If we can get 5,000 different players and their hand history from 100,000 hands played for each player.
Then we can go through each and every hand and also see how they played each hand. From their we can decide the odds for each hand played in the pot from pre flop to after the river. We also have to see each and every bet size in realtion to the size of the pot. These are just few of things as their more many more factors.
You guys want to discuess the knowledge of the game and the concept behind, I will be more then happy too.
0
If we can get 5,000 different players and their hand history from 100,000 hands played for each player.
Then we can go through each and every hand and also see how they played each hand. From their we can decide the odds for each hand played in the pot from pre flop to after the river. We also have to see each and every bet size in realtion to the size of the pot. These are just few of things as their more many more factors.
You guys want to discuess the knowledge of the game and the concept behind, I will be more then happy too.
however, the interesting aspect is that, if apparently unfit members of a species do manage to buck the trend over the longhaul, they still confirm the principle of NS... first of all, they pass on their genes, and propogate those "unfit" traits... and second of all, since they survived, it cannot be argued that they were "unfit"... because, by definition, the survivors are the most fit...
same thing applies to poker... if an apparently unskilled poker player gets "lucky" to the most extreme limits of probability, one is forced, at some point, to declare him a skillful poker player, by virtue of the fact that he wins so consistently over the longhaul... because, afterall, over the longhaul, "poker is a game of skill"...
_______________
Brings me back to those days of college where I actually enjoyed a good discussion in an interesting class.
And I work with a guy who falls into that last category. We play small little cash games a few times a year at the bar with some buddies and I called him "lucky" time after time after time when he'd leave the table with more money then anyone.
We played during the first day of March madness earlier this year and he just raped the whole table. I remember getting all pissed off, but then telling myself, "is he really getting lucky THAT often or does he maybe know what he's doing?"
It's exactly the same thing.
0
however, the interesting aspect is that, if apparently unfit members of a species do manage to buck the trend over the longhaul, they still confirm the principle of NS... first of all, they pass on their genes, and propogate those "unfit" traits... and second of all, since they survived, it cannot be argued that they were "unfit"... because, by definition, the survivors are the most fit...
same thing applies to poker... if an apparently unskilled poker player gets "lucky" to the most extreme limits of probability, one is forced, at some point, to declare him a skillful poker player, by virtue of the fact that he wins so consistently over the longhaul... because, afterall, over the longhaul, "poker is a game of skill"...
_______________
Brings me back to those days of college where I actually enjoyed a good discussion in an interesting class.
And I work with a guy who falls into that last category. We play small little cash games a few times a year at the bar with some buddies and I called him "lucky" time after time after time when he'd leave the table with more money then anyone.
We played during the first day of March madness earlier this year and he just raped the whole table. I remember getting all pissed off, but then telling myself, "is he really getting lucky THAT often or does he maybe know what he's doing?"
For you to even THINK that is a legit arugment that RELATES TO POKER is speachless. You guys OBV don't have the ture knowledge of the game and the understanding the concept behind the math. Enough said
All you have shown in this thread is that you think whoever yells the loudest wins the debate.
You have brought nothing to the table. I dont even think you understand the debate. You have done nothing but ignore the points and only scream that poker tournaments are beatable and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. OK.
Try addressing the points. You havent done it yet, and refuse to.
Otherwise - we get it - you think poker tournaments are all skill and anyone who disagrees is stupid. There is no need to post again unless you say something different - which you havent in your last 25 posts.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorInsight:
For you to even THINK that is a legit arugment that RELATES TO POKER is speachless. You guys OBV don't have the ture knowledge of the game and the understanding the concept behind the math. Enough said
All you have shown in this thread is that you think whoever yells the loudest wins the debate.
You have brought nothing to the table. I dont even think you understand the debate. You have done nothing but ignore the points and only scream that poker tournaments are beatable and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. OK.
Try addressing the points. You havent done it yet, and refuse to.
Otherwise - we get it - you think poker tournaments are all skill and anyone who disagrees is stupid. There is no need to post again unless you say something different - which you havent in your last 25 posts.
All you have shown in this thread is that you think whoever yells the loudest wins the debate.
You have brought nothing to the table. I dont even think you understand the debate. You have done nothing but ignore the points and only scream that poker tournaments are beatable and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. OK.
Try addressing the points. You havent done it yet, and refuse to.
Otherwise - we get it - you think poker tournaments are all skill and anyone who disagrees is stupid. There is no need to post again unless you say something different - which you havent in your last 25 posts.
Post 177, 178, and 180. Lets discuss the TRUE KNOWLEDGE of the game. Did you miss these posts?
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
All you have shown in this thread is that you think whoever yells the loudest wins the debate.
You have brought nothing to the table. I dont even think you understand the debate. You have done nothing but ignore the points and only scream that poker tournaments are beatable and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. OK.
Try addressing the points. You havent done it yet, and refuse to.
Otherwise - we get it - you think poker tournaments are all skill and anyone who disagrees is stupid. There is no need to post again unless you say something different - which you havent in your last 25 posts.
Post 177, 178, and 180. Lets discuss the TRUE KNOWLEDGE of the game. Did you miss these posts?
All you have shown in this thread is that you think whoever yells the loudest wins the debate.
You have brought nothing to the table. I dont even think you understand the debate. You have done nothing but ignore the points and only scream that poker tournaments are beatable and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. OK.
Try addressing the points. You havent done it yet, and refuse to.
Otherwise - we get it - you think poker tournaments are all skill and anyone who disagrees is stupid. There is no need to post again unless you say something different - which you havent in your last 25 posts.
Anyone who disagrees with it is FLAT WRONG. Poker tournaments are beatable long term and I have 100 facts to prove that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
All you have shown in this thread is that you think whoever yells the loudest wins the debate.
You have brought nothing to the table. I dont even think you understand the debate. You have done nothing but ignore the points and only scream that poker tournaments are beatable and anyone who thinks differently is a moron. OK.
Try addressing the points. You havent done it yet, and refuse to.
Otherwise - we get it - you think poker tournaments are all skill and anyone who disagrees is stupid. There is no need to post again unless you say something different - which you havent in your last 25 posts.
Anyone who disagrees with it is FLAT WRONG. Poker tournaments are beatable long term and I have 100 facts to prove that.
Post 177, 178, and 180. Lets discuss the TRUE KNOWLEDGE of the game. Did you miss these posts?
I wish I did miss those posts, but unfortunately I did see them.
Why wont you address the point that was made earlier about Natural Selection and how it relates to poker? Just try. Focus. Make a comment directly related to it. Dont post something off the subject. Go.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorInsight:
Post 177, 178, and 180. Lets discuss the TRUE KNOWLEDGE of the game. Did you miss these posts?
I wish I did miss those posts, but unfortunately I did see them.
Why wont you address the point that was made earlier about Natural Selection and how it relates to poker? Just try. Focus. Make a comment directly related to it. Dont post something off the subject. Go.
*** 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.
_____________
There is a reason why Doyle Brunson has ALWAYS said that Moneymaker winning was the best thing that happened to poker.
Phil H. always pisses and moans about people playing poorly....but there is a reason Brunson never complains a lick. He gets it.
0
*** 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.
_____________
There is a reason why Doyle Brunson has ALWAYS said that Moneymaker winning was the best thing that happened to poker.
Phil H. always pisses and moans about people playing poorly....but there is a reason Brunson never complains a lick. He gets it.
I wish I did miss those posts, but unfortunately I did see them.
Why wont you address the point that was made earlier about Natural Selection and how it relates to poker? Just try. Focus. Make a comment directly related to it. Dont post something off the subject. Go.
That has NO RELATION TO POKER AND THE TURE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GAME. Please focus and think.
You want to discuess the mathimatical and technical part of poker we can. If you don't understand just say so.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
I wish I did miss those posts, but unfortunately I did see them.
Why wont you address the point that was made earlier about Natural Selection and how it relates to poker? Just try. Focus. Make a comment directly related to it. Dont post something off the subject. Go.
That has NO RELATION TO POKER AND THE TURE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GAME. Please focus and think.
You want to discuess the mathimatical and technical part of poker we can. If you don't understand just say so.
Why dont you move on - I dont think you have anything further to add, let me restate your position:
POKER TOURNAMENTS ARE BEATABLE AND ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENTLY IS A MORON. (repeat, yell louder, say the same thing)
We get it. You dont need to post again. Your opinion is duly noted.
Sounds like your just defeated. You have no defense for youself right now and it's crystal clear. It's ok because it was clear from the start you did not know much about poker.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Lets agree to disagree.
Why dont you move on - I dont think you have anything further to add, let me restate your position:
POKER TOURNAMENTS ARE BEATABLE AND ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENTLY IS A MORON. (repeat, yell louder, say the same thing)
We get it. You dont need to post again. Your opinion is duly noted.
Sounds like your just defeated. You have no defense for youself right now and it's crystal clear. It's ok because it was clear from the start you did not know much about poker.
Natural Selection has ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO relation to poker. Need I say more?
It's an example of a concept that some apparently think applies to tournament poker. You don't. We can understand that. You don't even understand what the argument is. That pretty much means end of discussion.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorInsight:
Natural Selection has ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO relation to poker. Need I say more?
It's an example of a concept that some apparently think applies to tournament poker. You don't. We can understand that. You don't even understand what the argument is. That pretty much means end of discussion.
Sounds like your just defeated. You have no defense for youself right now and it's crystal clear. It's ok because it was clear from the start you did not know much about poker.
I thought ChanceP was banned......
0
Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorInsight:
Sounds like your just defeated. You have no defense for youself right now and it's crystal clear. It's ok because it was clear from the start you did not know much about poker.
It's an example of a concept that some apparently think applies to tournament poker. You don't. We can understand that. You don't even understand what the argument is. That pretty much means end of discussion.
Exactly.
But he can yell the loudest, and insult the most - so he must be right.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
It's an example of a concept that some apparently think applies to tournament poker. You don't. We can understand that. You don't even understand what the argument is. That pretty much means end of discussion.
Exactly.
But he can yell the loudest, and insult the most - so he must be right.
All I really play is tournaments about 60-100 people 50.00 buy in. i do pretty well in them. But you gotta catch some cards. and get lucky. can't win little pots all the time.
0
All I really play is tournaments about 60-100 people 50.00 buy in. i do pretty well in them. But you gotta catch some cards. and get lucky. can't win little pots all the time.
This restores my faith that the covers overall IQ might not be sub-retarded.
don't be so sure... i can only up the average so far...
like Vanzack, i was just making an argument, not necessarily choosing a side in that argument... simply trying to get people to address the pertinent angles from a standpoint of logic and probabilities... obviously, poker is more than just a coin flip... it does involve skill... that goes without saying (although some people still feel the need to say it 10 times per page)...
SI... your comment that i am saying poker is about luck just continues to expose your inability to comprehend a simple argument...
but this is futile... the educator in me wants to always believe someone can learn, no matter how hopeless of an effort it appears to be... you have proven that my optimism is not boundless...
however, because i don't want to be defeatist, i will give you some assignments... read up on these two concepts:
1) limit theory
2) tautology
i always say "there is no excuse for stupidity," because we live in an age when almost anyone has access to all of the materials needed to liven up their brain cells... i taught myself quantum physics without ever taking a class, and wrote my Master's thesis on that subject, and it was later published... there is no limit to what someone can learn if they take a little bit of pride in doing so...
the rest is up to you...
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
I am in awe.
This restores my faith that the covers overall IQ might not be sub-retarded.
don't be so sure... i can only up the average so far...
like Vanzack, i was just making an argument, not necessarily choosing a side in that argument... simply trying to get people to address the pertinent angles from a standpoint of logic and probabilities... obviously, poker is more than just a coin flip... it does involve skill... that goes without saying (although some people still feel the need to say it 10 times per page)...
SI... your comment that i am saying poker is about luck just continues to expose your inability to comprehend a simple argument...
but this is futile... the educator in me wants to always believe someone can learn, no matter how hopeless of an effort it appears to be... you have proven that my optimism is not boundless...
however, because i don't want to be defeatist, i will give you some assignments... read up on these two concepts:
1) limit theory
2) tautology
i always say "there is no excuse for stupidity," because we live in an age when almost anyone has access to all of the materials needed to liven up their brain cells... i taught myself quantum physics without ever taking a class, and wrote my Master's thesis on that subject, and it was later published... there is no limit to what someone can learn if they take a little bit of pride in doing so...
however, the interesting aspect is that, if apparently unfit members of a species do manage to buck the trend over the longhaul, they still confirm the principle of NS... first of all, they pass on their genes, and propogate those "unfit" traits... and second of all, since they survived, it cannot be argued that they were "unfit"... because, by definition, the survivors are the most fit...
same thing applies to poker... if an apparently unskilled poker player gets "lucky" to the most extreme limits of probability, one is forced, at some point, to declare him a skillful poker player, by virtue of the fact that he wins so consistently over the longhaul... because, afterall, over the longhaul, "poker is a game of skill"...
_______________
Brings me back to those days of college where I actually enjoyed a good discussion in an interesting class.
And I work with a guy who falls into that last category. We play small little cash games a few times a year at the bar with some buddies and I called him "lucky" time after time after time when he'd leave the table with more money then anyone.
We played during the first day of March madness earlier this year and he just raped the whole table. I remember getting all pissed off, but then telling myself, "is he really getting lucky THAT often or does he maybe know what he's doing?"
It's exactly the same thing.
yep... you get it!
it's sort of a Zen thing... if it doesn't make your head hurt thinking about it, then you haven't really grasped the concept...
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
however, the interesting aspect is that, if apparently unfit members of a species do manage to buck the trend over the longhaul, they still confirm the principle of NS... first of all, they pass on their genes, and propogate those "unfit" traits... and second of all, since they survived, it cannot be argued that they were "unfit"... because, by definition, the survivors are the most fit...
same thing applies to poker... if an apparently unskilled poker player gets "lucky" to the most extreme limits of probability, one is forced, at some point, to declare him a skillful poker player, by virtue of the fact that he wins so consistently over the longhaul... because, afterall, over the longhaul, "poker is a game of skill"...
_______________
Brings me back to those days of college where I actually enjoyed a good discussion in an interesting class.
And I work with a guy who falls into that last category. We play small little cash games a few times a year at the bar with some buddies and I called him "lucky" time after time after time when he'd leave the table with more money then anyone.
We played during the first day of March madness earlier this year and he just raped the whole table. I remember getting all pissed off, but then telling myself, "is he really getting lucky THAT often or does he maybe know what he's doing?"
It's exactly the same thing.
yep... you get it!
it's sort of a Zen thing... if it doesn't make your head hurt thinking about it, then you haven't really grasped the concept...
as for this thread, Van... very interesting discussion... i have to admit you got me thinking in a more sensible way about how i balance my time spent playing poker...
tourneys offer the possibility of that big payday... but i've always known deep down that if you want to be a professional poker player, you need to be grinding it out on cash tables... i've been playing too many tourneys lately...
just yesterday i played in a tourney where i won just under 80% of the hands that i was involved in... i didn't have a single hand that i mis-played... but i barely finished in the money, because i got 2 unlucky hands in a row at the end...
1) AA in the BB, everyone folded except the small blind... i did a min-raise pre-flop and he folded...
2) then the next hand had 3 callers to my all-in after the flop, with the nut flush and straight draw and top pair on the board... well over 50% chance of winning it, but got outdrawn and my tourney was over...
almost 3 hours down the drain for a very small profit... just not worth the effort and frustration... and right after that i stumbled upon this thread...
message received... back to the grind...
0
as for this thread, Van... very interesting discussion... i have to admit you got me thinking in a more sensible way about how i balance my time spent playing poker...
tourneys offer the possibility of that big payday... but i've always known deep down that if you want to be a professional poker player, you need to be grinding it out on cash tables... i've been playing too many tourneys lately...
just yesterday i played in a tourney where i won just under 80% of the hands that i was involved in... i didn't have a single hand that i mis-played... but i barely finished in the money, because i got 2 unlucky hands in a row at the end...
1) AA in the BB, everyone folded except the small blind... i did a min-raise pre-flop and he folded...
2) then the next hand had 3 callers to my all-in after the flop, with the nut flush and straight draw and top pair on the board... well over 50% chance of winning it, but got outdrawn and my tourney was over...
almost 3 hours down the drain for a very small profit... just not worth the effort and frustration... and right after that i stumbled upon this thread...
don't be so sure... i can only up the average so far...
like Vanzack, i was just making an argument, not necessarily choosing a side in that argument... simply trying to get people to address the pertinent angles from a standpoint of logic and probabilities... obviously, poker is more than just a coin flip... it does involve skill... that goes without saying (although some people still feel the need to say it 10 times per page)...
SI... your comment that i am saying poker is about luck just continues to expose your inability to comprehend a simple argument...
but this is futile... the educator in me wants to always believe someone can learn, no matter how hopeless of an effort it appears to be... you have proven that my optimism is not boundless...
however, because i don't want to be defeatist, i will give you some assignments... read up on these two concepts:
1) limit theory
2) tautology
i always say "there is no excuse for stupidity," because we live in an age when almost anyone has access to all of the materials needed to liven up their brain cells... i taught myself quantum physics without ever taking a class, and wrote my Master's thesis on that subject, and it was later published... there is no limit to what someone can learn if they take a little bit of pride in doing so...
the rest is up to you...
Post 178 and 180. Your post has absolute no relation to facts and knowledge behind the ture game of poker. You want to discuss it the right way, post 178 and 180 we can.
You now have made 5 acounts, trying to whorshop and trying to get my attention. You did a job well done.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ApocalypseLater:
don't be so sure... i can only up the average so far...
like Vanzack, i was just making an argument, not necessarily choosing a side in that argument... simply trying to get people to address the pertinent angles from a standpoint of logic and probabilities... obviously, poker is more than just a coin flip... it does involve skill... that goes without saying (although some people still feel the need to say it 10 times per page)...
SI... your comment that i am saying poker is about luck just continues to expose your inability to comprehend a simple argument...
but this is futile... the educator in me wants to always believe someone can learn, no matter how hopeless of an effort it appears to be... you have proven that my optimism is not boundless...
however, because i don't want to be defeatist, i will give you some assignments... read up on these two concepts:
1) limit theory
2) tautology
i always say "there is no excuse for stupidity," because we live in an age when almost anyone has access to all of the materials needed to liven up their brain cells... i taught myself quantum physics without ever taking a class, and wrote my Master's thesis on that subject, and it was later published... there is no limit to what someone can learn if they take a little bit of pride in doing so...
the rest is up to you...
Post 178 and 180. Your post has absolute no relation to facts and knowledge behind the ture game of poker. You want to discuss it the right way, post 178 and 180 we can.
You now have made 5 acounts, trying to whorshop and trying to get my attention. You did a job well done.
This restores my faith that the covers overall IQ might not be sub-retarded.
van, you started this thread. if you feel that there isnt anyone on covers that can bring anything of substance to the table, then why bother? if you feel there isnt anyone on here that can stand up to you on your level, then go find a forum somewhere else. surely, someone of your "IQ" level can find a better place to debate whatever it is you feel the need to talk about. im sure all the "sub retarded" members on covers will survive if you were to go find another site to boost your already ridiculous ego. there is no concrete answer to the subject you brought up and yet you continually respond to anyone who posts their opinion opposite of you with sarcastic contemptuous comments.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
I am in awe.
This restores my faith that the covers overall IQ might not be sub-retarded.
van, you started this thread. if you feel that there isnt anyone on covers that can bring anything of substance to the table, then why bother? if you feel there isnt anyone on here that can stand up to you on your level, then go find a forum somewhere else. surely, someone of your "IQ" level can find a better place to debate whatever it is you feel the need to talk about. im sure all the "sub retarded" members on covers will survive if you were to go find another site to boost your already ridiculous ego. there is no concrete answer to the subject you brought up and yet you continually respond to anyone who posts their opinion opposite of you with sarcastic contemptuous comments.
van, you started this thread. if you feel that there isnt anyone on covers that can bring anything of substance to the table, then why bother? if you feel there isnt anyone on here that can stand up to you on your level, then go find a forum somewhere else. surely, someone of your "IQ" level can find a better place to debate whatever it is you feel the need to talk about. im sure all the "sub retarded" members on covers will survive if you were to go find another site to boost your already ridiculous ego. there is no concrete answer to the subject you brought up and yet you continually respond to anyone who posts their opinion opposite of you with sarcastic contemptuous comments.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DaimondD:
van, you started this thread. if you feel that there isnt anyone on covers that can bring anything of substance to the table, then why bother? if you feel there isnt anyone on here that can stand up to you on your level, then go find a forum somewhere else. surely, someone of your "IQ" level can find a better place to debate whatever it is you feel the need to talk about. im sure all the "sub retarded" members on covers will survive if you were to go find another site to boost your already ridiculous ego. there is no concrete answer to the subject you brought up and yet you continually respond to anyone who posts their opinion opposite of you with sarcastic contemptuous comments.
Brings me back to those days of college where I actually enjoyed a good discussion in an interesting class. 
Hot Forum Topics
