System 1 And System 2: Part Two

My previous articles discussed Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Laureate. It provided an excellent answer to that old question: Which is better, intuition or logic? He calls them “System 1” and “System 2.”

Right And Left Brain Thinking

“Systems 1 and 2 are not systems in the standard sense of entities with interacting aspects or parts. And there is no one part of the brain that either of the systems would call home.” (p.29)

Until fairly recently many psychologists (including me) believed that that the brain’s right half was intuitive, and the left half was logical. When brain-scanning equipment improved, we slowly learned that both occur in both hemispheres. Many people still say, “left brain thinking” and “right brain thinking,” but they’re not scientifically accurate.

Although each occurs in both hemispheres, they are extremely different, and most people are naturally intuitive or logical. My most recent article discussed the strengths and weaknesses of intuition. This one will analyze logic’s strengths and weaknesses, then relate intuitive and logical thinking to limit and no-limit hold’em.
Logic’s Major Strengths

This article borrows from my book, Your Worst Poker Enemy.

Logic Is Easy To Correct: Because everything is explicit, and you take small, clearly defined steps, you can see when and why you made a mistake. If your basic premise was wrong, you can change it. If your reasoning process was faulty, you can retrace your steps, see exactly where you went wrong, change your method, and get it right. Most scientific journal articles contain a methodology section to let readers know how results were obtained and conclusions drawn.

Because intuition is implicit, it’s often difficult or impossible to say why a mistake was made, which can cause repeated mistakes. However, some intuitive people feel that something is wrong, and they adjust, even if they can’t say exactly what went wrong.

Logic Is Easy To Teach: Because the process is explicit, it’s easy to learn. It took extraordinary genius for Newton to discover the laws of motion, but we learned them as children. In college many of us learned basic scientific methodology, and we may use without even knowing we’re doing so. It’s become a natural part of the way we think.

We can’t understand how Mozart wrote his music or Rembrandt made his paintings, nor can we produce similar works. I couldn’t write The Theory Of Poker, but I can follow its reasoning and apply its principles.

Logic Is Additive: Because logic is correctable and teachable, it’s also additive. We can build upon the works of earlier people. Newton said it best: “If I have seen further than other men, it was by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

You and I know much more about physics, chemistry, and every other science than the greatest geniuses of previous centuries. Today’s sciences and engineering are incomparably superior to those of the past, but there are no such differences in the arts. Hardly anyone would argue that today’s artists are better than Beethoven, Da Vinci, and the other immortals.

Logic’s Major Weaknesses

Logic Is Limited: It relies on hard evidence and applies rigid rules for drawing conclusions from this evidence. If there isn’t enough evidence, we can’t know which rules to apply.

Logic Is Unimaginative: Because of its rigidity, logic isn’t much help when we encounter new situations. Einstein’s theory of relativity was so different from everything that was known that many respected scientists rejected it, and it wasn’t even mentioned in his Nobel Prize Award.

Einstein once wrote: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know, while imagination embraces the entire world and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

What does this have to do with poker? Much more than you may think. You’ll get better results if you understand how you think and select games that fit your natural style.

Limit Versus No-Limit Hold’em

Discussing this book clarified why logic alone is not enough to play NLH well. In limit we get much more data because far more hands are shown down. NLH also demands six skills which are hard to quantify, especially with limited data.

Reading hands
Deceiving opponents
Estimating implied odds
Bet-sizing
Bluffing
Catching bluffs

David Sklansky made a similar point in No Limit Hold’em: Theory And Practice.

“I have been reluctant all these years to write a no-limit book, even one that dealt mainly with theory, because I know that theoreticians without other talents will still be underdogs to talented non-theoreticians, especially if the stacks are large relative to the blinds.

“By that I mean that many no-limit skills are not theoretical in nature… a ‘talented’ player who is good at these skills, but who has a shaky theoretical understanding of the game, can often easily beat a less talented player who has mastered the theory… talented players will still get the best of it through superior hand reading and other skills.” (p. 5)

I believe that “talented” includes intuitively gifted.

Roy Cooke’s recent experience supports David’s point. Roy is an extremely logical player. He doesn’t say he “felt” he should do something. He explains exactly why he played a hand a certain way.

He easily switched between different forms of limit (except hi-lo games), but had much more trouble switching from $40-$80 limit to much smaller no-limit games, despite facing weaker players. It takes time to switch the way you think, and some people can’t make that switch.

Jim Brier and I couldn’t do it. Jim is an engineer, and his graduate training had the same emphasis upon logic and hard evidence as mine. If you admitted you relied on intuition, you’d flunk out of any good graduate program.

Several years ago Jim and I tried to switch to NLH. We studied books, got lots of theoretical knowledge. We met frequently to discuss NLH with other serious players, including Sam O’Connor the author of How To Dominate $1 And $2 No-Limit. After several meetings Sam made the most valuable poker criticism I’ve ever received. “Al, I know you’ve worked hard, but you still think like a limit player.”

He was right, but I didn’t understand exactly what he meant until I read and discussed Kahneman’s book. I’m too rigidly and unimaginatively logical.

I want to know exactly what the situation is and which rules to apply to it. I like the fact that limit poker gives me enough data to slowly build profiles of my opponents. I detest having to judge people with hardly any data. And I can’t rely on “feel.”

A few months ago Jim reinforced that lesson. We played NLH while waiting for the limit game to start. Jim got lucky and was up over $300 after an hour, but said, “I hate this game.”

Of course, he had other reasons, but he hated having to think in a way that was too different from his precise, mathematical, and logical style. I knew exactly how he felt.

Do you understand his frustration? Do you feel the same way? Then you should probably stick to limit. ♠

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.