Nathan Tyree: quiz

---

A Poker Puzzle

You are playing limit Hold ‘Em.

You hold 9-9 in late position. After the river card falls you are heads up with 1 opponent. The board is now A-9-A-2-2 giving you nines full. Various factors have convinced you that your opponent also has a full house. He may hold either a hand with an Ace (giving him Aces full, which beats you) or a hand with a Deuce (giving him Deuces full, which you can beat). Your opponent is a strong player and has been betting and raising the entire hand. The question is: is he more likely to have Aces full or Deuces full?


solution below



Tags (beta): poker

Comments (3)

Nathan Tyree: Spain

---

Roulette pays 35 to 1 (normally), which sounds like a big pay out. If I bet $1 and win I get $35 in return. The problem is that a roulette wheel has 38 spaces, each equally probable to turn up on any given spin. I should expect to win once out of every 38 attempts, which will cost me $38. The single win I expect will pay $35, leaving me with an expected return of -$3 on each 38 attempts. It is easy to see that any wager with a negative expectation is a bad wager to make, so roulette is a poor risk to take.

I good bet is one in which you have a positive expectation. For instance, playing Texas Hold ‘Em, a starting hand of A-A is very likely to win. It is the nature of that game that (assuming you are playing multi-handed and not heads up) you will win much more when you do win, than you will lose on your failed attempts. I’ve simplified the following numbers, but they are not far off. A-A will win about 35% of the times that you are dealt them. It is the nature of small stakes games ($2/$4, $3/$6, $4/$8, $5/$10 are the most common of these games) that many players will invest in nearly every pot, meaning that on those times when you are dealt pocket aces your investment in the pot is likely to be somewhat less than ¼ of its total. Your return on this bet should be 4 to 1, but you should win slightly more than once every three attempts.* It is easy to see that in this case you have a positive expectation, and therefore a good bet. Every action in poker should be looked at in this way. A good player makes moves that provide a positive expectation (over time) and avoids ones that have a negative expectation.

In other news, Sometimes She Dreams of Spain is up.











*Actually, Aces will win more than 35 percent of the time. I've left out of the calculation those times that an early raise by the player with aces drives out the entire field, allowing that player to take the blinds. Obviously this skews the data a bit as it increases the winning percentage, but also decrease the average pay out for the hand




Tags (beta): poker

Comments (15)

Nathan Tyree: Eights and Aces

---

Everyone has to have a job. That is just a sad fact of existence. Many of us wish that there was something that we really love to do that could provide enough income to live on. A lot of people can think of one thing that they love that much, and try to figure out how to make it pay (enough). I actually have two things.

Everyone here knows that I am a writer (not a very successful one, but I do pull in a few grand each year from my writing). If I could make enough doing that to pay the bills I would never punch a time clock again.

I also play poker. I’m good at it. When I play I make a lot of money. I am fairly confident that if I could play five times a week, I could easily make more than I do at my current job. I would love to do that; to be a professional poker player. But…

It’s the risk of the thing that slows me down. If I were single I would quit my job, and hit the road. Being married makes that harder to do.

But, I’ve been thinking. Maybe I don’t have to take the risk. Maybe I can start with a small stake, keep my job, play on weekends and try to roll up a big bankroll (and a little cushion). If I could accumulate enough to live on for a year, plus my bankroll, then I could possibly afford to play full time.

I start a week from today.




Tags (beta): poker, jobs, writing

Comments (18)

Nathan Tyree: Gunpowder Treason

---

Every Christmas day we watch The Shinning, which is the best Xmas movie ever. On Independence day we watch Jaws (“…you’ve got a panic on your hands on the fourth of July”). Last night we started a new movie tradition. V for Vendetta is a perfect choice for Guy Fawkes day.

If you haven’t seen V yet, I recommend it. This was my second viewing (about a year apart, I guess) and it stood up quite well.

And then there's This




Tags (beta): guy fawkes

Comments (7)

Nathan Tyree: Linguistic Muddles?

---

Something David said in the HRC discussion got me to thinking. He claimed that my usage of “average” was improper. That leads to this.

Wittgenstein (along with the Logical Positivists*) viewed Philosophy as a critique of language. The argued that philosophical “problems” actually arose from the vague and imprecise nature of language. Some went so far as to suggest that a perfectly constructed language would banish philosophical problems forever.

The question I pose is: were they right? Can we really view the mind-body problem or the question of free will simply as linguistic muddles? If I claim that you don’t have a soul and you disagree are we merely arguing semantics?

Anyone?



*Kant hinted at this sort of thing when he demolished Anselm’s Ontological argument by pointing out that existence is not a predicate.





Tags (beta): logic, language, philosophy

Comments (11)