System 1 And System 2

My previous article introduced Dr. Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow. He’s a Nobel Laureate, and it can improve your thinking.

One valuable lesson was his answer to that old question: Which is better, intuition or logic? He calls them “System 1” and “System 2.” Arthur Reber, Preston Oade, Brad Cline, Jim Brier, and Robyn Salisbury helped me by commenting on his book and my article.

Defining The Systems

“I describe mental life by the metaphor of two agents, called System 1 and System 2, which respectively produce fast and slow thinking. I speak of the features of intuitive and deliberate thought. (p. 13) Deliberate thought is often called ‘logic.’”
System 1 thinking is implicit. We just feel we should do something but may not know why.

Prof. Reber wrote: “Intuition is the end product of a learning process that takes place largely unconsciously or implicitly. We learn a lot about the world around us without realizing that we’re learning it, and frequently we don’t know what we’ve learned.” (Poker, Life, And Other Confusing Things, p. 33)

Doyle Brunson, the best-known intuitive player, wrote: “Whenever I use the word ‘feel’… I recall what happened… Even though I might not consciously do so… I recall that this same play came up (or something close to it) and this is what he did or somebody else did. So I get a feeling that he’s bluffing or that I can make a play here and get the pot. But, actually my subconscious mind is reasoning it all out.” (Super System, p. 430)

System 2 thinking is explicit. David Sklansky, the most famous logical writer, said that logic was more important than “playing your cards” or “playing your people.” “There is a third factor that is more important than the other two … logic… When I speak of logic, I [mean] … the formal type of reasoning [with] frequent use of words ‘if…then.’” (Getting the Best of It, p. 67ff)

David breaks decisions into steps you should take in order. His premises are extremely explicit. He often assigns probabilities to each alternative, and then adds these probabilities for an overall risk-reward assessment.

Of course, neither Doyle nor David is completely intuitive or logical. Doyle understands odds and strategy so well that he’s unconsciously competent. He applies them without having to think consciously about them. David told me that he plays more intuitively than he writes, and a future column will discuss his position on the limitations of a purely logical approach to NLH.

Which System Is Better For You?

That old saying, “It depends upon the situation,” certainly applies here. Both types of thinkers have succeeded and failed as poker players. Doyle may be history’s greatest no-limit player. David is a great player and probably the most influential poker writer.

Obviously, intuition works for Doyle, and logic works for David, but you and I don’t have their extreme gifts. Either type can succeed, and you’ll be more successful if you:

Understand how you naturally think.

Understand and accept the strengths and weaknesses of your thinking pattern.
Select games that fit your strengths and weaknesses.

Can use either when they fit the situation.

What’s Your Natural Thinking Style?

Ask yourself: Am I more comfortable with logic or intuition? If you’re not sure, review your school years. Which subjects did you like and do best? Which ones were difficult or stressful? Logical thinkers enjoy and get their best grades in math and science, while intuitive thinkers prefer and succeed in liberal arts.

Analyze your working career. People select fields that fit their type of thinking, and these fields’ training and experience increase their natural style. Intuitive thinkers rarely enter fields like math, accounting, engineering, mechanics, or science. They become artists, writers and salespeople.

Review your reactions to poker books. Did you prefer According to Doyle or The Theory of Poker? If you didn’t read them, did your favorite books emphasize math and logic or feel? What did you like and dislike about various books? Which recommendations could you apply? Which ones were difficult or impossible?

What Are Your Style’s Strengths And Weaknesses?

People naturally believe that their way of thinking is right, and others are wrong. But both have strengths and weaknesses.

Intuition’s major strengths: Since Kahneman never wrote about poker, most of these points came from Preston Oade, a successful intuitive player. Intuitive players have these strengths. If a rigidly logical thinker like me relied primarily on intuition, he would make many mistakes.

1. Intuition is much faster. Speed is irrelevant or negative in live games, but absolutely essential when you’re multi-tabling online. If you tried to think carefully about your decisions, you’d get timed out.

2. Intuitive players can go beyond the data. Logical players are constrained by the data available to them, while intuitive ones can be more creative and imaginative. Some extremely logical people won’t make a decision without all the facts, and in poker – especially NLH – we never have all of them. It’s been called “analysis-paralysis.”

3. Intuitive players can use logic, numbers, scientific theories, computer simulations and other information. The old timers relied heavily on feel because they didn’t have odds tables, Poker Tracker, computer simulations, etc. Today even intuitive players have memorized the odds, and they can learn from hundreds of books, videos, computer simulations and other online tools. The ability to combine intuition with logic and math is their biggest edge over logical thinkers. Because their gift is inherent and hard to develop, they can borrow more easily from us than we can borrow from them.

Intuition’s major weaknesses are:

1. It’s hard to develop. If you don’t have a natural gift, you probably can’t develop good intuition.

2. It’s hard to identify and correct mistakes. Since intuition is fast and implicit, you may not know that you made a mistake, and – even if you recognize one – you often don’t know why you made it.

Kahneman wrote: “We are often confident even when we are wrong.” (p. 4) Obviously, if you can’t recognize your mistakes or identify their causes, you’re unlikely to improve your intuitive decisions.

3. You can be too imaginative. You may go too far beyond the data. You may believe that rules, odds, and so on apply only to unimaginative players and feel you can play hands and make moves that logical players can’t make. Some of these moves succeed, but others fail. And, because the process is fast and implicit, you may not see negatives that a slower, more logical thinker would consider.

4. It’s much more affected by emotions. My previous articles said that evolution causes emotions to be much faster than logic. If we didn’t respond quickly to danger, we would die. Kahneman’s book reinforces that point: “Emotion now looms much larger in our understanding of intuitive judgments than it did in the past… judgments are [often] guided directly by liking or disliking with little deliberation or reasoning.” (p. 12)

Final Comments

My next column will discuss logic’s strengths and weakness, then relate both systems to limit and no-limit hold’em. ♠

After publishing five expensive poker books, Dr. Al, [email protected], now writes inexpensive eBooks. How to Beat Small Poker Games, Stay Young; Play Poker, How to Beat Killed Hold’em Games, and Competitive Edge Strategies For Poker And Business Winners cost only $2.99 at Amazon.com.