Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="cardmaker, post: 3293974, member: 166369"] A lot of chess players become poker players. I include myself in this category. What do you think the immediate translateable advantages are, and what are the potential disadvantages if you think there are any? I look at it from a strategy versus tactics mindset. Tactics are individual positions and choosing the best move available. Strategy is an overall approach regarding equillibrium and advantage. For example, tactics are discussed when we talk about raising in a position, min betting, continuation bets, double barrelling etc. Strategy is discussed when we talk about ranges, when we talk about managing your stack size, tight vs loose, and aggression. There are also similarities in game styles You can trap people, which is an entirely situational approach, that requires an eye for tactics. You can weave strong narratives, utilise bluffs and table control, but this works best against loose players, and those with a tendency to overlook tactical advantage. You can utilise theories like Steinitz developed, which depend upon understanding a draw is a likely outcome if no one makes a mistake, therefor you do not attack until the opponent reveals a weakness, but develop effective defence (maintaining your blinds and overall solid play), once a weakness is revealled you seek to expand upon the advantage it gives to destabilise the player and not let them recouperate. This is purely strategic, but how brilliant you are at it depends on tactics. You can be an exploit creator, where you challenge solid theorists with unconventional plays, with low risk, high reward... set mining, playing suited connectors, manipulating pot odds, and putting pressure on the opponent to force a mistake or oversight. Or you can be a hybrid, like Nimzovich, who uses exploit creation in a solid way that adapts to changes in the climate. For example, if flops are following a trend to reveal overcards, flushes, straights, you stop playing pocket pairs, and reduce bet sizes on your made pair or two pair. Yet in climates where it is sedate you try to extract as much from a guy with bottom pair as possible. In chess you learn useful concepts too, like, the poison pawn. Where taking a pawn initially looks like a free meal, but works out to actually lose you material because of tactical disadvantage it brings. This is true in poker too... You can lose material, but gain tactical advantage, or gain material but lose tactical advantage. For example, you initiate an all in climate to a three way match where guys want to end it quickly, in order to use a big hand to wipe them out, you might intend to lose the first few bets but gain immense tactical advantage. Or how to spot the tactical weaknesses of opponents from their betting patterns. Or how to utilise tension to create mutual pressure on each other and plan out development and protection of material at the same time. I dunno, Chess definately warmed me up for poker though, letting me dive in much more head on than I would have otherwise because they are both games of near infinite possibilities and strategy What do you think of chess and how it applies to poker? And how much of an advantage do you think it really has? [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us