The thought processes behind solid poker players pertaining to most games (especially the most popular craze, Texas Hold Em) are exactly the opposite of solid computer minds.
Computer systems at the core are designed to be deterministic; under the same conditions using the same process we expect the same result. The vigilant IT worker breaks down the workings of each individual system and almost (sometimes literally) mathematically deduces a problem and a course of action to fix it. Generally they are trained for X, do Y.
With the exception of limit Hold Em (the argument continues whether or not a computer could play winning limit hold em - it's very possible), poker players often explore many different "correct" plays for the same situation. Sometimes folding is just as good as raising (but it certainly increases the variance of your bottom line).
Also, often poker requires one to play counter-intuitively (ie, raising when you have nothing because there remains a significant chance that you will when all is said and done). While there probably are a few counter-examples, most computer systems are designed to be used and maintained intuitively (such that you are required to do what you will probably do on your first try, without help). The success of software packages in that area is debatable.
Overall, unless you're playing limit hold em, playing poker deterministically is usually a formula for failure, or at the very last, mediocrity, and even if you are, most players will figure you out in no time.
Successful approaches to IT and poker are not similar.
Slashdot Mirror
The thought processes behind solid poker players pertaining to most games (especially the most popular craze, Texas Hold Em) are exactly the opposite of solid computer minds.
Computer systems at the core are designed to be deterministic; under the same conditions using the same process we expect the same result. The vigilant IT worker breaks down the workings of each individual system and almost (sometimes literally) mathematically deduces a problem and a course of action to fix it. Generally they are trained for X, do Y.
With the exception of limit Hold Em (the argument continues whether or not a computer could play winning limit hold em - it's very possible), poker players often explore many different "correct" plays for the same situation. Sometimes folding is just as good as raising (but it certainly increases the variance of your bottom line).
Also, often poker requires one to play counter-intuitively (ie, raising when you have nothing because there remains a significant chance that you will when all is said and done). While there probably are a few counter-examples, most computer systems are designed to be used and maintained intuitively (such that you are required to do what you will probably do on your first try, without help). The success of software packages in that area is debatable.
Overall, unless you're playing limit hold em, playing poker deterministically is usually a formula for failure, or at the very last, mediocrity, and even if you are, most players will figure you out in no time.
Successful approaches to IT and poker are not similar.