Poker's Similarity to Capitalism

[EC]

By [email protected] (EC) from Atlantis,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I think poker is the ultimate game of the Capitalist. More than that just like Capitalism correlates with mans needs qua man so does the game of poker.

When men trade via Capitalism they use money as the means of exchange, and the agreed upon price represents a sum of a nearly limitless number of value judgments of each trader. In poker chips perform the exact same function of money. A man can only know a limited amount of information of his transaction in either poker or trade, therefore money or chips quickly set an agreed upon value to every transaction. If you think you are going to profit you buy at the price you or the other person sets given an infinitude of factors. The same principle follows in poker. Given your limited knowledge of what the other person is selling and other factors, (marketing ) you either buy what he's selling or you raise the price or drop out depending on the whole context of your present knowledge. The degree to which you appropriately acquired knowledge in either case usually directly correlates to your degree of profit or loss in regards to either one.

I'll admit that this line of reasoning might seem to be a bit random to an outside observer, but it does represent my current thinking if that is enough of an interest for anyone, reading.

I would also say just as poker correlates to Capitalism and Capitalism to real life, i.e., ethics, poker has its correlation to real life instances.

There are times in you life that you decide to play the hand you were dealt to the best of your ability because given the context you think it is the best hand you can play on a given day or period of your life. So you do a careful study of all the circumstances and knowledge available and you make the best decision that you can given what you know to be true and what you know of the strength of your hand. You decide to move all-in. After the chips fall you have done all that you can up to that point given the current context and what happens next is up to your opponent and/or chance. You made the best choice you could. You played your best game. You put all your chips in and all you can do is wait to see what develops.

I recently moved my chips all-in. What happens, happens. A is A

EC

View the full article

[funandlearning]

Agreed. Totally.

[prosperity]

By [email protected] (EC) from Atlantis,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I think poker is the ultimate game of the Capitalist. More than that just like Capitalism correlates with mans needs qua man so does the game of poker.

When men trade via Capitalism they use money as the means of exchange, and the agreed upon price represents a sum of a nearly limitless number of value judgments of each trader. In poker chips perform the exact same function of money. A man can only know a limited amount of information of his transaction in either poker or trade, therefore money or chips quickly set an agreed upon value to every transaction. If you think you are going to profit you buy at the price you or the other person sets given an infinitude of factors. The same principle follows in poker. Given your limited knowledge of what the other person is selling and other factors, (marketing ) you either buy what he's selling or you raise the price or drop out depending on the whole context of your present knowledge. The degree to which you appropriately acquired knowledge in either case usually directly correlates to your degree of profit or loss in regards to either one.

I'll admit that this line of reasoning might seem to be a bit random to an outside observer, but it does represent my current thinking if that is enough of an interest for anyone, reading.

I would also say just as poker correlates to Capitalism and Capitalism to real life, i.e., ethics, poker has its correlation to real life instances.

There are times in you life that you decide to play the hand you were dealt to the best of your ability because given the context you think it is the best hand you can play on a given day or period of your life. So you do a careful study of all the circumstances and knowledge available and you make the best decision that you can given what you know to be true and what you know of the strength of your hand. You decide to move all-in. After the chips fall you have done all that you can up to that point given the current context and what happens next is up to your opponent and/or chance. You made the best choice you could. You played your best game. You put all your chips in and all you can do is wait to see what develops.

I recently moved my chips all-in. What happens, happens. A is A

View the full article

Here's where I would say it is not like Capitalism. In a Capitalist society, new values are being created. More wealth is being created. Every "player" in a capitalist society doesn't just carve up a finite pie and eventually leave someone with no pie.

In poker, there is a finite pie (assuming you are playing table stakes). Money is merely changing hands. The total pot size never really gets bigger, the wealth just gets redistributed to the best player.

Yes? No?

[fletch]

Here's where I would say it is not like Capitalism. In a Capitalist society, new values are being created. More wealth is being created. Every "player" in a capitalist society doesn't just carve up a finite pie and eventually leave someone with no pie.

In poker, there is a finite pie (assuming you are playing table stakes). Money is merely changing hands. The total pot size never really gets bigger, the wealth just gets redistributed to the best player.

Yes? No?

Yes. I would say the most significant difference between poker and capitalism is that capitalism is an exchange of values and poker is not. Usually, the one that walks away from the poker table with the most chips is either the one who has the better luck or is better at deceiving his opponents. Luck and deception are not the hallmarks of a capitialist system. Linking poker to the free market is exactly the wrong way to sell capitalism.

[RationalBiker]

Usually, the one that walks away from the poker table with the most chips is either the one who has the better luck or is better at deceiving his opponents.

You left one out.... the player best able to 'read' or gauge his opponents. A good player can get by with very little luck or the need to deceive if he's good at spotting that deception (or lack thereof) in other players as well as understanding the probability of hands over the long term.

[EC]

Here's where I would say it is not like Capitalism. In a Capitalist society, new values are being created. More wealth is being created. Every "player" in a capitalist society doesn't just carve up a finite pie and eventually leave someone with no pie.

In poker, there is a finite pie (assuming you are playing table stakes). Money is merely changing hands. The total pot size never really gets bigger, the wealth just gets redistributed to the best player.

Yes? No?

Yes. I agree. I think there are obvious similarities between the two, but they of course are not the same. That doesn't change my assessment that the game is as close to the real thing as any other that I can think of. And best of all it involves money!

[musenji]

Whether luck is a major factor depends on how many hands you play. Play 10,000 hands and luck pretty much has evened out for everyone, and the one with the most skill leaves with the money.

At the base of poker is your cards. ("I have a good hand. I'm all in.")

The next level is the math with a little psychology ("I have a draw to a flush and I think he has me beat, but I have the right odds to call.") ("I have only two opponents in this hand, and neither of them bet just now. Odds are if I bet, I can steal the pot...even though I have nothing")

The next level gets into more complex psychology. It's not just deception--it's also paying close attention to other peoples' actions, learning their patterns and their psychology, and basing your actions on that. ("The last time I put out a bet with nothing, this guy raised me, so I shouldn't try bluffing him anymore.") ("I've been playing really tight, not bluffing at all or being in many pots, so I can probably get away with a bluff here.")

It can get pretty complex, and the following is a real-life example.

("This guy has put all his money in with crap several times. If I raise him too much he'll back off, but if I let him do the betting, when I have a great hand, he'll do all the work for me. Now I have JJ, and that's a really good hand preflop. Not usually an all in hand against decent players, but if I can isolate this guy I stand to do very well. I saw him reraise preflop when someone had made the minimum raise...and he had a total junk hand. So I'll minraise, and...yep, there he reraises. I could just call now, or I could reraise a bit and see if he'll escalate, which is pretty likely. ...Yep, he reraised again. I'm all in. [he calls] ...haha, yep, he's got 9-10 offsuit, and I have better than a 4-in-5 chance of winning this hand. [the jacks hold up] Sweet. I hope he reloads.")

[edit] In the highest levels of poker, you base your actions on OTHER people. It seems fundamentally second-handed in a way. The other person, and what he's thinking, are the primary considerations in good strategy. If you can tell what another person is thinking at the table, the cards don't matter that much. At its best, it's a game of psychology, using your opponents' minds against them, thwarting them every chance you can, deceiving them about your intentions while trying to ascertain theirs, etc. It's about as non-"Objectivist hero" as it gets, in that sense. It's all about the other person.

P.S. My avatar isn't an accident, hahaha...but I don't play poker heavily anymore.

Edited October 12, 2008 by musenji

[EC]

Whether luck is a major factor depends on how many hands you play. Play 10,000 hands and luck pretty much has evened out for everyone, and the one with the most skill leaves with the money.

Nice answer, Ben. I especiallly like your description of the thought process at the end. Priceless.

[prosperity]

Whether luck is a major factor depends on how many hands you play. Play 10,000 hands and luck pretty much has evened out for everyone, and the one with the most skill leaves with the money.

At the base of poker is your cards. ("I have a good hand. I'm all in.")

The next level is the math with a little psychology ("I have a draw to a flush and I think he has me beat, but I have the right odds to call.") ("I have only two opponents in this hand, and neither of them bet just now. Odds are if I bet, I can steal the pot...even though I have nothing")

The next level gets into more complex psychology. It's not just deception--it's also paying close attention to other peoples' actions, learning their patterns and their psychology, and basing your actions on that. ("The last time I put out a bet with nothing, this guy raised me, so I shouldn't try bluffing him anymore.") ("I've been playing really tight, not bluffing at all or being in many pots, so I can probably get away with a bluff here.")

It can get pretty complex, and the following is a real-life example.

("This guy has put all his money in with crap several times. If I raise him too much he'll back off, but if I let him do the betting, when I have a great hand, he'll do all the work for me. Now I have JJ, and that's a really good hand preflop. Not usually an all in hand against decent players, but if I can isolate this guy I stand to do very well. I saw him reraise preflop when someone had made the minimum raise...and he had a total junk hand. So I'll minraise, and...yep, there he reraises. I could just call now, or I could reraise a bit and see if he'll escalate, which is pretty likely. ...Yep, he reraised again. I'm all in. [he calls] ...haha, yep, he's got 9-10 offsuit, and I have better than a 4-in-5 chance of winning this hand. [the jacks hold up] Sweet. I hope he reloads.")

[edit] In the highest levels of poker, you base your actions on OTHER people. It seems fundamentally second-handed in a way. The other person, and what he's thinking, are the primary considerations in good strategy. If you can tell what another person is thinking at the table, the cards don't matter that much. At its best, it's a game of psychology, using your opponents' minds against them, thwarting them every chance you can, deceiving them about your intentions while trying to ascertain theirs, etc. It's about as non-"Objectivist hero" as it gets, in that sense. It's all about the other person.

P.S. My avatar isn't an accident, hahaha...but I don't play poker heavily anymore.

I was just going to "say", yeah...poker is more or less a game of skill over the long-term. I think it's the fact that you can bluff in that game that erases the luck factor if you play long enough.

[musenji]

If you take it to the pot-by-pot essentials, bluffing is actually half of it. It's about getting them to fold when you have the worst hand, and getting them to put all their money in when you have the best hand. In the long run, the latter actually won me more money than the former.

However, underlying all that is also emotional control. If you pit two equally-skilled players against each other, the one with more emotional control will win. You have to be able to play each hand rationally and calmly and with focus--regardless of anything else.