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
What do you mean by small? It's well over 25%
If I had to guess it would %35 winners %30 brake even or very near it and %35 losers.
This is not even a debate but it's crystal clear Van either does not play poker or just clueless about the true knowledge of the game.
play a bit..won small tourneys in 7 states......online has been run over by poker bots.....
I perfer tourneys.....cash is a better way to pick off poor players....
great players make no mistakes.....very good players make a few more mistakes....
luck can reward anyone.....
can you make a small llifestyle out of it...yeah but it makes a hobby work
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.
i dont play poker, but im just curious how you relate "skill" to monitoring line movements, line shopping and bet selling. i dont see any "skill" in any of these things. you can teach a monkey to search for lines all day and sell off when its appropriate.
and from my experiance in vegas, there are many more "geeks" who hang around sportsbooks than poker rooms.
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 understand what you are saying bro, but I dont think it has to be all or nothing. To say that once you get to a certain "threshold" you are at that level forever is incorrect.
Sure, most people have the poker basics down but there is more than 2 levels as you described. Of course tournament poker is "hard to beat". First, its you vs 50-5,000 people, wheras sports gambling is 50/50 (win or lose for the most part).
I think the best possible comparison I can make is that poker tournaments are like hitting parlays, several things have to happen for you to win. You are gonna miss most of the time, if by one team or one hand.....but, if you hit one it covers all the rest.
Sports betting is not easier or require more skill imo. Sports betting requires patience, mm and judgment because there are so many things/ways to bet on things.
I dont hear of very many professional sports bettors. Hitting 55% is considered good, and that gets you a minimal profit. There are many factors involved with both poker and sports betting to say that you cant get better with experience.
I dont think you can simply label poker as a luck game or a game of threshold.....its not that easy.
i dont play poker, but im just curious how you relate "skill" to monitoring line movements, line shopping and bet selling. i dont see any "skill" in any of these things. you can teach a monkey to search for lines all day and sell off when its appropriate.
and from my experiance in vegas, there are many more "geeks" who hang around sportsbooks than poker rooms.
Thank you... People really want to act like there is more skill involved in sports betting... I'm not saying there is less skill but rather that when gambling luck will always be a factor no matter what and really vanzack just has a biased opinion.
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.
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.
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
I dont like this post...its actually horrible. "Probably" 90-95% luck?? Probably not.....
"99% of the time you're not folding aces preflop"....actually thats 100% of the time....
If you are ahead 90% of the time, then in the long run you will win 90% of the time. Of course this means you might lose 1,000 times in a row, but the math is correct and given an adequate timeframe that % will be much closer to true.
The thing is you are almost NEVER 100% guaranteed to win post flop.....
If you think its 95% luck then try playing without looking at your cards 95% of the time and tell me how that works for you
So let me recap my position and a few comments directed at the previous 25 posts or so:
1. Im posting at covers because this is where I post. Im not interested in getting a rah rah poker response that I would get at twoplustwo, I was interested in real opinions.
2. I make the argument that poker is a threshold skill.
3. The threshold might change over time, which is what a lot of posters here are confusing with "increasing skill". You might need more skill today than 10 years ago, or different skill - but there is no discernable difference in skill between players above the threshold.
4. And most importantly, there is no correlation between results and increased skill above the threshold. If there was a correlation, we would see longterm consistent results amongst those above the threshold - which I dont believe we do.
5. Poker has a vested interest in keeping the glamorous feel and look - it is a TV spectacle that appeals to every get rich quick without working joe. Without these "B group" players, poker cant survive.
That is my position.
BTW - I used to play quite a bit of tournament poker, know my way in and out of the game, and Im pretty sure (Im guessing, but have been told) that I am a winning lifetime player. Not that any of that matters, but some seemed to insinuate that I must be a bitter loser or have no knowledge of the game. Anyone who knows me knows I thoroughly examine all gambling opportunities - to the point of exhaustion.
So let me recap my position and a few comments directed at the previous 25 posts or so:
1. Im posting at covers because this is where I post. Im not interested in getting a rah rah poker response that I would get at twoplustwo, I was interested in real opinions.
2. I make the argument that poker is a threshold skill.
3. The threshold might change over time, which is what a lot of posters here are confusing with "increasing skill". You might need more skill today than 10 years ago, or different skill - but there is no discernable difference in skill between players above the threshold.
4. And most importantly, there is no correlation between results and increased skill above the threshold. If there was a correlation, we would see longterm consistent results amongst those above the threshold - which I dont believe we do.
5. Poker has a vested interest in keeping the glamorous feel and look - it is a TV spectacle that appeals to every get rich quick without working joe. Without these "B group" players, poker cant survive.
That is my position.
BTW - I used to play quite a bit of tournament poker, know my way in and out of the game, and Im pretty sure (Im guessing, but have been told) that I am a winning lifetime player. Not that any of that matters, but some seemed to insinuate that I must be a bitter loser or have no knowledge of the game. Anyone who knows me knows I thoroughly examine all gambling opportunities - to the point of exhaustion.
I'm not really arguing with you, but to get a correct correlation the tournaments would have to be roughly the same (types of players and number of players). Each tournament is different and the field is different. Thats like betting on a baseball team but they arent gonna tell you whos pitching....
I think you're trying to get a concrete answer from an absract concept. I dont think there is a finite limit or threshold to how good you can be. There is no substitute for practice and experience in poker as in life.
I'm not really arguing with you, but to get a correct correlation the tournaments would have to be roughly the same (types of players and number of players). Each tournament is different and the field is different. Thats like betting on a baseball team but they arent gonna tell you whos pitching....
I think you're trying to get a concrete answer from an absract concept. I dont think there is a finite limit or threshold to how good you can be. There is no substitute for practice and experience in poker as in life.
Im really not trying to get a concrete answer to anything. I posted my opinion, and looked for discussion. Im not stating facts, Im stating my position and asking for people to debate me.
If there is no finite limit, why dont we see guys winning year after year? Why does Tiger Woods win at golf for 10 years, and we have no poker player who is clearly better than everyone else? If the top 100 players sat down at a poker table for a tournament - would the real odds of winning be anything other than 99-1 on everyone?
Im looking for someone to give me something other than an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. My evidence to back up my position is that we dont see dominant tournament poker players - and therefore I come to the conclusion I do - that poker is a threshold skill.
i dont play poker, but im just curious how you relate "skill" to monitoring line movements, line shopping and bet selling. i dont see any "skill" in any of these things. you can teach a monkey to search for lines all day and sell off when its appropriate.
and from my experiance in vegas, there are many more "geeks" who hang around sportsbooks than poker rooms.
I would like to meet your monkey. He is better than 99% of people who attempt gambling.
Im really not trying to get a concrete answer to anything. I posted my opinion, and looked for discussion. Im not stating facts, Im stating my position and asking for people to debate me.
If there is no finite limit, why dont we see guys winning year after year? Why does Tiger Woods win at golf for 10 years, and we have no poker player who is clearly better than everyone else? If the top 100 players sat down at a poker table for a tournament - would the real odds of winning be anything other than 99-1 on everyone?
Im looking for someone to give me something other than an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. My evidence to back up my position is that we dont see dominant tournament poker players - and therefore I come to the conclusion I do - that poker is a threshold skill.
Fair enough.
Its hard to compare poker and sports. Tiger wins because he pretty much plays against the same 100 or so guys and uses the same clubs and balls. Would Tiger still be that dominate if he was given a club at random from 52? What if he had to play a tournament vs 6000 people?
Also, every hand in poker is different. You start with different cards or number of opponents or position. Its easy to say there is a threshold, but I dont believe that to be the case. Its trying to master the math, your gut, the ev, the situation, your chips, picking up tells, being patience, not going on tilt, timing, making tough laydowns etc.....I think that the threshold for each person may exist, but that doesnt mean it exists for poker skills on the whole....
I think people get luck and chance mixed up. You can be the best poker player in the world and someone still has a chance to beat you. Its a game, not a sport. You or me could never beat MJ one on one or hit better than Pujols. So people that say poker is all luck are incorrect. The math or percentage to get that card is in theory stretched out to infinity. So when you lose 3 times in a row as a 4-1 favorite it doesnt mean you were "unlucky", its just the law of averages or, chance.
bravo
you can be the greatest poker player in the universe plaing the worst player in the universe, if you dont get good cards, your going to lose, case closed. If your the greatest golfer in the world playing the worst golfer in the world, the greatest golfer is probably going to win 99 out of every 100 matches, thats the differecne between being a skilled player in something other then poker. The grestest golfer doesnt need luck to win, as where the greatest poker player still does need luck to win. Some will never understand this thou, because they love poker so much or their just to hard headed.
bravo you can be the greatest poker player in the universe plaing the worst player in the universe, if you dont get good cards, your going to lose, case closed. If your the greatest golfer in the world playing the worst golfer in the world, the greatest golfer is probably going to win 99 out of every 100 matches, thats the differecne between being a skilled player in something other then poker. The grestest golfer doesnt need luck to win, as where the greatest poker player still does need luck to win. Some will never understand this thou, because they love poker so much or their just to hard headed.
as an outside observer............i'd say ,,,,,,,,,,,,case closed
good thread though 
bravo you can be the greatest poker player in the universe plaing the worst player in the universe, if you dont get good cards, your going to lose, case closed. If your the greatest golfer in the world playing the worst golfer in the world, the greatest golfer is probably going to win 99 out of every 100 matches, thats the differecne between being a skilled player in something other then poker. The grestest golfer doesnt need luck to win, as where the greatest poker player still does need luck to win. Some will never understand this thou, because they love poker so much or their just to hard headed.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
