In a podcast discussion, a man said that the correct attitude in playing poker – the one you should always strive to have – is that you are always even when the hand begins. No matter what has happened previously – play your hand for what it’s worth now.

He made sure to make a mental note to follow his own advice. It is sound advice – one of those things that’s easy to grasp intellectually, but damned hard to put into practice as players unconsciously and constantly struggle with the concept.

It’s never easy to see your play as one long poker game. Engaging in some deep poker pondering this week the speaker put all his efforts to understand game theory,

He said that he was re-reading a discussion of applications of game theory and ended up pondering Emmanuel Kant’s categorical imperative which states:

“Act only on such a maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

While the intention behind the imperative is aimed at the principles of morality, it got him to wondering what would happen if it was applied to the decisions we are faced with when playing poker. Was it even applicable? The following example of Kant’s imperative he mentioned further intrigued me.

“Always borrow money when in need and promise to pay it back without any intention of keeping the promise”

If you try to follow this maxim logically, you will discover that, whereas this maxim is beneficial to the individual, it cannot be regarded as a universal law – everyone would then be insincere that people would break promises, making them irrelevant, therefore they’d cease to exist. This maxim is nothing but a contradiction since, ultimately, it’s not in an individual’s best interest to break the promise. If you can keep a promise, why will you break it?

But is there a dictum for a poker player to act on that given that he is willed, could become a universal poker law? For the poker player it’s naturally his individual interest to try to make the correct decision on each hand. It is not in his vested interest for his opponents to do the same. Success in poker is dependent upon making wise +EV decisions while your opponents make -EV mistakes. If everyone is making the “correct” play all the time then, theoretically, at best you will break even over the long term. Right?

Poker, then, i assume, would seem to require a little chaos and unpredictability in order for the individual to achieve ongoing gain. Therefore, Kant’s categorical imperative isn’t applicable.

Even so, if you think about how far you have reached when it comes to playing poker, philosophizing the events and strategy you employed will really help since thinking deep about it will not only motivate you more to do well in a game, it will also help you understand your who or what you are in relation to poker.