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

I would argue that this is within the normal distribution plot you would expect when you analyze millions of poker players.  There are always going to be outliers, and it is very easy to pull one out and say "look at him".

Quote Originally Posted by be easy:

imagine that a whole boat load of anecdotes and people who swear they are good enough to 'win longterm'. is that what you expected vanzack?

poker is so fucking boring. you want a good experiment, let the 'B' group players play poker with a table full of other 'B' groupies that are actually blind. like can't see blind. the game is simple, the math is simple, and luck is certainly more of a factor in poker then in sports wagering.

ask The Giant. my dog could play him straight up in Texas Hold um poker and the dog could accidentally push all in and then chew up his cards, and the Giant would have the nuts and still fold. must suck to be such a mush that my grandma could bluff you out of a winner.

Its funny you posted - because I get the feeling all of these people are "fooled by randomness".

Of course there are going to be people who win 7 mil.  That is not the point.  That is normal distribution.  Is it directly correlated to skill level?  Is "Durr" really a BETTER and more SKILLED tournament poker player than everyone else?  I doubt it.  I would say he is the lottery winner this year, and next year it will be someone different.

Once again, a guy pointing to 20 guys who are winning playing tournament poker.

Until someone tells me that this is NOT a normal distribution - and that there is a correlation between skill and winnings (beyond the threshold) - Im not convinced.  You point out 20 winners, why not 20 losers?

The pros you mention are the "mutual fund connundrum".  Mutual funds - if looked at from an overall perspective - overall beat the market.  But why?  Mostly because the bad ones fold up after a couple of years and start over as something else - so the bad ones are not figured in with the good ones - skewing the overall results to the good.  Dont you think that those pros you mention belong in the same argument?  That they are only mentioned by you because they have won PREVIOUSLY, and you do not include in your list all of the pros who have lost and are no longer playing?

Until someone makes some kind of argument that poker results can be correlated to skill past a threshold - Im not buying any of this.  My counter-argument is that IF poker results were correlated to skill with no ceiling - you would see the same 10 "skilled" players winning more than everyone else - and that is simply not the case.

I know you poker players will say am wrong, but truthfully i believe poker is more a game of luck then skill. Am not saying there isnt some skill involved, like knowing which cards in your hand to keep and how to bet, but for the most part what cards you are dealt and what cards you draw, pretty much comes down to pure luck.

Just like blackjack card counters, they can count the cards all day long, but it still comes down to luck when that card is flipped over.

Its all random events and nobody can predict the outcomes.

I think it is a "threshold" skill.  Once you get to a certain threshold of skill - there is no more skill that will make you better or worse than anyone else.  So you end up with thousands of players who have reached the threshold, who split up winnings.

Now - if there are enough nonthreshold players in the mix to make the threshold players winners - then you have a longterm proposition.  But if you sit 1000 threshold players down at a tournament, you would see a normal distribution of winnings (or losings) longterm.

Thats how I see it.

Poker is not like other card games.  Hearts or gin rummy is mostly skill, whereas IMO, poker is 80% luck and 20% skill.  In Hold em, against GOOD players, the skill edge becomes negligible, and it comes down to who is catching flops and winning races.  Against BAD players, you will stay in the game in the long-run as they will quickly go broke, but that does not mean you will ever make decent money playing the game due to the huge luck factor. 

 Not saying you're wrong but BJ isn't a good comparison. The skill of poker comes down to reading other players & THEIR hands, not your own. You have opportunities/options in poker that you don't have in BJ.

 I'd say the overall % of long term winners in tourney poker are  roughly = to the % of long term winners in sports betting.

Reason i say poker is alot of luck is the simple fact that you can be the greatest poker player in the world, but if i keep getting dealt better cards{which is 100 percent all luck} then you arent going to beat unless i become a coward and you bluff me out of not playing my cards.  Bluffing people is where i believe you need some skill.

Bottomline is if i keep getting fullhouses and 4 of kinds, your not going to beat me, no matter how skillfull a player you are.

This is all just my own opinion about poker

exactly  once everybody is at the same skill level of the game, it all comes down to who gets the better cards, which is luck.

Yes, I know SOMEONE has to beat them, but the percentage is so small.  And all these pros that you talk about?  They have their buy ins paid for, so they can play in as many as they want, which makes it look so profitable for them.  If you stake an average to above average player in many tournaments, odds are hes going to place high in one of them and make it look like a profit, when in reality,, if he actually had to pay the entrance fee, he wouldn't be up nearly as much

You are still talking about "seasonality" - not SKILL.

If what you are saying is that you have to adapt to the latest trends in betting and strategy - fine - but that is not advancing your skill level.

You still havent addressed the main point - that there are hundreds if not thousands of players on Phil Iveys level - and that because he is a celebrity and has sponsorship and ownership - he is the guy you hear about - not because he is more "skillful" than anyone else - or that if being more skillful is even possible - that it has a direct correlation to results.

I am an avid poker player, but I would never consider it for a career because the odds of me winning consistently are minimal.  The way I see poker is this.  Winning requires luck.  Not losing requires skill.  No, the two are not the same.  If you are a very good player who is excellent at making reads, you can get away from big hands, fold flushes when you know that card that paired the board on the river gave your opponenet a full house.  But how do you win?  Regardless of how much skill you may have, you can't make the dealer give you aces (and even that gives you about an 85% chance of winning in its best situation).  You can't make your suited connectors flop a straight with a flush draw.  And most importantly, you can't stop your opponents from chasing draws and hitting even if you do everything right.  The skill in poker is in minimizing your losses.  You can always fold your hand, but you can't make your hand a winner.  Bluffing will not yield long term results.

As for the tournament poker debate.  It is impossible to win consistently at tournament poker; not anymore.  After moneymaker won the world series, poker exploded.  The average tournament has just too many players for anyone, regardless of skill, to win consistently.  Even if you don't need to get lucky to win, you still need to not get unlucky, which is just as difficult considering the volume of hands youll play in every tournament.  You have to avoid coolers and suckouts and play your best at the same time so you don't get it in behind.  There are way too many variables in poker.

Vanzack,  I can tell you first hand that I have a friend who has won over a million and a half dollars playing tournement poker and it is a combination of about 10 tournaments(range from 10,000 win to 500,000 win).

He is a very good player, with an excellent memory. I bring it up because it is not as if he just won it in one lucky tourney.

That being said, even he concedes that in tourney play skill goes so far and then you need luck.

Cash games are a way different story, where skill is most definetly a factor over the long run, especially when the limit stakes are higher or it is a no limit game.  Lo limit games often come down to random luck because people stay in the hand with anything or just sit there until they have the nuts.

Both poker and sports betting involve skill.  I will say that I feel money management in sports betting is almost as important as the handicapping. IMHO, neither one is all luck in the long run but can be total luck in a short sample.

That is the problem. All these people who say you can't win at poker arn't knowledgeable enough to understand you can constantly learn new things each day. There are so many different aspects to the game that people who can't win which is the majority of people say its just luck because its the easy thing to do. Your thread was made about tourneys so as long as your ONLY talking about tourneys yes I agree that you need way more luck. However you talk about how these 20 pros arn't always at the final table in tourneys that is fine but overall they are the greatest cash players in the game and have not went broke. That means skill your ego just won't let you admit it.

Also all this talk about your dealt the cards you get and then need luck on the flop. Unless your a newb there is something in poker called FOLDING and READING PEOPLE, just because your bad at it and can't improve doesn't mean others can't.

Well put

I'm pointing out the top 20 guys only to show how much you can make. These are just ONLINE only and they are making well into the hundred of thousands.

All with due respect, I cant you believe you are even aruging this. It's not even a question or even a debate.

So let me ask you this. You think they are thousands up thousands from vaious sites of professional ONLINE TOURNAMENT PROS by accident? How do you think it's possible.

100% Correct