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

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."

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...

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...

Please counter to what I had to say and stop avioding the point.

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...

Ahhh, you were referring to the phenomenon of Natural Selection.  I was going to add, "over time, it's not possible.  But in a particular incident, you could buck the 'trend'." 

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."

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?

Poker is a game of skill. Over the course of time, the same players win. For anyone who does not realize this should seriously get slapped into a coma. Even more so, they should get slapped dead.

Poker is straight SKILL over the long run. PERIOD.

counter what?  you are the one who is avoiding the argument... i presented you with a logical fallacy... i even said, if you can't address the argument, then you cannot claim to have won it... and you responded by not addressing the argument...

you are engaging in a logical fallacy: you are saying that the best players win the most often... and if they don't win, they aren't the best... 

it is called a tautology (aka circular reasoning)... and it is the same as in natural selection... according to Natural Selection, the members of a species that are the most fit are the ones that will survive... but the problem is, how do you define "fitness"?  answer: fitness is defined as survival...

if one lion survives in it's environment, but another one doesn't, the first lion is said to be the most fit... and the only way to measure it's fitness is to note that it survives... if it does not survive, then it must not have been the most fit... even luck has to be thrown out, just like you are doing it in poker... it's the whole "luck is the residue of design" argument... if one lion was in the right place at the right time, it's because he knew the right place to be, based on his experience and adaptations...

same goes with Poker... Chris Moneymaker is a poker pro... but he wasn't a poker pro before he won the 2001 (?) WOSP... winning that tournament made him a Poker Pro... if Poker Pros are the best players (which, by definition, they must be, if Poker is a game of skill), then his winning is what defines him as a poker pro, and his status (or ability) as a poker pro is the reason he wins...

yes, i know... you still don't get it... but that's the whole point... if you don't get that, then you shouldn't be involved in this argument at any level...

I am in awe.

This restores my faith that the covers overall IQ might not be sub-retarded.

https://www.pokernewsdaily.com/study-reveals-poker-is-a-game-of-skill-1724/

https://www.wedoitallvegas.com/Articles/articles/1687/1/Is-poker-a-game-of-skill/Page1.html

Poker is a game of Straight Skill. Poker is beatable in the longterm.

counter what?  you are the one who is avoiding the argument... i presented you with a logical fallacy... i even said, if you can't address the argument, then you cannot claim to have won it... and you responded by not addressing the argument...

you are engaging in a logical fallacy: you are saying that the best players win the most often... and if they don't win, they aren't the best... 

it is called a tautology (aka circular reasoning)... and it is the same as in natural selection... according to Natural Selection, the members of a species that are the most fit are the ones that will survive... but the problem is, how do you define "fitness"?  answer: fitness is defined as survival...

if one lion survives in it's environment, but another one doesn't, the first lion is said to be the most fit... and the only way to measure it's fitness is to note that it survives... if it does not survive, then it must not have been the most fit... even luck has to be thrown out, just like you are doing it in poker... it's the whole "luck is the residue of design" argument... if one lion was in the right place at the right time, it's because he knew the right place to be, based on his experience and adaptations...

same goes with Poker... Chris Moneymaker is a poker pro... but he wasn't a poker pro before he won the 2001 (?) WOSP... winning that tournament made him a Poker Pro... if Poker Pros are the best players (which, by definition, they must be, if Poker is a game of skill), then his winning is what defines him as a poker pro, and his status (or ability) as a poker pro is the reason he wins...

yes, i know... you still don't get it... but that's the whole point... if you don't get that, then you shouldn't be involved in this argument at any level...