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

that poker tournament play is a threshold skill, and once you get above that threshold, you are exactly equal to everyone around you.

To specifically answer the original question, I do not argue too much with Vanzack's statement above, but do want to make the point that maybe at max 10% of the people entered in the big event are at that "threshold" and their skill gives them a better chance to cash in some form.  From there, the luck component comes in.

And to boot - you would assume that the WSOP is a poker pro's dream - a huge number of "A" players fatten the pot for the "B" players.  So in theory - the "Pros" should be thrilled about the recent WSOP amateur craze - but all you hear is complaining - and why is that?  Because they are exposed.  It takes a little of the glimmer off of their facade.  It shows that the 20 you see on all of the commercials might really not be better than Joe and Frank at their Saturday game.

This is one of the first posts that actually advances the debate - and I am willing to concede to.

If 10% of the players in a tournament are above the threshold - then multitable tournament poker is definitely beatable because you have 90% of money going in to the pot to feed the 10%.  If someone makes the argument that the reason pros exist is because they are able to feed off of the "A" group - then I can buy that.  They all split the losers money, and there is enough to go around.  I get it, and agree - to a point.....

I dont think it is 10%, I think it is more like 90% today - but I do think this number fluctuates and is the single biggest determinant ot whether a "pro" can make money - not his skill level.

I think in the early 2000's, when poker was first on ESPN and Moneymaker won - that was the feeding frenzy of poker - but I think those days are largely gone - and with the aid of computerized programs, training, and education - there are a TON more threshold players than ever before - and I question whether "pros" can really have enough "A" players to make money nowadays.  This paragraph is strictly observation and opinion - but I just dont see it.

The key to whether poker is beatable is whether you have enough non-threshold players to feed the threshold players, but within the threshold group - everyone is the same.

one thing that is interesting is the continual mention of luck in poker.  what about when we cap a game exactly the way it should go and then some random bad luck causes a loss (such as pop up hitting cat walk the other day) or a reliever blows a big lead with the game won (Papplebon).

So what makes that different in sports betting than playing poker?

I play both and like the thread and I also feel totally different about skill in poker in money games, where the best do win over the long run. to me the difference is that they get the math to work for them and they are smarter than their opponents.

In table games and sports betting, we are always fighting the math, which is very hard to do, and if you do not manage the money well, it is darn near impossible.

Money management is key and so is not trying to beat insumountable math--Betting all big favs and playing parlays and teasers all the time are just losing propositions, yet we see many doing just that.

van--many people (70-90%) think they are in the top 10% but the minds and memories of the truly gifted players are special.

your last statement of non thresholds vs best really hits home when you are in Vegas at a cash game and the regulars are rushing for an open seat at a table with a few known fish who are dumping off cash while taking a break from BJ or craps. Tell me skill is not usually going to prevail in that instance.

I keep seeing the comparrison between poker and golf.. and that anyone here could beat the top poker player, with a little luck. Well that is true to an extent, but its also true in golf. Anyone, who can hold a golf club, could tee off heads up against Tiger on 100 yard, par 3, and has a fairly good possibility of beating him. Now lets say we played heads up over the entire 18 holes, well our odds  have deminished significantly, but some still has the chance of beating him, especially with how he has been playing lately. My point is that, yes luck does enable you to beat the best, but over the long haul, the skilled player will win more consistantly.

So, now let me take it one step further.....

IF the following is true:

1.  Poker is a threshold skill.
2.  The only way for a threshold player to make money longterm is to have enough non-threshold players playing to feed the skilled players.
3.  The more non-threshold players you have, the better it is for all of the threshold players.

Then I come to my final conclusion:

***  The glamour, get rich quick, celebrity culture, and perpetuation of the myth of the poker pro and all that comes with it.......  Is a purposely set up marketing plan by the threshold group to bring in as many "A" players as the can - because it is the only way to be profitable.

The above is why you ask any poker pro if they are winning, and they say yes.  Its why you see these bozos on ads, and why ESPN touts them as cult heros.  The get rich quick lifestyle appeals to almost everyone - and they not only portray it - they benefit from you believing it.

Don't you think "get rich quick" is why most people are sports betting?  or at least the thrill of the immediate win.

If not they would be investing in a balanced financial portfolio

moral of the story... no matter how skilled of a poker player you are, you have to get lucky to win a reasonably sized tournament... even when you enter into that level of skill that not only encapsulates your knowledge of the game (odds, probabilities, hand combinations, etc.) but also allows you to read your opponent at a higher level than he can read you... it still doesn't really get you that far in a tournament... because every clown out there wants to overplay their hands or bluff at the pot... and you can be all in with the better hand 10 out of 10 times, and you will lose eventually lose one of those hands on a suck out...

for anyone to say Tournament Poker can easily be beaten, is ridiculous... even Doyle or Ivey will tell you that is not true...

i think the poker threshold for tournaments is different than cash games (or single-table tourneys)... in a multi-table tourney, you can make every correct play, but you still have to get lucky (or not get unlucky) many many times during the course of the tourney...

however, with respect to cash games, i think it is incorrect to say the top 10,000 players are all at the same skill level... what separates them is the ability to read their opponents, and their ability to make adjustments on the fly based on what they discern from their opponents...

unfortunately, in tournament poker, that ability doesn't take you nearly as far, or give you as much of an advantage... bottom-line, luck is what you need most to win tournaments...

i am a firm believer in the principle that if you can't address an argument, you can't claim to win it...

with that in mind, SuperiorInsight... please address this argument, in light of your stated position...

your answer is absolutely incorrect (not to mention incoherent)...

it was a very basic logic problem, and your answer shows you are too stupid to break down even the most basic logic problems... and i assure you, even a decent poker player can address a simple logic problem...

you failed miserably!

and by the way, this is not an opinion... when it comes to logic, there is right or wrong... black and white...

My point exactly  

want to try again?  this is the same logic problem...

Natural Selection says that the strongest will survive... is it possible for Natural Selection to be wrong... why or why not?

I have a buddy who I consider a very solid player and he used to play MTT's on-line fairly often.  He had some really nice cashes (final tables), but MOST of the time, it's like this.  He feels he plays well, but you are absolutely going to be in some spots where you HAVE to have your hand hold up.  You hold Q-Q and get it all in with a huge stack who has J-J and although you are a huge fav, you are still plenty vulnerable.  And if you get it all in as a favorite say 5 times during the course of a few hours, it's pretty likely you are going to lose at LEAST one of those hands. 

You can try and play small ball, but the field in those tournaments is full of people who will just shove and you have to call if you think you are a solid favorite.  More times at risk equals less likely you win all those hands. 

He plays every now and again for fun, but he's basically given up for the most part because, "I seem to play well still end up having bad luck."  When he does win, he tells me, "it's generally because my hands held up."

You say I'm wrong yet you have nothing to COUNTER with. My point exactly.

That is very ture. To win a tourament with over 200, you have to run so good it's really sickening.

Sure.  Luck.  Let's say you have a herd of antelope being hunted by a cheetah.  It's possible that she might actually be closest to a healthy antelope and take that down vs. the antelope who may be a little sick, but happened to be further ahead of the pack.  The cheetah doesn't care about which she kills....just which is easiest.  Over many hunts, she will likely kill the weaker antelope as opposed to the strong ones.  But she might get lucky and kill one of the stronger ones on occasion.

well, Hutch, at least you took a shot at it, unlike SI... but you are in fact, incorrect... maybe you misunderstood, though... i am not asking if it is possible for a weak member of a species to survive on occasion... i am asking if it is possible for the principle of Natural Selection to be wrong... (many people think Natural Selection is a theory, and some even don't "believe" in Natural Selection, as if belief factors into the equation)...

essentially, is it possible for Natural Selection to be disproven?

like i said, it is the same argument Vanzack already gave earlier, regarding the idea that Poker Pros win the most...

SI... saying "my point exactly" is not a response to a basic logic problem... you did not address the original argument... it's a pass/fail test, and by not addressing it, you failed...