This is a thought I have had but need help fleshing out.

Take a 100BB HUNL match (though could be any game type or no. of players). There are a number of bets, checks, raises etc throughout the match. A continuous interaction between poker players for a set amount of time (either short or relatively long).

Is there any legitimate way of viewing poker as a language? Or at least considering these checks and bets as the possible building of a primitive conversation?

Further q: is the above hypothesis effected if 2x bots are playing a HU match?

I fold.

please don't lock this thread

I suppose you could argue the more advanced a player is, the better they can communicate using bets. After being exposed to the game for a long time bet speed, size, timing are usually used to accurately convey the hand and how the bettor feels about the hand. Could that be considered language?

When Ive been in a really tough game it often feels like we're just talking our hands and feelings rather than making bets.

OK, step 1: define for me what a 'language' is.

Condensed google definition:

a system of communication by a group

...................
How about a HU match as a conversation (rather than a language)?

No.

Seeing as we have some of the world's best thinkers in the thread though they seem to be monosyllabic (for reasons I am keeping to myself), I will reword the q:

I am aware poker is a game but surely a HU match can be viewed in some other way than 2x players taking turns to take actions?

The interplay of the moves may be completely meaningless to a non-poker player but on the scale of average player to advanced the bets and checks for example can be interpreted as something more than solely a random move. And providing you have the inclination to get better, to understand the game more, [a bet] is considered more deeply than something just happens at this time (especially in big bet games).

If there is more to something than a random event occurring and more thought can be given to all actions, this has to signify...

Maybe poker is a dance?

HU poker is sex and I would like to be the rapist.
I fail most of the times.

I believe attempted rape is a crime as well in most Western countries.

Where are you?

I think poker does share some characteristics of written/spoken/computer languages, in much the same way that music does. The checks, bets, raises and folds that are listed in hand histories (or verbalised as part of bad beat stories) are somewhat akin to musical notation on a stave, or bits of HTML script that tell your PC how to display a webpage.

As evidence, I'd submit that a basic poker bot can 'understand' a simple txt file that uses algorithms like "IF hand = AA, RAISE POT. If hand = 72o, FOLD PRE".

You could also argue that chess uses a language of rules and structures that take a minute to learn and a lifetime to master, with only a small subset of humans being "fluent" in the language of chess. So maybe the playing of poker does constitute a "conversation". If so, I'm all ears.

For heads up play:

The worse a person plays poker, the easier it is to know what they hold when they take a set of actions, the more poker is like a language.

The better a person plays poker, the harder it is to know what they hold when they take a set of actions, the less poker is like a language.

Most of us fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

----

For multiway action:

As more and more players enter the pot, the need for deception is lessened to the point of negligence. Therefore it becomes much easier to understand what a set of actions means and poker is very much like a language in multiway situations.

Last 2x posters, thank you.

I think provisionally, I am leaning towards earlier poster's suggestion of it being like dance. He may have been sarcastic but like watching a ballet, you could either analyse it v deeply or not at all depending on your preference.

"I think I have better cards than you do"

"No I do so I raise"

"Ok I don't believe you I call"

Not that much of a language. To have a language you need to have enough letters, words or actions to make up a message. The highest information density poker has is like 4 options per action. Only if you mix in (almost) infinite betsizing as information can you make up enough information in an action.

More than one time i compare the late tournament stage with a filigran ballet...until one dumb moron disturbes the choreagraphy with such a stupid allin move. For a moment, it's a beautyfull picture. Then the monoton conversation goes in. Experience is the Syntax of this language.More Experience=More expression.

Is heads up poker a sword fight?

I think in certain situations chips can be used as a means to communicate an idea or thought to your opponent. Perhaps even to start a chain reaction to ultimately get your opponent to do something that you have planned. However, one is not able to predict if the opponent is being honest. Unlike words that are somewhat definitive, poker moves and actions are completely up to interpretation.

I wouldn't call poker a language as such but I would agree with most posters that it is some sort of interaction at best.

You can build a language using only 0s and 1s, so you can build a language out of any larger set of symbols. The complexity of the messages you can convey is constrained by the number of symbols you can use and the maximum length of the string of symbols.

That said, your line of inquiry is a waste of time. If you have to ask this question, then you're not ready to implement the answers you receive in any useful way.

I have not read his work myself, but this made me think of Ludwig Wittgenstein's characterization of language as a game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game_(philosophy) If you really want to dive into this analogy/theory, you should look there.