Aunt Sophie Sees the Future: Part II

Aunt Sophie had asked how it seemed that sometimes she could predict the future in poker. I had discussed how players lie to the poker gods, promising never again to make a particular bad play if just this one time they got away with it, but then, of course, doing it again, thus saddening those gods.

“Uh-huh,” put in Aunt Sophie, “but that’s not really what I mean. I started by saying, ‘How is it that sometimes I just know when I’m going to win the next hand?’ And when you asked, I said that sometimes I have the feeling of just wishing I would win the next time, and sometimes I do win in that situation, but, as you explained and I myself have observed, more often I don’t. But what I really mean is those times I just know I’m going to win the next hand. I have this feeling of absolute certainty, and I’m right, always, in those situations, that the next hand I’m going to win. If I follow through on my feelings, I bet the hand aggressively, and win more than otherwise I would. And there are other times when I just know I’m going to lose the next hand, and about those, I’m right, too. Why is that?”

“Now that,” I mused, “is, as I suggested earlier, an interesting philosophical question. I have two theories for you, and you can accept or reject either, or both, as you wish.

“Theory one is that there is a bit of precognition involved. Something happens that permits you to see into the future for a moment. It doesn’t happen very often, but when it does, you just know it. A smart card player can act on that knowledge and increase her winnings. Having that ability also enables us to know when we’re in the middle of a rush. Poker analysts who rely purely on logic and statistics say that there is no way of recognizing a rush — positive or negative — until it’s over. They say that every hand must be played the same, whether we’ve won the previous hand or lost it. They claim that ‘the cards have no memory.’ I tend to agree with that method of playing, except for those rare instances you’ve been describing in which you know you’re going to win, and it seems to me that’s a way of recognizing a rush while you’re actually in the middle of it.

“Theory two is that winning the next hand is actually caused by the positive feelings. You may not recognize that this is what is happening, but, in fact, you win the next hand precisely because you think you’re going to win it. Now, of course, there’s no way of proving which, if either, theory is correct. They both involve unexplored and as yet undocumented abilities of the human mind. I lean toward the second theory, and for this reason: Statistical analysts claim that there really are no rushes, that in the long run, everyone gets the same cards. Well, they don’t exactly deny the existence of rushes; they just say that rushes occur far less frequently than most players claim. They use flipping a ‘fair’ coin as a model to explain. In the long run, they say, heads and tails should come up the same number of times. But they don’t come up head, tail, head, tail, and so on. Instead, sometimes there are two or three of one in a row, and then sometimes two or three of the other.

In the long run, it averages out to equal numbers of each, but it is statistically quite correct to say that sometimes there will be 20 or more heads in a row. That is what we see and call a rush. They also say that in the middle of flipping coins, it’s not possible to tell when there will be such a run of all heads or all tails, any more than it is possible to tell in the middle of a playing session when you will win more than your share of hands in a given period of time. But cards are not coins. All poker players can tell you that rushes do occur, and they occur much more frequently than would be indicated by mathematical models. I believe that if some of us could actually, with our minds, influence the outcome of some of the hands, that would be a good explanation for rushes.

“So, there you have it — two possible explanations for why you sometimes seem to be able to predict the result of a hand before you actually get your cards. Either you actually can foresee the result, or you are influencing the outcome and interpreting that as predicting it. Take it or leave it, either one. That’s the best that I have to offer.”

“From you,” concluded Aunt Sophie, “that’s quite an explanation. Usually, your reasons for things are mathematics or psychology. Parapsychology, I never expected. Another side of you, I think I’m seeing.” ♠

Michael Wiesenberg has been a columnist for Card Player since 1988. He has written or edited many books about poker, and has also written extensively about computers. His crossword puzzles are syndicated in newspapers and appear online. Send blessings, beefs, and bids to [email protected].