CARDRUNNERS

What's Your Edge

JungleMan's Poker Blog

July 26, 2009

In Mike Caro's Book of Tells, there's a section in which two limit poker hands are dealt between the same group of players. In one hand there's all kinds of raising pf and postflop, while in the other virtually nothing happens in comparison. In both hands, the same flop, turn, and river comes, the players have the same hole cards, and yet the outcomes completely differ! This illustrates the fact that our actions have a certain probability to them rather than being certain, and in poker this phenomenon is very clearly and frequently witnessed. Avg winrate, among other things, is then derived from the summation of the averages of one's actions for every scenario...

By nature I've witnessed myself to be a moral (albeit egotistical) person, but also idealistic (in theory, not in habit :(). From the evolutionary perspective, morals exist because it so happens that the moral choice is often the most prudent; profitable--it yields the most utility/degrees of happiness/w/e. Ex1: We tend not to start fights (for no reason) because creating a problem for another results in the other responding negatively towards by a different tendency (selfishness), etc*. Ex2: We are kind to those that are kind to us because of the aforementioned different tendency (selfishness) because they have a positive bearing on our existence, so we do them favors because want them around.

However, there are clearly scenarios in which prudence appears to dictate that morals be abandoned. Ex: We have the opportunity to steal from someone you know, without him/her ever knowing. The clear choice, using prudence, seems to be to steal because stealing must yield a utility gain whereas not stealing yields a utility of zero. In spite of intellectually knowing this, I am certain that I could not bring myself to do this if I was ever in this circumstance. IE, the probability of me doing this is zero, or very close to it. As with other scenarios, my probability of doing the moral action is high, and it makes sense to think that/suggest that the probability of what I do in one scenario affects the probabilities of what I do in other scenarios (this makes sense almost no matter what perspective you choose). It then makes sense to think of morality as the probability for which we do a certain action in a certain scenario, and thus measured by this. Using this frame of reference, the question "is x the most moral/prudent choice in this instance?" becomes impractical; the more appropriate question is then "is x the prudent set of weighted probabilities (heart, if you will) to have when approaching this scenario?" Relating to the example, consider the fact that if you were to choose the immoral choice, it would imply that there was a possibility that you would perform immorally in your previous experiences as well as in your futures ones. Because immoral actions generally have a lower net utility than moral ones, it is at least likely that you actually incur a net loss by embracing a heart that enable you to choose to steal in this instance in spite of the fact that you actually gained utility in this instance! Therefore, (by this perspective) prudence likely dictates that the moral course is to contain a heart that chooses not to steal in this case. A poker world equivalent could perhaps be a case where doing a certain play might be +EV given very precise information, but the act of doing so implies -EV choices in the past as well as in the future (and also that humans are flawed**).

Before poker I imagined myself looking to solve some of the mysteries of the universe (those physical as well as currently philosophical). I was/am very good at math/science/academic X, often driven by the question of "Why?" Unfortunately I was/am really damn lazy and perhaps lacked/lack tangible incentive (in poker this is the WIN/MONEY). One thing I had one day hoped to discover is whether justice necessarily exists, or does not...

*Although we tend to think of human nature as bad, this perception seems largely a matter of heuristic. Statistically there is more tranquility than conflict, which not only debunks the notion that human nature is bad but also makes conflict more noticeable, giving rise to the heuristic that human nature is bad. Human nature being bad is also contradictory to evolution--conflict is (net) counterproductive to reproduction. Lastly, historically conflict on a larger scale (war) has decreased as time has gone on.

**This implies that trust in particular is bound by tendencies that cannot follow prudence to it's ultimate end (Max EV), and are therefore flawed. It's sick to think that imperfection yields a bond such as trust, and furthermore that prudence, when confined to said imperfection (which is necessarily so, because we are human) demands that we submit to imperfection--we are inherently, inevitably imperfect. Moreover, this phenomenon may actually yield the largest net gain for all individuals while possibly theoretically slightly detrimenting each individual's max EV (Perhaps the utility of trust is just higher on average than extra profit elsewhere) , which is profound considering it to be something derived by evolution. This actually seems reciprocal to at least one other aspect of our nature...

Entry Tags:

Jul 26, 09 09:32:26

what a load of rubbish

lets play poker FOOOL!

gilford1

Jul 27, 09 02:15:59

And I was thinking Haseeb's blogs were tough to read.

Blog more!!!

ECart

Aug 15, 09 04:54:15

Excellent blog, Jungle. Def' on another level...please keep contributing here & in the HU forum. It's greatly appreciated. I think you are "morally" obligated, imo. ;)

knox828

Nov 28, 09 12:31:01

"is x the most moral/prudent choice in this instance?" becomes impractical; the more appropriate question is then "is x the prudent set of weighted probabilities (heart, if you will) to have when approaching this scenario?"

LOL, you just re-invented mixed strategies :)

laegoose