Deductive Reasoning

[Rondavu]

I was wondering if anyone has really gone deep with the method of increasing their deductive reasoning ability through exercises/problems to improve poker skills. I consider this my natural strength in Hold-em, but I've really never augmented it through rigorous application of deductive concepts and problems. Has anyone investigated or tried this? Discuss...

[Rondavu]

here are some quick examples. I'm sure most of you are familiar...

Problem 1: Every time a batter reaches first base, the next batter hits a double. Every time a batter hits a double, the runner on first scores. Jon reaches first base. What can you deduce about Jon?

Problem 2: When the sun shines, the grass grows. When the grass grows, it needs to be cut. The sun shines. What can you deduce about the grass?

Problem 3: Jim is a barber. Everybody who gets his hair cut by Jim gets a good haircut. Austin got a good haircut. What can you deduce about Austin?

Problem 4: All dogs are mammals, and all mammals are vertebrates. Shaggy is a dog. What can be deduced about shaggy?

Problem 5: Why is the following example of deductive reasoning faulty? Given: Khaki pants are comfortable. Comfortable pants are expensive. Adrian's pants are not khaki pants. Deduction: Adrian's pants are not expensive.

[Fortune 500]

Problem 1: Every time a batter reaches first base, the next batter hits a double. Every time a batter hits a double, the runner on first scores. Jon reaches first base. What can you deduce about Jon?.

Who in the blue hell is Jon?

Problem 2: When the sun shines, the grass grows. When the grass grows, it needs to be cut. The sun shines. What can you deduce about the grass? .

The grass is going to need cut?

Problem 3: Jim is a barber. Everybody who gets his hair cut by Jim gets a good haircut. Austin got a good haircut. What can you deduce about Austin? .

He possibly, but not necessarily went to Jim. Other barbers can give good haircuts, too.

Problem 4: All dogs are mammals, and all mammals are vertebrates. Shaggy is a dog. What can be deduced about shaggy?.

Shaggy is a vertebrate.

Problem 5: Why is the following example of deductive reasoning faulty? Given: Khaki pants are comfortable. Comfortable pants are expensive. Adrian's pants are not khaki pants. Deduction: Adrian's pants are not expensive.

Comfortable pants are expensive... but we know nothing of uncomfortable pants. it's a leap of logic.


What do I win?

[chardrian]

So are you looking for places to find deductive reasoning problems or are you simply wondering if this helps your poker game?

Rondavu is an FTR member. All FTR members who make posts about deductive reasoning are (fill in the blank). What can you deduce about Rondavu?

[dalecooper]

I think the ability to do deductive reasoning definitely helps your poker playing, but I don't know how much generic exercises are helpful. I like specific hand reading exercises, such as "what is his range of hands pre-flop," "what is his range of hands on the flop," etc. The late, lamented, semi-lamentable ScubaChuck posted a good one.

[chardrian]

I think the ability to do deductive reasoning definitely helps your poker playing, but I don't know how much generic exercises are helpful. I like specific hand reading exercises, such as "what is his range of hands pre-flop," "what is his range of hands on the flop," etc. The late, lamented, semi-lamentable ScubaChuck posted a good one.

Although no one knew this was a hand reading exercise to start - here is another not so bad one.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ic.php?t=24572

[Rondavu]

Player A has value bet every made hand up to this point. Player A leads out all in deep and covering you on a river that completes a flush after check calling every street. You have top two pair. Do you call?

I think I'm starting to make a point for deductive reasoning that extends beyond hand range.

[edudlive]

Problem 3: Jim is a barber. Everybody who gets his hair cut by Jim gets a good haircut. Austin got a good haircut. What can you deduce about Austin?

Problem 3 is unsound if the answer they/you want is that Austin got a haircut from Jim

1) Hondas are Japanese
2) This car is Japanese
3) Therefor, this car is a Honda.

This doesn't follow, this the fallacy of affirming the consequent I believe.

Problem 5: Why is the following example of deductive reasoning faulty? Given: Khaki pants are comfortable. Comfortable pants are expensive. Adrian's pants are not khaki pants. Deduction: Adrian's pants are not expensive.

1) Khaki pants are comfy
2) comfy pants are expensive
3) Adrian's pants are not khakis
4) Therefor are not expensive

Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent

[EricE]

Player A has value bet every made hand up to this point. Player A leads out all in deep and covering you on a river that completes a flush after check calling every street. You have top two pair. Do you call?

I think I'm starting to make a point for deductive reasoning that extends beyond hand range.

Clearly this read helps in poker and it is clearly in the same format as those above. So, does it follow that practicing deductive reasoning outside of poker improves deductive reasoning in terms of poker? Sure, but practicing deductive reasoning with specific poker hands would likely improve you faster.

[Rondavu]

Player A has value bet every made hand up to this point. Player A leads out all in deep and covering you on a river that completes a flush after check calling every street. You have top two pair. Do you call?

I think I'm starting to make a point for deductive reasoning that extends beyond hand range.

Clearly this read helps in poker and it is clearly in the same format as those above. So, does it follow that practicing deductive reasoning outside of poker improves deductive reasoning in terms of poker? Sure, but practicing deductive reasoning with specific poker hands would likely improve you faster. ?

I don't really know. I hope so.

[boost]

here are some quick examples. I'm sure most of you are familiar...

Problem 1: Every time a batter reaches first base, the next batter hits a double. Every time a batter hits a double, the runner on first scores. Jon reaches first base. What can you deduce about Jon?

Hes about to RBI'd in. and hes a damn fast runner to do this, heh.

Problem 2: When the sun shines, the grass grows. When the grass grows, it needs to be cut. The sun shines. What can you deduce about the grass?

its growing and will soon need to be cut?

Problem 3: Jim is a barber. Everybody who gets his hair cut by Jim gets a good haircut. Austin got a good haircut. What can you deduce about Austin?

He looks mighty spiffy today? he left a nice tip?

Problem 4: All dogs are mammals, and all mammals are vertebrates. Shaggy is a dog. What can be deduced about shaggy?

Hes a mammal and a vertebrate?

Problem 5: Why is the following example of deductive reasoning faulty? Given: Khaki pants are comfortable. Comfortable pants are expensive. Adrian's pants are not khaki pants. Deduction: Adrian's pants are not expensive.

Just because a pair of expensive pants are comfortable, does not necessarily mean only expensive pants can be comfortable. exp: All black guys have big cocks, this does not make the cervix bruisers club exclusive to peoples of african decent.

[ProZachNation]

This man sees his new neighbor in the front yard so he goes over and decides to introduce himself.
New neighbor "I am a professor of deductive reasoning"
"Whats that"
"Well for example you have a dog house therefore you probably have a dog, since you have a dog you probably have a wife and child, and since you are married I can deduce that you are a heterosexual"
"Wow thats really amazing"

The man than goes to talk to his other neighbor
"Hey Joe you got a dog?"
"No"
"Your a fag"



Something like that

[dsaxton]

Player A has value bet every made hand up to this point. Player A leads out all in deep and covering you on a river that completes a flush after check calling every street. You have top two pair. Do you call?

I think I'm starting to make a point for deductive reasoning that extends beyond hand range.

This really isn't an application of deductive reasoning, though. You're finding a probabilistic relationship between two things, but the relationships aren't necessary.

This is an interesting topic which I've thought about some myself. I've noticed that a lot of the reasoning that's used by poker players is actually somewhat faulty, in particular when it comes to making "negative inferences."

Many times players will often reason as follows: "In limit holdem, Player A usually raises when in position with a flush draw, so since he didn't raise this time, he probably doesn't have a flush draw." This sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument, but it's actually faulty. Notice how it's entirely possible (although somewhat fantastical) that Player A always raises when he doesn't have a flush draw, in which case you could actually deduce with certainty that this player does in fact have a flush draw. This is a very extreme situation, but I think it illustrates the point well. The only way you can answer the question of how likely your opponent is to have a flush draw is the frequency with which he has a flush draw when he calls the bet, not simply that he usually raises with a flush draw, and that he didn't raise this time, since this gives no information about the statistical connection between calling a bet and having a flush draw. It just so happens that players tend to call with a lot of other hands which together tend to be dealt more often (which makes that range of hands more likely) which makes this faulty argument accidentally arrive at the right conclusion.

I think what this is a misapplication of the reasoning where you infer "if A implies B, then ~B implies ~A," which is entirely true when dealing with necessary connections, but not when the connections between ideas are statistical.

[Lukie]

Player A has value bet every made hand up to this point. Player A leads out all in deep and covering you on a river that completes a flush after check calling every street. You have top two pair. Do you call?

I think I'm starting to make a point for deductive reasoning that extends beyond hand range.

Couldn't you just say to yourself, "self, Player A has played every made hand agressive. He has played very passive this hand, until he overbets (presumably) the pot when the river brings a scarecard. Self, do we really need the language of deductive reasoning to figure out what this should mean?"

[Toad13]

here are some quick examples. I'm sure most of you are familiar...

Problem 1: Every time a batter reaches first base, the next batter hits a double. Every time a batter hits a double, the runner on first scores. Jon reaches first base. What can you deduce about Jon?

Jon is running on a 3/2 pitch with 2 outs or Jon steals 2nd then runs home on a simple double.

[Rondavu]

Player A has value bet every made hand up to this point. Player A leads out all in deep and covering you on a river that completes a flush after check calling every street. You have top two pair. Do you call?

I think I'm starting to make a point for deductive reasoning that extends beyond hand range.

This really isn't an application of deductive reasoning, though. You're finding a probabilistic relationship between two things, but the relationships aren't necessary.

This is an interesting topic which I've thought about some myself. I've noticed that a lot of the reasoning that's used by poker players is actually somewhat faulty, in particular when it comes to making "negative inferences."

Many times players will often reason as follows: "In limit holdem, Player A usually raises when in position with a flush draw, so since he didn't raise this time, he probably doesn't have a flush draw." This sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument, but it's actually faulty. Notice how it's entirely possible (although somewhat fantastical) that Player A always raises when he doesn't have a flush draw, in which case you could actually deduce with certainty that this player does in fact have a flush draw. This is a very extreme situation, but I think it illustrates the point well. The only way you can answer the question of how likely your opponent is to have a flush draw is the frequency with which he has a flush draw when he calls the bet, not simply that he usually raises with a flush draw, and that he didn't raise this time, since this gives no information about the statistical connection between calling a bet and having a flush draw. It just so happens that players tend to call with a lot of other hands which together tend to be dealt more often (which makes that range of hands more likely) which makes this faulty argument accidentally arrive at the right conclusion.

I think what this is a misapplication of the reasoning where you infer "if A implies B, then ~B implies ~A," which is entirely true when dealing with necessary connections, but not when the connections between ideas are statistical.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you're saying. I think I blew a fuse on the second paragraph. I definately think you're right. Granted I'm not half as smart as a few people in here. I'll try my hardest to post some thoughts. I agree that poker doesn't actually have any true deduction. With incomplete information, this makes a logically sound end result impossible. Given that, probabilistic is all we can hope for. I think if you disregard the imperfect sum of thoughts you make decisions with, everything else is deductive and most of the time highly effective if executed right. So the difference between good and bad players is exactly related to how they mesh out the inevitably faulty logic they're making decisions with. This is why I laugh at starting hand selections and run of the mill advice. The real meat is in the barometer of the atmosphere around you in terms of players, styles, immediate history with opponent, Opponent emotion (are they tilting), and a whole cornocopia of other elements that are there for the deduction into an imperfect sum, a sum which becomes more and more correct depending on how well you're measuring the poker atmosphere around you.

I think good players are aware that other people at the table are not only capable of, but are most likely throwing out a superior group of sensers to arrive at good decisions, taking tight reads. So that's why it becomes RELATIVELY possible to beat the better players for a good rate the same as you did the bad players by changing your game into a host of manipulations of their read on you, instead of or as well as your previous domination of your own read on more inferior players who are only playing their cards. In essence this is the shelf. The next level. The required process by which to win big. I want to be careful here, because I'm really pushing my fairly new knowledge to the limit, and hope you would correct me if you see something strange in my thinking.

[Rondavu]

Player A has value bet every made hand up to this point. Player A leads out all in deep and covering you on a river that completes a flush after check calling every street. You have top two pair. Do you call?

I think I'm starting to make a point for deductive reasoning that extends beyond hand range.

Couldn't you just say to yourself, "self, Player A has played every made hand agressive. He has played very passive this hand, until he overbets (presumably) the pot when the river brings a scarecard. Self, do we really need the language of deductive reasoning to figure out what this should mean?"

You just used a language of deduction. It was just your own version. If he never plays draws passively, and always value bets the made hand, then should I believe he played this draw passively and went all in when his draw completed?

[dsaxton]

I think you can sometimes use pure reasoning in poker with respect to the cards themselves, since the constitution of the deck is assumed given, but in general you're making inferences where you draw some conclusion about someone's cards or their future actions based on previous actions, and there are no necessary connections between the two in either case. That is, it's logically possible for a person to be holding the highest possible range of hands given some action (but, however, if you're holding the ace of hearts, you could deduce with certainty that your opponent isn't holding the ace of hearts if there's assumed to be only one in the deck), and it's possible for any individual to act in every concievable way in the future given past tendencies. That's why it becomes important to rely on statistical reasoning rather than pure logic in most situations.

[Rondavu]

I think you can sometimes use pure reasoning in poker with respect to the cards themselves, since the constitution of the deck is assumed given, but in general you're making inferences where you draw some conclusion about someone's cards or their future actions based on previous actions, and there are no necessary connections between the two in either case. That is, it's logically possible for a person to be holding the highest possible range of hands given some action (but, however, if you're holding the ace of hearts, you could deduce with certainty that your opponent isn't holding the ace of hearts if there's assumed to be only one in the deck), and it's possible for any individual to act in every concievable way in the future given past tendencies. That's why it becomes important to rely on statistical reasoning rather than pure logic in most situations.

Well stated. I have a new understanding. I must say that I see a lot of posts based on the premise of foregoing logic in the name of statistics. I've never been a huge fan of it. I just think you're losing a lot of edge by playing this way. You hear the old ramblings of "Put it all in with a set. It's +EV", or "All in preflop KK everytime regardless of action". "+EV +EV +EV Bla Bla" These to me are statements void of logic. They definately fall in line with the comparison you're exposing. Have I ever folded KK preflop? I can't remember ever doing so, but that doesn't mean I don't think a situation will come where I find it reasonable. I can tell you right now that I'm an above average player. I win a crapload of money. I can also tell you that I should have won more in that time, but I chose a path that declined that outcome for the sake of learning how to read people, but not being excellent at it quite yet. I've become much better, but I'm not killing the game yet. I've always refused to make my decisions based on +EV or statistical reasoning. I've always made them on reads and reads alone. I respect pot odds and all the math to a certain extent of course, but to me it's a mind game, not a math game. It's about what my opponents trying to do, and do they notice what I'm doing? Please tell me this will make a better player in the longrun. That's where all my focus is.

[fade177]

here are some quick examples. I'm sure most of you are familiar...

Problem 1: Every time a batter reaches first base, the next batter hits a double. Every time a batter hits a double, the runner on first scores. Jon reaches first base. What can you deduce about Jon?

Problem 2: When the sun shines, the grass grows. When the grass grows, it needs to be cut. The sun shines. What can you deduce about the grass?

Problem 3: Jim is a barber. Everybody who gets his hair cut by Jim gets a good haircut. Austin got a good haircut. What can you deduce about Austin?

Problem 4: All dogs are mammals, and all mammals are vertebrates. Shaggy is a dog. What can be deduced about shaggy?

Problem 5: Why is the following example of deductive reasoning faulty? Given: Khaki pants are comfortable. Comfortable pants are expensive. Adrian's pants are not khaki pants. Deduction: Adrian's pants are not expensive.

These are all logic problems, and being a philosophy major, that was one of my required courses.

#1) 1. F -> D
2. D -> S
3. F
4. F -> S 1, 2 H.S. (Hypothetical Syllogism)
5. S 4,3 M.P. (Modus Ponens)

#2. 1. S -> G
2. G -> C
3. S
4. S -> C 1,2 H.S.
5. C 4,3 M.P.

#3. The only thing you can deduce is that Austin got a good haircut, you cannot prove he got it from Jim. There is more than one barber that can give good haircuts. This is inductive reasoning if you believe he received a haircut from Jim.

#4. 1. (x)(Dx -> Mx) & (x)(Mx->Vx)
2. (x)(Dx->Mx) 1 Simp. (Simplification)
3. (x)(Mx->Vx) & (x)(Dx -> Mx) 1 Comm. (Commutation)
4. (x)(Mx->Vx) 3 Simp.
5. Da -> Ma 2 U.I. (Universal Instantiation)
6. Ma -> Va 4 U.I.
7. Da-> Va 5,6 H.S
8. (x)(Dx -> Vx) 7 U.G. (Universal Generalization)

#5. Is faulty because we did not state that other styles of pant are comfortable, thus qualifying them as expensive. The opposite is not necessarily true, in fact in logic a false entailing a false is still true...

and there ya have it....