Poker Players - do you think that poker is beatable longterm?

Tell me where I go wrong with this theory:

In tournament poker (not cash games, tournament poker only), it is impossible to be a longerm winner.  All "professional" poker players make their money through sponsorship or ownership of poker sites, and the tournament play is a negative on their cash flow statements.  Not one of them would "beat the rake" if they played long enough because you can only get so good at poker, and from there it is a lottery.

Go.

A follow up as to my motivation for making this post....

It is very popular these days (amongst lawmakers and poker players) to state that poker is a game of skill, and sports betting is not.

Poker is a game of skill, but IMO is a game of skill with a ceiling.  You can only get so good, and then you are the same as everyone else who is that good and randomness takes over.  So there are 2 groups of poker players, group A is not good enough to be in group B.  So if there are enough group A players, group B can be profitable.  IF there are only group B players, they beat each other up and the house is the only one who wins.

Sports betting for profit IMO requires MUCH more skill.  There are so many different things you have to manage to make money in sports betting - things like MM, arbitrage, line shopping, line movements, bet selling, and handicapping. 

It just bugs me every time I hear it - and it has come up a lot lately with the Barney Frank bill passing the Senate Comittee last week - it is popular to say it - and we have nobody lobbying for us - but it pisses me off.  Plus, poker players are geeks who think they are cool, and that bugs me too.

Tournament poker is absolutely impossible to beat.  Usually only around 10% of the field ends up cashing in a tournament and if you min cash or are towards the bottom you are just about doubling your money, maybe tripling.  So a 10% chance to triple your money is not where you want to be.  So your only making serious money if you win or place in the top 3, 5, 10 (depending on the size of the field)  I think everyone knows how hard it is to win or place high in a tournament, as you are risking your entire stack usually 5-6 times throughout the tournament.  Just don't see how it is possible to make money consistently doing this.

I am a pretty decent poker player...I'm up on cash games and single table tournaments...but I am way down on the big tournaments.  There are just too many bad players willing to put it all in on a draw that hit too many times.

try this in the poker forum...

 

most of the players on the tour are broke, poker is a game of skill , and thats why the same players are at the final tables, to survive you have to win tourney once a month, i ve had succes in tourneys, but just cashes, got sick of playin great for hours, then someone sucking out for all my chips,bottom line , i dont care what anyone says but to win tourneys you have to get lucky at least once,and then your cards gotta hold up.

there was an article in espn mag ( the one with rodgers on the cover ) that detailed the life on some player who plays in live tournaments for a living. it said this past year he grossed 1.5 mill before taxes and his expenses and entry fees totaled around 750K, but it said he writes most off it off. The 2 years previous years combined he only earned 450K.

Poker is a game of skill, Sports betting is a game oof skill too.

But for poker, tourney play you won't make money there. You can make it in cash games, IF YOU PLAY DISCPLINED. There will be bad days for you, you need ot just walk away. When I was in college, I made some big money playing with my theory...

 

I walked in and played with a set amount. If I lost it, I left and was done. If I was up, I kept playing. I maximized my good days, and minimized my bad days.

I dont believe it.

I believe you, but I dont believe the players statements.  Even if it were true, that is too short of a sample size - when I say longterm - more than 1 or 2 years because one or two big cashes can greatly sku that.

And even if the one guy is profitable, there are 10 that arent.

Just my opinion - but that is why I am asking the question - I want to be proven or debated to be wrong....

And does his "gross" include sponsorships and / or ownership stakes?

IMO - ESPN was the golden egg for tournament poker players - it got more fish involved - but more imporantly got SPONSORSHIP.  If Daniel Negranu breaks even or even loses on poker - he still makes a ton of dough.

I played my way (and still am) through school strictly in cash games.  Sure I can money in most tournaments, but that 4-6 hours of playing a tournament could have been better spent grinding in a cashgame.  There are some who can win one big tournament and be set for life, but for the others, the money is to be made in cash games.  A tournament is great every once in a while, but no where near the money cash games have (and not to mention a lot more fish in the cash games!).

I do very well in poker tournaments but I am one of the worst players/unluckiest at cash games. I think it may be a mind game with me. In tournament play I will put up $100, $500 or $1,000 & know that is all I can & will  lose if I play bad or get unlucky & there is a comfort to that which makes me play conservative at times & I dont force anything & I believe thats where I hold the advantage.

As for cash games, I will sit down with $500 or $1,000 & the guy next to me has $10,000 which starts to play mind games with me but in a tournament, we all start with the same amount of chips. I for one would rather lose a couple grand on a football game than play poker for a week & lose the same amount.

I'll stay with football

Oh, to answer your question. I know one guy that makes a living at poker locally but I always wondered if he moved out to Vegas, would he maek it. I suppose poker is beatable with weaker opponents but once you have the very best at the table, I think its all luck from there on out.

If this is a poll for which requires more skill... I say poker requires more skill, and add that sports betting requires more experience.

I agree with Vanzack, short term maybe a guy gets hot, the deck hits him and boom we have a winner. Long term I don't think that you could win in either format, cash(rake) or tournament ( having to survive all of the all in's that are coin flips and suck outs). I would bet that most of the "pros" make their nut from the web sites they represent and not actuall poker.

It's beatable in the sense that I am sure that there are some people who have won and there will be more people?  Long run?  Not sure what that term means.  In the long run we'll all be dead.

I think what you're saying is that while some are going to win, in reality it was still -EV for them, they just in essence got lucky and the "term" was short enough that they didn't reach that "long run".

Greg Raymer, a former WSOP champ had this this to say to a local sports talk host ;

"You have as good a chance at winning one hand of poker as I do. It's after 100 hands, that my experience will overcome the luck of the draw. "

What he doesn't elaborate on is your theory that the top 1000 poker players in the world are all equals and the games between them become more luck than skill.

Every hand is so based on the initial draw, and the cards that follow, that skill has very short limitations in this game, once you understand it.

There is a lot of blind luck as well. Assuming that your trip kings are a winning hand, but being unable to recognize that your opponent holds clubs with 3 of 5 showing on the table.

No arguments. Chance and luck are far more relevant to poker than to sports betting.

That is exactly what I am saying - continued with:

1.  You can only get so good at poker, at that point you are one of many and randomness determines success.

2.  Poker is only a game of skill in the context of THRESHOLD skill.  Once you reach that threshold, there is no skill difference.

3.  Politicians who say being profitable at sports betting is not skill are assholes.

This is what I mean about "group A and group B" players.  You are either one or the other.  But if you are a group B (skilled) player, you cant be better or worse than anyone else.

It is a threshold relevant skill.  Hit the threshold of skill, and you cant go further.

Vanzack - with this thinking do you believe that once you are a very experienced capper that you can never improve? Do you think all experienced cappers are on the same side every day?

Think about that when you think about group A and B poker players. You can always learn and add elements to your game.  While you can master the mathematics behind poker you can't master or comprehend how different it is with every person you play against and thats a skill that you cannot master. The top 1000 pros don't all play the same and they wouldnt stay at the top if their game didn't constantly change based on the opponent.

FWIW - I respect cappers and believe it take GREAT skill, experience, and luck.

But there is never a time where you know with certainty that you are favored to win at a 74%(just based on 2 random hands where 1 is favored to win 74/26) clip or whatever percentage as you know with poker.

Fair enough. I can accept that.

But I will counter with the following:  in practice, I dont think the results will back you up.  In other words, I dont think what you describe makes a material difference on results, or you would see a small slice of group b consistently beating everyone else.

I dont think we see that.  I think we see a VERY large pool of players who share wins, one year it is Negranu, one year Ivey, another year another guy or guys.....

Thoughts?

I just think when you get the 10 best playes at one table, its mostly luck.

I take that further by saying it is 10,000 instead of 10.  Or maybe 100,000.