All this psychological blabla that should prove poker is more complicated completely disregards the fact that there are tons of possibilities to calculate in a chess game, and at the maximum 4-5 decision points in a poker hand, and having more than 2 decisions is already very rare.

wtf then pls explain to me why there are games that were analysed over and over by elite players and there is still no conclusion reached.

poker, i'll let others elaborate

This is wrong. Do you see why?

More seriously, I think something alone can 'prove' this really simply.

In poker, people expect for a few hours of coaching to completely reform their game and most people seem to think a month of constant coaching by cts, phil galfond or somebody would make you a world class player.

In chess, after a month of hard core coaching you're one foot closer on a mile long journey.

Seriously is there anything wrong with this metric? The shorter the period of time, on average, for one person of advanced ability to confer their knowledge to another person of lesser ability, the less complex the game is.

You are clearly WRONG, the fact you can't easily see what GLARINGLY wrong with your statement leads me to believe you do not have the ability to analysis the situation.

I can teach someone who knows nothing about chess in 5 minutes how to beat everyone else who does not know how to play chess in 4 moves.. EZ game right?


Chess has been played and seriously studied atleast a hundered thousands times more than poker thus the make up time for beginning chess players is WAY longer than a game like poker that has only been thought about in an openly studied for only a few years.

The competion for oppenents is chess is greater, the compitition for opponents is poker is less this does not determine which game is more complex.

Poker is by far more complicated in nonfixed betting structures with large blind to stack ratios than a linear game like chess.

This might be the reason, but probably is not.
And pls explain what a linear game is in your opinion. I think the fact that chess is predetermined from the beginning (no element of chance involved) and still far from solved proves its massive complexity. If it would be a linear problem, computers would have solved it already.

Another point is multitabling. A chess master suffers an enormous decline in strength if he is to play say 8 clocked games simultanously. A solid 2100 player has a decent shot here against a GM who would normally crush him. 8-tabling deepstacked NL holdem OTOH doesn't seem to be a big problem for lots of people.

doesn't have much to do with which game is more complicated. the poker player is likely exploiting fish and staying out of pots with skilled opponents while the chess master finds himself against 7 randoms and a very good player. he has to play the good player, he can't just pick on weaker players.

I agree with your conclusion but no smart person really thinks this.

Did anyone ever define what type of poker we're talking about? Seems a little unfair if we get to lump all forms of poker together and then compare them to standard rules chess. How about specifically heads up NLHE. Is that more or less complicated than normal chess?

HU NL 100BB deep (with bets in 1BB increments) is a minimum of 80 orders of magnitude less complicated than chess going by decision tree space.

.

How does that help clarify the discussion at all? Adding tournament strategy really has no place in the discussion since we're comparing the complexity of one game to another.

Chess is a game of complete information whereas poker has hidden information. The hidden information aspect can frustrate smart people who do not correctly deal with things being out of their control.

poker isn't being dealt one hand and deciding what to do. You should be thinking about previous and future hands. Your comment only shows how pathetic your understanding of poker is, which is standard poker is still in its infancy with respect to analitical play no reason to expect much understanding from you or anyone else.

Hidden information and hidden stratagy which leads to the complication of the game to be undervalued.

An adverage chess player can review a game of top players in chess and see the tatics being played out in the game.

After the fact in a chess game you can go back a see how a long combination of moves was set up to achieve a winning position in the game and relatively easily understand the players moves AFTER the game was played out. So the game is EZ to be impressed by because you can easily see the amazing tatics of the player right before your eyes.


However, if you review a poker match been players you can not understand what the players were thinking after the game is played out. You may think you understand but you don't, the thought process of the poker player is hidden in a poker game and so greatness or the reasoning can not be accurately valued because it is not able to be see.

Many people falsely think chess is more difficult because they can easily see the great tatics in it and falsely think poker is less difficult because they lack the perception to see the tatics being played out so they think the tatics are less because they are unable to sense them. Some who perception is even less think poker is next to pure luck and chance.

game-theory optimal poker strategy has nothing to do with the result of previous hands (other than chips and position for the current hand, obviously).

Let me just stop you right there. You're awfully ... confident in your opinions and dismissive of those who disagree with you. The problem is that you don't seem to understand very much about chess. That second statement above demonstrates this quite well.

Really? Nobody understands the depth of great poker strategy? Even after watching hundreds of videos where great players explain what they were thinking? Watching grandmasters analyze post-mortem was a hell of a lot more amazing when I was a novice (heh, even now for that matter) then the thought process involved in a session of poker. Whatever, I've wasted enough time on this. Perhaps you should get back to RGT where pseudo-intellectualism coupled with a huge dose of arrogance is acceptable.

just lol at Carded's last post. nothing riles me up more than a mix of condescension & ignorance

Yeah, that's obviously a moronic viewpoint to take if they believe one month of training will make them that good at poker.

You are wrong, it is dependent.

Sadly, your pathetic retort wouldn't even hold water in NVG in link a strawman. Maybe, you just naturaly suck at understanding chess and completly fail to see the hidden tatics in poker. Fine with me people like you assure poker is always going to be good.

NVG and RGT are calling you back.

Is this considered trolling or not? I'm not totally sure