Poker becomes a subject at Harvard Law School

carfax

http://www.casino-online.com/articles/poker-at-harvard-law-school.htm

This is probably old news to people on here but;

The rehabilitation of poker has certainly reached its peak with the introduction of Charles Nesson's Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society at Harvard Law School, considered one of the most prestigious schools in America and worldwide.

Charles Nesson introduces poker at Harvard Law School
In recent years, poker strategies were adopted as a subject of study in the departments of several business universities. Now, Harvard Law School, one of the most prestigious law departments in the United States is taking a leadership role thanks to one of its professors.

The introduction of poker at Harvard Law School is the result of professor Charles Nesson’s initiative. As part of his commitment to poker as education, Nesson also founded GPSTS, the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society, an association which has four main goals:

* 1. To create poker chapters in universities all over the world.
* 2. To organize seminars, lectures and discussion groups to examine poker as a means to teach strategic thinking.
* 3. To sponsor poker focused meetings between business, law and other professional schools.
* 4. To organize lectures which educate professors on applying strategic thinking in poker to university courses.




Poker is more than just a game. It is one of the best ways to teach skills essential to succeed in life.

Poker gives life lessons
Nesson believes that poker is a game of skill that represents an excellent teaching tool on an academic level. During a lecture at the university, he argued that, “Poker is more than just a game. It is one of the best ways to teach how to conduct negotiations, how to assess risks, how to develop strategic thinking and other skills essential to succeed in life.”

Nesson is also one of the most active defenders of online poker liberalization in the United States. He plays poker, and on several occasions has played with his students.

Professor Nesson playing poker with students

Online poker brings benefits too
Andrew Woods, executive director of the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society founded by Nesson, is a graduate of Harvard Law School and professor of economics at Harvard College, along with being an avid poker player. Woods argues that poker has allowed him to develop the skills that have helped him to overcome the acceptance tests to university. “Instead of getting lost in the details of each question asked in the LSAT (a law exam), I used the strategy learned playing poker to identify in a short time the crux of the matter."

Woods argues that even playing online poker brings benefits: more and more people do online business and conduct online negotiations. “Typically,” says Woods, “people considered smart and successful in their lives tend to be good poker players too.”

mdiver

The problem that many poker players have is they think that there is a an aspect of poker relative to pretty much anything to do on life. I think poker can be studied at university level but i think we will see it covered in economic degrees. I haven't read many poker books but surely the things guy is talking about to do with poker relating to business are covered by pretty basic Game Theory which should be in most poker books, if it isn't then there is something new for poker players to study.

fatguy

Not commenting on this idea specificaly, but Nesson is a nutjob. See: His ludicrous attempt at a defence of Joel Tenenbaum.

hotspur

He did a Google talk a couple of years ago on poker and teaching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icGaDA0hLMk

Interesting thing about it is the riddle around 12 minutes in and how it shows that really none of them are good poker players or good game theoretic thinkers. Watch it and see if you can appreciate why they have it all wrong with the solution.

RedJoker

hotspur wrote: »

He did a Google talk a couple of years ago on poker and teaching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icGaDA0hLMk

Interesting thing about it is the riddle around 12 minutes in and how it shows that really none of them are good poker players or good game theoretic thinkers. Watch it and see if you can appreciate why they have it all wrong with the solution.

I thought the interesting thing was that it took them 11 minutes to get an answer to the riddle.

Jesus Wept

I heard that Nesson overvalues top pair.

hotspur

So for any of you who have watched the riddle - why do I say that the solution is a bad one from a game theoretic perspective?

YULETIRED

hotspur wrote: »

So for any of you who have watched the riddle - why do I say that the solution is a bad one from a game theoretic perspective?

It is quite possible that a higher level thinker may trick someone to call out their hat colour , he may see white but allow the other player to think he must have red if they both leave thier hand up. The guy calls himself red and you pounce


maybe I need to give it some thought on my drive to Limerick

hotspur

Actually I think this is a good exercise for everyone to engage in if they are reading this thread.

ocallagh

if all three are equally intelligent, we have to assume they will come to the same conclusion at roughly the same time giving you a 1 in 3 chance of becoming the next queen. However by gambling and just guessing red or white right off the bat you give yourself a 50:50 chance

YULETIRED

so if you are all equally intelligent will you not all work this out at roughly the same time and also gamble taking the 50/50 shot. If this is the case the riddle is in itself flawed snd you are correct. So the riddle should be to explain how you got your answer and not what the actual answer is. Red or White? or how do you actually KNOW? I will look in with interest on Sunday night to see iif there is anothr angle on this. I think O'call nailed it though.


An Angleshoot.:D
The wording of the riddle just says you take the blindfold off and put your hand up if you see a red or white hat. You then have to put your hand down when you are ready to declare your own hat colour, well seen as it actually says nothing about taking the hat off your head and looking at it, you could angle shoot your way to the crown.

hotspur

The riddle itself is fine for what it is, and it even illustrates the fundamental point Nessan was making, but from a simple game theoretic perspective it is a suboptimal strategy.

O'Callagh is spot on, and I think there is a lesson to be learnt from this point. When you are competing where time is a factor and outcomes limited then being clever and taking the time to work out the correct solution may be -EV.

I was going to come up with a specific example of the application of this to something in life, but how about we just say it applies TO LIFE. I think I'll call it the Pacman principle.