, but i digress.

premise of the show is that you get in a regular yellow nyc cab and declare your destination at which point the car erupts in psychadelic lights and you are on a game show. the deadline is when you arrive at your stop the questions end, or if you get 3 wrong you get booted onto the sidewalk, they ascend in difficulty and go up to maybe 150$ a pop from 25$ at the beginning,

the retirees are actually quite strong players and bink I believe 13/15 questions, ending in a 950$ win as they reach their destination, at this point you can go for video bonus question for double or nothing which is on average marginally harder than your previous questions. this smug fcking lady stares down the camera with her southern drawl and goes "Oh, well, we aren't gambin' types" and they run wiht the money. as this is a poker blog i will not discuss the EV of their decision, but what i found so infuriating was that they justified their retarded decision not with any kind of logic but just immediately as a moral certainty, these ppl must have elected george bush....

so i begin to tilt visibly to my friend who is watching it and explain the precious ev they are giving up, however, not satisfied to stop at the end of my traditional rant; i had to swing for the fences. my friend attempted to justify their decision like this "if the happiness ev they lose by gambling is greater than the happiness ev of doubling through, and the money isn't particularly large or small, then their quit is fine". though, i must add, my friend was a girl, so it was phrased a lil differently.

I say no! not taking such a logically imperative gamble just displays a profound ignorance about the way probability operates in everyday life. Or, to put it more succinctly "Lady, do you realize you're driving in a FCKING CAR RIGHT NOW". every time you get in a car, you deliberately risk your entire life in exchange for some value, whether it's getting to work quickly, seeing a friend, etc. whenever you smoke a cigarette you lose whatever it is, 10 min on average of your life i forget, what im getting at is just the fact that risk taking (read:gambling) is inextricably bound up with living, by blinding yourself to the relatively large risks you are assuming daily you are living a dream. gambling should be defined as what this lady and people like her have been doing their whole lives:: making unreasoned decisions without considering the myriad possible outcomes, both material and emotional of the things they take for granted.

im gonna need another non- 1am blog to flesh this one out, but i wag my finger at you, cash cab lady, don't judge me! grrrrr

Digg this Post! Add Post to del.icio.us Bookmark Post in Technorati Spurl this Post! Google Bookmark this Post!
Comments 14 Email Blog Entry  
Comments
03-11-2009
Fight CLUB is offline Fight CLUB
I hear ya.

There are definitely lots of weird psychological reasons for people not taking gambles such as this.
03-11-2009
etown is offline etown
i totally agree and wow like really your friends watch cash cab i mean tv is enough of a waste of time and i watch tons of it but watching cash cab
introduce them to HBO and get them to watch some good tv
03-11-2009
Rollinhand is offline Rollinhand
Rollinhand's Avatar
Fun fact: 2 billion hours of television is watched every year in the us. That's 2000 wikipedias.
03-11-2009
grogheadflow is offline grogheadflow
grogheadflow's Avatar
Deal or No Deal must drive you wild
03-12-2009
baba is offline baba
i had fun making this arguement to a friend the other day, your account is way funnier tho
03-16-2009
grandfatherb is offline grandfatherb
jesus christ that is an amazing ****ing point
03-16-2009
LT22 is offline LT22
LT22's Avatar
I don't think you should assume the statement "we're not gambling types"=moral opposition to gambling

maybe it was said differently on the show, but I would auto say that statement = morals
03-18-2009
sauce123 is offline sauce123
LT- not saying moral opposition to gambling, but it's stupidity pure and simple to refuse an extremely +ev gamble when its for say 250$ which has no meaningful impact on your quality of life (meaning if you lose).

if you have such intense emotional discomfort "gambling" in a spot like that you should be embarrassed. you should also between the four of you have someone at least intuitively do the calculation that it is a good gamble.
03-18-2009
LT22 is offline LT22
LT22's Avatar
well 99.99999% of the population are results-oriented fish.

we have $250 now, might as well book a win. fish don't like the thought of double or nothing b/c they know they can lock in a win if they don't go on.

if they continued the game and lost they would feel like they lost $250
03-19-2009
Pudge714 is offline Pudge714
Sauce,
They could just be risk averse a lot of poker players are risk neutral or risk loving and in poker you should usually be risk neural so a lot of poker players find it difficult to understand that maximizing your $EV isn't your imperative.

If had never seen the show before they could think it's a scam or the video question is significantly harder. To be the odder behavioral thing is that they didn't gamble "because they were on a hot streak" or because they overestimated their own intelligence based on 15 questions.
03-25-2009
cityburke is offline cityburke
Pudge nailed it. This stuff is studied in "utility theory." The goal of life is to maximise happiness not ev. But in general most people are way too risk adverse and suffer far more then they derive happiness from equal losses and gains.

How much would they have had to have won before you consider it acceptable for them to not take the offer of double or nothing. I'd say for someone with 10k in savings and no serious assets maybe 80000?
03-26-2009
sauce123 is offline sauce123
Pudge,

Yea, I suppose you're right. It's hard for me to conceptualize the average person's concept of risk and gambling.

I think it's easy to accept that maximizing "happiness ev" or utility is most important, because well, of course it is! But instead of acting off of a spur of the moment emotional reaction in situations like this it is important to take a step back and put your utility in a logical framework. For instance if I was to put the question to the group of retirees like this "you are allowed to answer a series of infinite questions of exactly the same difficulty as the set you hit 13/15 questions. You can bet 1k on each question and choose to keep answering or quit at any time."

You should be able to compute your hourly rate as around 60k/hr or so. And your risk of ruin if your net worth is 50k as .14^50. If you can't handle that kind of risk/reward ratio, then getting in a car should give you a heart attack.

If you can't handle that risk/reward ratio once, you should think a bit harder.

But hey, these people are why we can succeed as pro gamblers so hey!
04-06-2009
ziddle is offline ziddle
"as the set you hit 13/15 questions. You can bet 1k on each question and choose to keep answering or quit at any time."

You should be able to compute your hourly rate as around 60k/hr or so. And your risk of ruin if your net worth is 50k as .14^50."

- Most people can't though... and this is why we can succeed as pro gamblers imo. That and most people would have a panic attack playing >2 tables.
05-27-2009
Meterocre is offline Meterocre
Meterocre's Avatar
i would say ppl are avarage one in every three times getting the bonus question correct. i think they are about correct staying. but i really enjoyed how it relates to society you are very correct
 
Recent Blog Entries by sauce123