"Feel" Player vs Math Player

Is this thread the most informative that the forum has to offer on the subject?

I Was kind of hoping that there would be something with a little more meat to digest.

I'm obviously new here so still learning the 2+2 ropes, but am already starting to get the feeling that this place is mostly filled with users whose game is 90% Maths.

Not looking to start another round of volleys, but I am genuinely interested in how those that are so inclined balance their Intuition vs Math at any given point in a hand.

The last post on this thread before you commented was from 12 years ago, so I don’t think the thread is necessarily indicates anything about the average 2+2 user today.

I also think assuming most 2+2 users are primarily “math players” is pretty off base. Most players in general today have some level of foundational strategy to their thought process. But the dialogue here is hardly high level GTO crusher back and forth.

I’d say the majority of users range from recreational to “poker hobbyists,” the play a decent amount, they watch and engage poker pretty frequently online, but they’re not really crushers or trying to become crushers.

To answer your question, intuition/feel/whatever is just an additional data point to input into the math. You start with a fundamentally sound strategy, and adjust it incrementally when you think you have a reliable read. For example, you’re in a bluff catching situation that at base feels close to breakeven , but you’ve noticed villain is a little tilted and earlier streets action make it possible they’re missing some of the value hands that beat you, so you call.

But the idea that people are doing the Mike McDermott and they’re just gonna outplay this guy this hand, and they’re taking actions entirely based on what they feel like villain has this exact hand, and that kind of thing is winning in modern poker is complete nonsense

Hello

Good question, and you’re not alone. A lot of players go through this when moving from a “feel-based” style to a more mathematical approach.

It’s not really one or the other. Strong players combine both. Math gives you a solid foundation, while intuition helps you adjust and exploit opponents.

The drop you’re feeling is normal. At first, the game feels less natural, but over time math becomes automatic and your intuition actually improves on top of it.

The key is finding the balance between theory and real-game adjustments.

This is exactly what we focus on in our work — helping players connect theory with practice and build a strong, adaptable strategy.

You can check some examples here:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/290/c...

If you want, we can review your database and point out where you can improve. First review is free.

honestly I think the best players are somewhere in the middle. pure math guys miss exploits that are staring them in the face and pure feel guys make icm mistakes they dont even realise. the edge is knowing when to trust each one imo

I think that’s a misnomer. Math is not just GTO. Math is calculating probabilities and expected values in general. Exploitative play IS mathematically based. It’s a deviation from GTO, but a deviation that can be properly calculated mathematically. Does my opponent fold too much in a given spot? Yes, so I should bluff more often in that spot, but how much more often? Math!

My opponent fails to narrow his calling range sufficiently against larger than standard opens. I should open larger, but how much larger? - Math!

Yes, we always have complete information about our opponents’ strategies, so some degree of estimation is needed, but that doesn’t mean our deviations to exploit should just be a matter of “feel”. Math can calculate proper deviations to exploit given a particular non-GTO strategy.

I’m pretty sure what we call “feel” or “instinct” is just the fact that we will often get into situations where the math is too complex and difficult so we use various heuristics to guide us. Think of a baseball player catching a fly ball. If we knew the initial velocity vector of the ball, the fielder wouldn’t have to track the ball off the bat and watch its trajectory. Theoretically he could calculate the path of the ball and run to the spot where it will land without watching the ball. Of course in the time he has to do this and with incomplete information that he has, it won’t work that way. But catching a fly ball is still inherently “math”. You could theoretically program a robot (assuming it can move fast enough) to catch a fly ball based on its sensors providing exit velocity information and a calculated trajectory. No “feel” involved.

And where does having a strategy (or a plan before the cards are dealt) for a hand fit into all of this?