In my opinion, your intuition improves the more you understand the game. In order to understand the game better, you have to use logic. So logic should be the basis for intuition. I doubt top-players are constantly calculating implied odds etc., since they studied the game enough to know when to fold, call, or raise. Their intuition is as good as it is, because they played and studied so many hands.
Probability of winning psychological aspects
In poker, especially live poker, the best methods are the psychological analysis of opponents! Identification and forecast of further actions, this increases the chances of winning at times! Of course, I work in plastic surgery here cosmetic surgery, but I have a second degree in psychology and my friend with the same education wins in poker in 80% of cases when playing online!
In poker, especially live poker, the best methods are the psychological analysis of opponents! Identification and forecast of further actions, this increases the chances of winning at times! Of course, I work in plastic surgery here cosmetic surgery, but I have a second degree in psychology and my friend with the same education wins in poker in 80% of cases when playing online!
Intuition is a "gift" from nature
You can NOT develop "intuition" it's a gift, you either have it or not! Intuition is the native intelligence, you either have it or not, it's nothing to develop, if you do not have you have to rely only on the wining chance percentage!Serg77 said:
Without the requisite logic you won't have any intuition. Experience and "table tuition" will help develop intuition but won't develop logic..poker isn't a linear game that follows an ABC pattern. Patterns exist and it's up to everyone to exploit them when noticed. If you're better at noticing these things and acting on them then you'll be more successful. If everyone at the table notices the same thing then you're out of luck.
Hello, good evening, in my opinion a little of both is required, the logic used depends on the player and your position. If you see a player who is very, very aggressive, you try to get as much information as possible from him, seeing how he bets and if the other teammates accept it. of the table, normally very aggressive players 70% of the time are lying and if the table shows low cards and you have some pair even if it is low, accept the all-in, that I call intuition with a bit of logic because You are seeing how he behaves with the tables and if you already know the player, it is better and easier to know when he is lying.
I would say I think it's a combination, but I don't know.
I would give an example about raising from UTG. The logic is to raise from UTG with very good hands. So, if you think the UTG player has a really good hand, you're going to fold everything that isn't a very good hand. This makes his raise automatically profitable, because you're going to fold a lot (I don't know if it would really be profitable, it depends on the bet size too, but I think it would be).
So, by logic, you would lose money. But to counter that would be logic, not intuition.
I studied decision making in college and the difference between deliberate and intuitive decisions.
Intuitive decisions are more accurate in some ways because only the most fundamental information is considered to make a decision.
One study found that people better predicted NBA outcomes using intuitive decisions (vs. the group that had to come up with an explanation and predict the outcome), likely because they started thinking of less influential things in the outcome, or gave equal weight to different aspects. For example, when you look at the schedule and you see Knicks vs. Nets, you say Nets. If you start to analyze a lot, you can see that the Nets were playing in Los Angeles, so they might be tired, and you say, oh, I think the Knicks take this one. While this travel information is relevant, Kevin Durant carries more weight in determining the winner than the distance of the travel.
That said, I think you have to deliberate a lot, mainly because it will improve your intuition.
And there is a difference in the learning process. Explicit learning (reading things, watching videos, etc.) helps with deliberative decision making, and implicit learning (playing) further improves intuitive decision making. But implicit learning is not enough in more complex things (like poker). So you have to study (explicit learning) and play (implicit learning). And you will make deliberate and intuitive decisions. In the beginning you will deliberate a lot, make a lot of mistakes, but you will start to improve, understand things better and make more intuitive decisions. But intuitive decisions are not always better than deliberative decisions, so pay attention to this, so, with experience, you will understand at what points you should choose one or the other.
I would give an example about raising from UTG. The logic is to raise from UTG with very good hands. So, if you think the UTG player has a really good hand, you're going to fold everything that isn't a very good hand. This makes his raise automatically profitable, because you're going to fold a lot (I don't know if it would really be profitable, it depends on the bet size too, but I think it would be).
So, by logic, you would lose money. But to counter that would be logic, not intuition.
I studied decision making in college and the difference between deliberate and intuitive decisions.
Intuitive decisions are more accurate in some ways because only the most fundamental information is considered to make a decision.
One study found that people better predicted NBA outcomes using intuitive decisions (vs. the group that had to come up with an explanation and predict the outcome), likely because they started thinking of less influential things in the outcome, or gave equal weight to different aspects. For example, when you look at the schedule and you see Knicks vs. Nets, you say Nets. If you start to analyze a lot, you can see that the Nets were playing in Los Angeles, so they might be tired, and you say, oh, I think the Knicks take this one. While this travel information is relevant, Kevin Durant carries more weight in determining the winner than the distance of the travel.
That said, I think you have to deliberate a lot, mainly because it will improve your intuition.
And there is a difference in the learning process. Explicit learning (reading things, watching videos, etc.) helps with deliberative decision making, and implicit learning (playing) further improves intuitive decision making. But implicit learning is not enough in more complex things (like poker). So you have to study (explicit learning) and play (implicit learning). And you will make deliberate and intuitive decisions. In the beginning you will deliberate a lot, make a lot of mistakes, but you will start to improve, understand things better and make more intuitive decisions. But intuitive decisions are not always better than deliberative decisions, so pay attention to this, so, with experience, you will understand at what points you should choose one or the other.
Intuition is for live reads. Thinking the guy online doesn't have it is a great way to get wrecked time after time. Perhaps there's more value to intuition with physical proximity than online. The only way to really make a valuable intuition-based decision online would be to use a HUD, but that's not really your own intuition, is it?
Intuition in this game is a synonym for knowledge of the human nature, and some of us possess it to such a degree that it borders at the ability to read minds. You are meant to apply this knowledge in order to become a successful player, although you don't gain it from Poker but from your life experiences and social observations away from the tables. An unintelligent, gullible person will be thereby forever barred from being an exceptional player, no matter how accurate they follow the theory.
Intuition is like a talent, some have it, some don’t. But talent needs to be developed, otherwise it degrades. The brain also needs to be developed. Intuition based on logic and calculation is a talent in poker. I trust my intuition. But she I often get scammed..😀