MATH VS. INSTINCT
 
 Which of the "skills" are more important - an understanding of the advanced mathematics involved in the game or the instinct to know the right play at the right time?

OK, this is a bit of a mischaracterization. It's probably not a choice of math versus instinct, but rather math WITH instinct.

Many of the early tournament stars - people like Johnny Moss, Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim and Puggy Pearson - were swashbuckling types. Often, they were hustlers from childhood, born into humble surroundings, who used games of chance as a way out of poverty, and sometimes doing just enough to stay one step ahead of the law or out of physical danger. For them, it was all about guts, savvy, and the ability to read their opponents. These guys were "gamblers" in the purest sense of the word; were well-suited for games like no-limit Texas Hold'em, utilizing their street sense to gain an advantage in games against the "squares." 

In recent years there has come to the fore a new generation of players, perhaps not accustomed to games where there was imminent danger, but committed to playing with a certain degree of precision, highly cognizant of the mathematical patterns that avail themselves in a deck of cards, well-schooled in the subtleties of psychology, products of an academic background, and yes, possessing nerves of steel. They abide by computer studies dealing with probability and statistics, powered by technology that simply didn't exist in the heyday of Moss, Brunson and others. Because of that, it is natural that they would have an approach to the game that would be considered much more scientific.

Many of them, in fact, don't even consider what they do to be "gambling," but a job, not unlike any white- collar executive. Phil Gordon, a pro player and formerly co-host of Bravo Network's "Celebrity Poker Showdown," told Bloomberg News, "I think of playing poker very much like the traders on Wall Street think about their jobs. A Wall Street investor who could pick six out of 10 stocks right would be probably the best stock picker in the history of the world. Likewise, if I can get my money into the pot with the best hand six out of 10 times, I am going to be the best poker player in the world. And it's a very fine line between that 60 percent and break-even that really determines who the best strategic investors are."

If there was a turning point, it came in the late 1970s, when the annual World Series of Poker, then held at Binion's Horseshoe Club in downtown Las Vegas, was beginning to make dramatic strides in popularity. A new group of players, with less experience but more formal education than their veteran counterparts, started to win important tournaments. Their early standard-bearer was Bobby Baldwin, who, at age 27, won the No-Limit  Texas Hold'em championship at the World Series.  Most of the old guard looked upon limit games as being more of a science, while no-limit hold'em, according to Brunson, required a lot more in the way of "heart," which was generally believed to be something keeping the more academic types away.  Of course, Baldwin dispelled that notion in '78 when he bluffed Crandall Arrington out of a $92,000 pot en route to winning the no-limit main event.

That was a signal of things to come. It is a given that the player can not rely purely on math at the table and be successful. Most of the game still involves reading "tells" on the part of opponents, evaluating positions, exercising self-discipline and laying out prudent money management. But the new breed of players not only had the mathematical approach going for them, they embraced each and every bit of it.  Science still has a prominent place, though. One still needs to be able to evaluate the cards in relation to whatever else is out there on the table. This principle would appear to be especially important in hold'em, with the first round of betting and raising coming before 60% of the player's potential hand is dealt. That involves percentages, and it provides a kick-start, if you will, in both no-limit and limit games.

Luck certainly has its place, but of course, in games of skill - like poker - that means less and less in the long run. Younger players may very well understand this concept better than the old guard.  Another difference is the attitude away from the table. The players of the latest generation have a tendency to think more of interests and investments that have little to do with the game itself, as the forward-looking pro athlete would, and less about throwing all their winnings into the next no-limit game looming around the corner. Poker players are famous for "busting out" every so often, but this generation seems to have taken more safeguards.

The next generation of players promises to bring even more of a "modern" approach to the game. After all, they will have been weaned on televised poker, where the commentators, working off the pre-edited material and advantaged by the lipstick camera, spew out each player's percentage chances of winning on every hand.  So clearly there's no end in sight.