Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="LongRover, post: 4461153, member: 278903"] [b]Showtime Poker[/b] [B]SHOWTIME POKER[/B] [B]Talk about an interesting game. Not sure it is anything more than a passing fancy. Not sure how to approach it either. These are my thoughts. Maybe someone can review them and correct my thinking where needed...[/B] [B]Showtime Poker can be engaged from various perspectives on variance. I think the classical one is best - Variance is the difference between expectations and outcomes. Another viewpoint from which Showtime Poker can be played is the mathematical one. This approach posits that definitions don't matter. Its adherents see variance as a solvable quantity reflecting the variation of deviations from standard values, and they play usually through the application of diverse probability theories. [/B][B]The classical approach needs fluidity to deal with the informational overloads of the visible discards, and it can respond effectively to this challenge. The same variants create distractions in time, in the game itself and in calculations with mathematically-oriented probability theorems. In other words, doing the math takes peoples' minds off the game. If such is correct, I'm not sure that initially the best methodology is to let mathematical formulations blindly account for the impact of an unknown numbers of extra variants on the relationships between hole cards, community cards, the board and visible discards. In the early stages of the game, it seems like the best calculator for its exploration is the human mind itself. This makes sense because Showtime Poker, as one first goes into it, is an unknown and dynamic entity and, as such, it leaves a lot of room to ponder what theorem is best suited to be used within it.[/B] [B]On the other hand, it is expectations that are fluid in poker, especially as this applies to the definitional structure of variance, but not always recognized as such. In NLHE, for instance, expectations can be born in an instance as when a player is dealt AA, KK or QQ as hole cards. Or, they can die just as quickly as when a player's hole cards are 72 off-suit, J2 off-suit or K2 off-suit. The above face cards are amongst the best hole cards in NLHE; the off-suited cards are amongst the worst. It is easy to understand why those dealt these face cards play on in the expectation that the outcome might be a win. It is just as easy to see why those dealt the off-suited cards would fold in the expectation of a loss. [/B][B]Every player, regardless of perspective, has expectations. Whether the decision is to fold or to continue to play on, players are simply following expectations with respect to what they think the outcome will be. They will continue to play on until their expectations change. Only those who expect to win play on due to the perceived relationship between hole cards and those dealt respectively at the flop, turn, river, and in a matter of speaking during Showtime Poker, the visible discard stages. This relationship, seen through the eyes of players with experience, knowledge, skill, strategy and appropriate decision making can, and does, change expectations.[/B] [B]If a player who has played on is dealt trash cards respectively at the flop, turn or river - he may fold at any one of these stages because his expectations of winning decrease. If a player is dealt executable cards through the same stages, his expectations to win or having a good outcome can, in fact, increase. This is what I mean by the fluidity of expectations. [/B][B]This fluidity is nowhere more apparent in Showtime Poker than when a player, after viewing and accounting for the impact of the visible discards, make a decision to fold or to play on. [/B] [B]As in any game, expectations change for the better or worse as poker games continue through their stages. By implication, as expectations change, so does a player's perceptions of outcomes, especially as this applies to Showtime Poker. In its stages, especially from later positions, a player views extra discarded cards, and coupling these with what is in his hand as well as those revealed upon the board, expectations can react in a positive or negative manner. Their viewing impacts upon expectations and therefore upon perceptions of outcomes. [/B] [B] The difference between Showtime Poker and say, for example, NLHE, is not that expectations and outcomes are statically inter-twined, but rather that, as helpful as these extra discards can be in terms of reformulating relationships between hole cards and those upon the board, they also present in such a way that chaos can result wherein there is no guarantee that there will not be a difference between expectations and outcomes and no guarantee otherwise. Thus, in moving forward, the game almost forces a player up onto the cliff-edge of variance and to become part of a gambit within a gamble - an overall action typically entailing a degree of risk that is calculated to gain an advantage - or in the case of Showtime Poker - possibly not - because there is really no telling what the other player has, at least, in many situations.[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us