Hey, man, the cinematic classic "Deal" with its tour de force performances by Burt Reynolds and Shannon Elizabeth showed me that with the right guidance and knowledge, I can be an formidable poker pro. Don't teabag my dreams.
By the way, someone referenced that ESPN Mag article. It had an interesting aside about how TJ Cloutier was in such a financial abyss, he had to pawn one of his WSOP bracelets. How he got into it, the article didn't explain. Safe to assume he didn't go the same route as Stu Ungar and blow it all on illicit pharmaceuticals.
0
Hey, man, the cinematic classic "Deal" with its tour de force performances by Burt Reynolds and Shannon Elizabeth showed me that with the right guidance and knowledge, I can be an formidable poker pro. Don't teabag my dreams.
By the way, someone referenced that ESPN Mag article. It had an interesting aside about how TJ Cloutier was in such a financial abyss, he had to pawn one of his WSOP bracelets. How he got into it, the article didn't explain. Safe to assume he didn't go the same route as Stu Ungar and blow it all on illicit pharmaceuticals.
I also disagree with cd329 and kitty, especially when it comes to money games versus large tournements. Better players will generally minimize losses and maximize wins and come out ahead for the year. Of course there are bad beats but it is not all luck. At my home game the best two or three players win consistently and the worse few lose consistently. It is not just money moving around the table. Skill prevails.
0
I also disagree with cd329 and kitty, especially when it comes to money games versus large tournements. Better players will generally minimize losses and maximize wins and come out ahead for the year. Of course there are bad beats but it is not all luck. At my home game the best two or three players win consistently and the worse few lose consistently. It is not just money moving around the table. Skill prevails.
Hey, man, the cinematic classic "Deal" with its tour de force performances by Burt Reynolds and Shannon Elizabeth showed me that with the right guidance and knowledge, I can be an formidable poker pro. Don't teabag my dreams.
By the way, someone referenced that ESPN Mag article. It had an interesting aside about how TJ Cloutier was in such a financial abyss, he had to pawn one of his WSOP bracelets. How he got into it, the article didn't explain. Safe to assume he didn't go the same route as Stu Ungar and blow it all on illicit pharmaceuticals.
lemonsky: Cloutier is completely sick for craps. That's his vice. Most guys won't lend him money any more
0
Quote Originally Posted by lemonsky:
Hey, man, the cinematic classic "Deal" with its tour de force performances by Burt Reynolds and Shannon Elizabeth showed me that with the right guidance and knowledge, I can be an formidable poker pro. Don't teabag my dreams.
By the way, someone referenced that ESPN Mag article. It had an interesting aside about how TJ Cloutier was in such a financial abyss, he had to pawn one of his WSOP bracelets. How he got into it, the article didn't explain. Safe to assume he didn't go the same route as Stu Ungar and blow it all on illicit pharmaceuticals.
lemonsky: Cloutier is completely sick for craps. That's his vice. Most guys won't lend him money any more
lemonsky: Cloutier is completely sick for craps. That's his vice. Most guys won't lend him money any more
I seen TJ playing craps at the RIO. He wasnt even playing big at all yet he found himself to go broke somehow. I can't imagine how high he use to play or how he lost his money. Wonder what's is like to play from sky high to 25 dollar chips.
TJ blowed his money on gambling not on drugs.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dude_Abides:
lemonsky: Cloutier is completely sick for craps. That's his vice. Most guys won't lend him money any more
I seen TJ playing craps at the RIO. He wasnt even playing big at all yet he found himself to go broke somehow. I can't imagine how high he use to play or how he lost his money. Wonder what's is like to play from sky high to 25 dollar chips.
"Poker Players - do you think that poker is beatable longterm?"
A) Cash Games - Of course. Anyone who does not think you can make a profit in the long term playing cash games knows nothing about gambling or Poker.
B) Single Table Tournaments - Yes. I actually only play single table tournaments online. Easy to mutli-table and once you master the concepts needed to play short handed tournament Poker you can make alot on money with these.
C) Multi-Table Tournaments - Not a chance in hell. Unless you win the WSOP Main Event...or some other huge score. Your odds of making money in the long term with MTT is pretty much non existent. 99% of people who play MTT will lose money in the long run. The skillset needed to be good at these is far over weighted by the shorterm luck that is invloved with these type of events. Meaning unlike single tables and cash games...your skill cannot guarantee you a positive ROI. The variance is way to freaking high.
The end.
0
"Poker Players - do you think that poker is beatable longterm?"
A) Cash Games - Of course. Anyone who does not think you can make a profit in the long term playing cash games knows nothing about gambling or Poker.
B) Single Table Tournaments - Yes. I actually only play single table tournaments online. Easy to mutli-table and once you master the concepts needed to play short handed tournament Poker you can make alot on money with these.
C) Multi-Table Tournaments - Not a chance in hell. Unless you win the WSOP Main Event...or some other huge score. Your odds of making money in the long term with MTT is pretty much non existent. 99% of people who play MTT will lose money in the long run. The skillset needed to be good at these is far over weighted by the shorterm luck that is invloved with these type of events. Meaning unlike single tables and cash games...your skill cannot guarantee you a positive ROI. The variance is way to freaking high.
ill say one thing and that is this ....most of the time even in big live tournys the reason you see alot of the same players at the top of leader boards or final tables is because the cream rises to the top and consistently . Sure some luck is involved but most of the time you can play the game and come out way ahead if you know what you are doing . I agree with weathered what he said but even in multi table tournys you can and the same ppl usually do profit
0
damn i just found this thread
very interesting
ill say one thing and that is this ....most of the time even in big live tournys the reason you see alot of the same players at the top of leader boards or final tables is because the cream rises to the top and consistently . Sure some luck is involved but most of the time you can play the game and come out way ahead if you know what you are doing . I agree with weathered what he said but even in multi table tournys you can and the same ppl usually do profit
gonna have to disagree with you here. that's what makes good poker players good. they have the ability to get bad players off their hands
You missed the first posts i made. I said the skill in the game comes from bluffing and making people with better hands fold, but as far as what cards get dealt to each player, that is 100 percent luck, unless some how your going to tell me the player with the skill can use those skills to have the cards he wants dealt to him, lollllllllllll.
0
Quote Originally Posted by yuice20:
gonna have to disagree with you here. that's what makes good poker players good. they have the ability to get bad players off their hands
You missed the first posts i made. I said the skill in the game comes from bluffing and making people with better hands fold, but as far as what cards get dealt to each player, that is 100 percent luck, unless some how your going to tell me the player with the skill can use those skills to have the cards he wants dealt to him, lollllllllllll.
You missed the first posts i made. I said the skill in the game comes from bluffing and making people with better hands fold, but as far as what cards get dealt to each player, that is 100 percent luck, unless some how your going to tell me the player with the skill can use those skills to have the cards he wants dealt to him, lollllllllllll.
i apologize, i did not see your other posts. you are totally correct
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
You missed the first posts i made. I said the skill in the game comes from bluffing and making people with better hands fold, but as far as what cards get dealt to each player, that is 100 percent luck, unless some how your going to tell me the player with the skill can use those skills to have the cards he wants dealt to him, lollllllllllll.
i apologize, i did not see your other posts. you are totally correct
"Poker Players - do you think that poker is beatable longterm?"
A) Cash Games - Of course. Anyone who does not think you can make a profit in the long term playing cash games knows nothing about gambling or Poker.
B) Single Table Tournaments - Yes. I actually only play single table tournaments online. Easy to mutli-table and once you master the concepts needed to play short handed tournament Poker you can make alot on money with these.
C) Multi-Table Tournaments - Not a chance in hell. Unless you win the WSOP Main Event...or some other huge score. Your odds of making money in the long term with MTT is pretty much non existent. 99% of people who play MTT will lose money in the long run. The skillset needed to be good at these is far over weighted by the shorterm luck that is invloved with these type of events. Meaning unlike single tables and cash games...your skill cannot guarantee you a positive ROI. The variance is way to freaking high.
The end.
Your flat wrong about C. There are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of professional MTT players in the world. Online and live my guess would be least 50,000. Those are just the MTT PROS.
How do you think those players always win? How do you think those guys keep their ROI on the positive side?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Weathered:
"Poker Players - do you think that poker is beatable longterm?"
A) Cash Games - Of course. Anyone who does not think you can make a profit in the long term playing cash games knows nothing about gambling or Poker.
B) Single Table Tournaments - Yes. I actually only play single table tournaments online. Easy to mutli-table and once you master the concepts needed to play short handed tournament Poker you can make alot on money with these.
C) Multi-Table Tournaments - Not a chance in hell. Unless you win the WSOP Main Event...or some other huge score. Your odds of making money in the long term with MTT is pretty much non existent. 99% of people who play MTT will lose money in the long run. The skillset needed to be good at these is far over weighted by the shorterm luck that is invloved with these type of events. Meaning unlike single tables and cash games...your skill cannot guarantee you a positive ROI. The variance is way to freaking high.
The end.
Your flat wrong about C. There are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of professional MTT players in the world. Online and live my guess would be least 50,000. Those are just the MTT PROS.
How do you think those players always win? How do you think those guys keep their ROI on the positive side?
Your flat wrong about C. There are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of professional MTT players in the world. Online and live my guess would be least 50,000. Those are just the MTT PROS.
How do you think those players always win? How do you think those guys keep their ROI on the positive side?
I would suggest that those players win because they are part of a normal random distribution. Someone has to win, and someone has to lose, and the "pros" you speak of happen to be winning now - but in 5 years they will be losing.
For your 50K who are group A winners - there are 50K group A losers. Its pretty hard to find a list of pros who are losers. Why do you think that is?
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorInsight:
Your flat wrong about C. There are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of professional MTT players in the world. Online and live my guess would be least 50,000. Those are just the MTT PROS.
How do you think those players always win? How do you think those guys keep their ROI on the positive side?
I would suggest that those players win because they are part of a normal random distribution. Someone has to win, and someone has to lose, and the "pros" you speak of happen to be winning now - but in 5 years they will be losing.
For your 50K who are group A winners - there are 50K group A losers. Its pretty hard to find a list of pros who are losers. Why do you think that is?
I would suggest that those players win because they are part of a normal random distribution. Someone has to win, and someone has to lose, and the "pros" you speak of happen to be winning now - but in 5 years they will be losing.
For your 50K who are group A winners - there are 50K group A losers. Its pretty hard to find a list of pros who are losers. Why do you think that is?
There are winners NOT by accident. They win by skill overtime. Muti Table tournaments are extremely beatable. Your really clueless about the true knowledge of the game.
It's hard to find a list pros who are losers? Are you being serious right now? The reason why they are called PROS is because they win. If they are losers, then they would not be called PROS.
Why do the same players win over the course of many years?
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
I would suggest that those players win because they are part of a normal random distribution. Someone has to win, and someone has to lose, and the "pros" you speak of happen to be winning now - but in 5 years they will be losing.
For your 50K who are group A winners - there are 50K group A losers. Its pretty hard to find a list of pros who are losers. Why do you think that is?
There are winners NOT by accident. They win by skill overtime. Muti Table tournaments are extremely beatable. Your really clueless about the true knowledge of the game.
It's hard to find a list pros who are losers? Are you being serious right now? The reason why they are called PROS is because they win. If they are losers, then they would not be called PROS.
Why do the same players win over the course of many years?
There are winners NOT by accident. They win by skill overtime. Muti Table tournaments are extremely beatable. Your really clueless about the true knowledge of the game.
It's hard to find a list pros who are losers? Are you being serious right now? The reason why they are called PROS is because they win. If they are losers, then they would not be called PROS.
Why do the same players win over the course of many years?
Sir -
You say they are winners NOT by accident. Based on what? They win by skill over time. Based on what? Multi-table tournaments are very beatable. Based on what?
All pros win? OK - then isnt being a pro a self fulfilling prophecy? If you win, you are a pro, if you lose, you are just a loser? Dont you see what you are saying here? There are no losing pros in the longterm?
Who are the players who win over the course of years? Are they the same guys who have sponsorship, are on commercials, and have ownership?
You threw out about 10 statements with NO BACKING of any of them whatsoever. I still make the position - and so far you or nobody else has been able to come forward and debate it - that poker tournament play is a threshold skill, and once you get above that threshold, you are exactly equal to everyone around you.
Go.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorInsight:
There are winners NOT by accident. They win by skill overtime. Muti Table tournaments are extremely beatable. Your really clueless about the true knowledge of the game.
It's hard to find a list pros who are losers? Are you being serious right now? The reason why they are called PROS is because they win. If they are losers, then they would not be called PROS.
Why do the same players win over the course of many years?
Sir -
You say they are winners NOT by accident. Based on what? They win by skill over time. Based on what? Multi-table tournaments are very beatable. Based on what?
All pros win? OK - then isnt being a pro a self fulfilling prophecy? If you win, you are a pro, if you lose, you are just a loser? Dont you see what you are saying here? There are no losing pros in the longterm?
Who are the players who win over the course of years? Are they the same guys who have sponsorship, are on commercials, and have ownership?
You threw out about 10 statements with NO BACKING of any of them whatsoever. I still make the position - and so far you or nobody else has been able to come forward and debate it - that poker tournament play is a threshold skill, and once you get above that threshold, you are exactly equal to everyone around you.
It's OBV that there are going to be winners and losers. If we are talking overtime, the winners are going to WIN by SKILL.
You obviously have an opinion, and you state that opinion over and over and over.
But you have no backing to anything you state.
Try posting something to back up your claims - because until you at least back it with some logic - you are just another guy with an opinion - which is fine - but not really going to make me or anyone on my side of the debate change our minds.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorInsight:
It's OBV that there are going to be winners and losers. If we are talking overtime, the winners are going to WIN by SKILL.
You obviously have an opinion, and you state that opinion over and over and over.
But you have no backing to anything you state.
Try posting something to back up your claims - because until you at least back it with some logic - you are just another guy with an opinion - which is fine - but not really going to make me or anyone on my side of the debate change our minds.
Why did Daniel Negranu have a great year in 2004, and nothing since?
Why dont we see anyone dominate poker like Tiger Woods dominates golf?
Jesus Ferguson was the greatest poker player in the world 10 years ago, why not now?
I would like to see a list of the top 10 players from every year for the last 10 years, and see how many repeat on that list year after year. My guess? NONE. Not one would be on the top 10 list for all 10 years, much less for 3 of the 10 years. What other "skill" sport or game would you see that? The answer is none.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Why did Daniel Negranu have a great year in 2004, and nothing since?
Why dont we see anyone dominate poker like Tiger Woods dominates golf?
Jesus Ferguson was the greatest poker player in the world 10 years ago, why not now?
I would like to see a list of the top 10 players from every year for the last 10 years, and see how many repeat on that list year after year. My guess? NONE. Not one would be on the top 10 list for all 10 years, much less for 3 of the 10 years. What other "skill" sport or game would you see that? The answer is none.
I agree with weathered to some degree. Cash games most likely to win and skill most prevalent. Single table is next and multi table tourney has most luck but still skill (this is where I do not agree as best players do more consistently cash).
Many people like the multi table because the individual event risk is low and they do not have to cash often to win. My friend who has won big does not play in too many cash games because he says"Since I got did well in the WSOP I will never give back a meaningful percentage of what i won buying into tourneys but i could get crushed if on a steamer in large cash games"
At a certain point the tourneys have luck but how you get in position is more skill than luck--minimize losses and maximize wins, and lets not confuse the fact that tourney play is way different than a significant cash game.
0
I agree with weathered to some degree. Cash games most likely to win and skill most prevalent. Single table is next and multi table tourney has most luck but still skill (this is where I do not agree as best players do more consistently cash).
Many people like the multi table because the individual event risk is low and they do not have to cash often to win. My friend who has won big does not play in too many cash games because he says"Since I got did well in the WSOP I will never give back a meaningful percentage of what i won buying into tourneys but i could get crushed if on a steamer in large cash games"
At a certain point the tourneys have luck but how you get in position is more skill than luck--minimize losses and maximize wins, and lets not confuse the fact that tourney play is way different than a significant cash game.
vanzack, my guess is both Negranu and Ferguson are winning money annually, just not at the top of the televised tourneys.
by the way, my friend who won big a few years ago bought into a few tourneys this year totalling about 20K and left Vegas with 60K. He finished well enough to make $$ but so far back overall you would never hear his name. Many pros do this all the time but only get noticed if final table or big hand featured.
0
vanzack, my guess is both Negranu and Ferguson are winning money annually, just not at the top of the televised tourneys.
by the way, my friend who won big a few years ago bought into a few tourneys this year totalling about 20K and left Vegas with 60K. He finished well enough to make $$ but so far back overall you would never hear his name. Many pros do this all the time but only get noticed if final table or big hand featured.
Why did Daniel Negranu have a great year in 2004, and nothing since?
Why dont we see anyone dominate poker like Tiger Woods dominates golf?
Jesus Ferguson was the greatest poker player in the world 10 years ago, why not now?
I would like to see a list of the top 10 players from every year for the last 10 years, and see how many repeat on that list year after year. My guess? NONE. Not one would be on the top 10 list for all 10 years, much less for 3 of the 10 years. What other "skill" sport or game would you see that? The answer is none.
because they reached the top of their skill level and now basically their luck has run out.
like i said in another post, the grewatest golfer in the world is probably going to win 99 out of 100 matches, probably 100 out of 100 if he plays the worst golfer in the world every game, but the best poker player in the world wouldnt beat the worst poker player in the world anywhere close to 99 out of 100 times and thats because the best golfer doesnt need any luck to win, where as the poker play does need luck to help him win.
Some people you will never convince thou, because they so much want to believe that poker is all skill, but its not. Poker is a random event and until that skill player can control what cards actually get dealt to him, it will always be a random event.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Why did Daniel Negranu have a great year in 2004, and nothing since?
Why dont we see anyone dominate poker like Tiger Woods dominates golf?
Jesus Ferguson was the greatest poker player in the world 10 years ago, why not now?
I would like to see a list of the top 10 players from every year for the last 10 years, and see how many repeat on that list year after year. My guess? NONE. Not one would be on the top 10 list for all 10 years, much less for 3 of the 10 years. What other "skill" sport or game would you see that? The answer is none.
because they reached the top of their skill level and now basically their luck has run out.
like i said in another post, the grewatest golfer in the world is probably going to win 99 out of 100 matches, probably 100 out of 100 if he plays the worst golfer in the world every game, but the best poker player in the world wouldnt beat the worst poker player in the world anywhere close to 99 out of 100 times and thats because the best golfer doesnt need any luck to win, where as the poker play does need luck to help him win.
Some people you will never convince thou, because they so much want to believe that poker is all skill, but its not. Poker is a random event and until that skill player can control what cards actually get dealt to him, it will always be a random event.
Why did Daniel Negranu have a great year in 2004, and nothing since?
Why dont we see anyone dominate poker like Tiger Woods dominates golf?
Jesus Ferguson was the greatest poker player in the world 10 years ago, why not now?
I would like to see a list of the top 10 players from every year for the last 10 years, and see how many repeat on that list year after year. My guess? NONE. Not one would be on the top 10 list for all 10 years, much less for 3 of the 10 years. What other "skill" sport or game would you see that? The answer is none.
Top 10? WTF!!! There are hundred of thousands of poker players in the world. You mean see a list of the top 100,000 in the year?
Daniel and Chris are still winning to this day. What in the world are you talking about?
Phil Ivey has been ranked in the top 10 in world the last 4 or 5 years. Why is that? 5 straight years. Why is he beating out hundred of thousands of poker pros every year?
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Why did Daniel Negranu have a great year in 2004, and nothing since?
Why dont we see anyone dominate poker like Tiger Woods dominates golf?
Jesus Ferguson was the greatest poker player in the world 10 years ago, why not now?
I would like to see a list of the top 10 players from every year for the last 10 years, and see how many repeat on that list year after year. My guess? NONE. Not one would be on the top 10 list for all 10 years, much less for 3 of the 10 years. What other "skill" sport or game would you see that? The answer is none.
Top 10? WTF!!! There are hundred of thousands of poker players in the world. You mean see a list of the top 100,000 in the year?
Daniel and Chris are still winning to this day. What in the world are you talking about?
Phil Ivey has been ranked in the top 10 in world the last 4 or 5 years. Why is that? 5 straight years. Why is he beating out hundred of thousands of poker pros every year?
You obviously have an opinion, and you state that opinion over and over and over.
But you have no backing to anything you state.
Try posting something to back up your claims - because until you at least back it with some logic - you are just another guy with an opinion - which is fine - but not really going to make me or anyone on my side of the debate change our minds.
I'm throwing facts at you left and right. What are you talking about? It's not my opinion, it's the truth.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
You obviously have an opinion, and you state that opinion over and over and over.
But you have no backing to anything you state.
Try posting something to back up your claims - because until you at least back it with some logic - you are just another guy with an opinion - which is fine - but not really going to make me or anyone on my side of the debate change our minds.
I'm throwing facts at you left and right. What are you talking about? It's not my opinion, it's the truth.
every person that i have ever talked to that plays poker regularly, does so because they think they can beat the game
you should have made the title : " Anyone have any poker anecdotes they'd like to confuse as facts?"
It's pretty simple
poker is a pool game, with a ceiling per event on the prize money available, so it's a fixed amount you can win. a fixed entry. hell blackjack is probably statistically more 'beatable' in the long run because you are playing against a virtual infinite bank
tenured poker players can figure out the statistical probability of playing or folding any hand based on the information they are given. for hold em, it is your two dealt cards. then the flop, river and so on. Everything else is random variables that, once everyone else has hit that threshold of information, you have zero control over
You could be going all in on hands where you have a 90% chance of winning and have a bad year 'luck'-wise and lose your ass on 'bad beats'
beatable is probably the wrong word. What you are looking for someone to argue is, wether or not there is a cap/threshold on the advantage one can make for themselves, if they are 'the best poker player in the world'. and obviously, there is a threshold. besides, poker is boring as hell
0
van what a stupid thread title
every person that i have ever talked to that plays poker regularly, does so because they think they can beat the game
you should have made the title : " Anyone have any poker anecdotes they'd like to confuse as facts?"
It's pretty simple
poker is a pool game, with a ceiling per event on the prize money available, so it's a fixed amount you can win. a fixed entry. hell blackjack is probably statistically more 'beatable' in the long run because you are playing against a virtual infinite bank
tenured poker players can figure out the statistical probability of playing or folding any hand based on the information they are given. for hold em, it is your two dealt cards. then the flop, river and so on. Everything else is random variables that, once everyone else has hit that threshold of information, you have zero control over
You could be going all in on hands where you have a 90% chance of winning and have a bad year 'luck'-wise and lose your ass on 'bad beats'
beatable is probably the wrong word. What you are looking for someone to argue is, wether or not there is a cap/threshold on the advantage one can make for themselves, if they are 'the best poker player in the world'. and obviously, there is a threshold. besides, poker is boring as hell
Easy--poker is much more beatable than table games. One thing that really needs to be seperated in this debate is No Limit and higher limit 20/40 or more money games versus tournements. tournements have way less downside risk and require much more luck to win. Skilled players will generally prevail in over time in money games. that being said, your comment about having the statistical edge and losing on a bad beat is very valid. the best players generally minimize the loss and maximize the win and are able to sustain a positive bankroll when bad beats are happening but the shorter the sample the more likely for variance.
0
Easy--poker is much more beatable than table games. One thing that really needs to be seperated in this debate is No Limit and higher limit 20/40 or more money games versus tournements. tournements have way less downside risk and require much more luck to win. Skilled players will generally prevail in over time in money games. that being said, your comment about having the statistical edge and losing on a bad beat is very valid. the best players generally minimize the loss and maximize the win and are able to sustain a positive bankroll when bad beats are happening but the shorter the sample the more likely for variance.
every person that i have ever talked to that plays poker regularly, does so because they think they can beat the game
you should have made the title : " Anyone have any poker anecdotes they'd like to confuse as facts?"
It's pretty simple
poker is a pool game, with a ceiling per event on the prize money available, so it's a fixed amount you can win. a fixed entry. hell blackjack is probably statistically more 'beatable' in the long run because you are playing against a virtual infinite bank
tenured poker players can figure out the statistical probability of playing or folding any hand based on the information they are given. for hold em, it is your two dealt cards. then the flop, river and so on. Everything else is random variables that, once everyone else has hit that threshold of information, you have zero control over
You could be going all in on hands where you have a 90% chance of winning and have a bad year 'luck'-wise and lose your ass on 'bad beats'
beatable is probably the wrong word. What you are looking for someone to argue is, wether or not there is a cap/threshold on the advantage one can make for themselves, if they are 'the best poker player in the world'. and obviously, there is a threshold. besides, poker is boring as hell
Very well said.
The SuperiorInsights and other poker apologists in this thread are missing - is the main point.....
That multi-tounament poker is a threshold skill and there once you get that skill, you are in a pool of players that all have a relatively equal chance of winning. You cannot increase your skill above the threshold, and even if you could that increase does not correlate to higher winnings.
Anecdotal evidence about friends who play, made up stats about Phil Ivey without some kind of reference, and peoples opinions about luck - are all great to talk about over a beer - but not really advancing this discussion any further. If I am wrong about the above statement, somebody please put together some kind of rational position and present it. Im not against hearing opinions, that is fine - but dont confuse them with facts. Telling me that "Phil Ivey has OWNED the poker world for the last few years" is nothing without some kind of reference. Those words mean nothing - and I imagine the vagueness behind them hides your insecurity about the potential truth - or just ignorance. Maybe it is true, but Im asking you to show me.
And if it is true, my argument would be that in 10 years, Phil Ivey wont be the player of the day, just like Negranu, Ferguson, Brunson all came and went - it was their time to fool the world with randomness - and today it is Iveys (if it actually is). Besides, the guy is a moron - Ive seen youtubes of his craps sessions - anyone who loses 1mil in an hour playing craps is either going to be dead or broke soon, no way around that.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:
van what a stupid thread title
every person that i have ever talked to that plays poker regularly, does so because they think they can beat the game
you should have made the title : " Anyone have any poker anecdotes they'd like to confuse as facts?"
It's pretty simple
poker is a pool game, with a ceiling per event on the prize money available, so it's a fixed amount you can win. a fixed entry. hell blackjack is probably statistically more 'beatable' in the long run because you are playing against a virtual infinite bank
tenured poker players can figure out the statistical probability of playing or folding any hand based on the information they are given. for hold em, it is your two dealt cards. then the flop, river and so on. Everything else is random variables that, once everyone else has hit that threshold of information, you have zero control over
You could be going all in on hands where you have a 90% chance of winning and have a bad year 'luck'-wise and lose your ass on 'bad beats'
beatable is probably the wrong word. What you are looking for someone to argue is, wether or not there is a cap/threshold on the advantage one can make for themselves, if they are 'the best poker player in the world'. and obviously, there is a threshold. besides, poker is boring as hell
Very well said.
The SuperiorInsights and other poker apologists in this thread are missing - is the main point.....
That multi-tounament poker is a threshold skill and there once you get that skill, you are in a pool of players that all have a relatively equal chance of winning. You cannot increase your skill above the threshold, and even if you could that increase does not correlate to higher winnings.
Anecdotal evidence about friends who play, made up stats about Phil Ivey without some kind of reference, and peoples opinions about luck - are all great to talk about over a beer - but not really advancing this discussion any further. If I am wrong about the above statement, somebody please put together some kind of rational position and present it. Im not against hearing opinions, that is fine - but dont confuse them with facts. Telling me that "Phil Ivey has OWNED the poker world for the last few years" is nothing without some kind of reference. Those words mean nothing - and I imagine the vagueness behind them hides your insecurity about the potential truth - or just ignorance. Maybe it is true, but Im asking you to show me.
And if it is true, my argument would be that in 10 years, Phil Ivey wont be the player of the day, just like Negranu, Ferguson, Brunson all came and went - it was their time to fool the world with randomness - and today it is Iveys (if it actually is). Besides, the guy is a moron - Ive seen youtubes of his craps sessions - anyone who loses 1mil in an hour playing craps is either going to be dead or broke soon, no way around that.
Hot Forum Topics
