As a poker player of stature, I am more curious to hear your take on the subject of this thread.
Is poker a "threshold skill" as I theorize? If not, where do I go wrong? Without sponsorship and a large pool of "fish", is it possible to be a "poker pro"?
Why is the so called poker top 10 change every year? It would seem if there was truly skill that determined winners and losers, that this list would remain somewhat consistent - afterall - you dont see the top 10 in golf or tennis change top to bottom every year.
Thanks in advance.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
As a poker player of stature, I am more curious to hear your take on the subject of this thread.
Is poker a "threshold skill" as I theorize? If not, where do I go wrong? Without sponsorship and a large pool of "fish", is it possible to be a "poker pro"?
Why is the so called poker top 10 change every year? It would seem if there was truly skill that determined winners and losers, that this list would remain somewhat consistent - afterall - you dont see the top 10 in golf or tennis change top to bottom every year.
Not sure why your soliciting an opinion of a tournament player who was on TV, as though he'd have insight beyond the intermediate cash-game player. Some of the worst donks in the history of poker satellite their way into those tournaments (no offense to the poster).
Not sure what the 'top ten change' is either. Those rankings (of which there are numerous ranking outlets) are based on tournament winnings which do have a significant amount of luck inherently built into them, as this thread has already established.
Ivey, Dwan, Antonious, Isildur etc. have been at the top of the cash game earnings for years. There are rankings for their online play but not for their table game play. They don't 'fall off the map' in terms of poker related income. Some do but that is not representative of the majority.
0
Not sure why your soliciting an opinion of a tournament player who was on TV, as though he'd have insight beyond the intermediate cash-game player. Some of the worst donks in the history of poker satellite their way into those tournaments (no offense to the poster).
Not sure what the 'top ten change' is either. Those rankings (of which there are numerous ranking outlets) are based on tournament winnings which do have a significant amount of luck inherently built into them, as this thread has already established.
Ivey, Dwan, Antonious, Isildur etc. have been at the top of the cash game earnings for years. There are rankings for their online play but not for their table game play. They don't 'fall off the map' in terms of poker related income. Some do but that is not representative of the majority.
Without naming names (let me just say, "Scalabrine" is NOT one of them), there are some people in this thread who have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what they are talking about - to a degree where one could actually get a really good laugh seeing how ignorant they are on the topic, while trying to sound otherwise. Sounds to me like they are possibly jealous they can not play poker to a certain level and/or are offended that others are just smarter than them - which is unfortunately a natural human instinct in many people (so I'm not surprised).
Let me finish by saying, *POKER IS A SKILL GAME*, in the long-run. Sure, luck plays a factor in poker, but in the end (large sample size of many hands/tournaments) it's the more skilled player that prevails over the less-skilled player. If one were to say, for example, that "it's 79% luck, 21% skill", then you don't know what you are talking about and should stop making yourself look more foolish, by no longer commenting on the subject.
0
Without naming names (let me just say, "Scalabrine" is NOT one of them), there are some people in this thread who have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what they are talking about - to a degree where one could actually get a really good laugh seeing how ignorant they are on the topic, while trying to sound otherwise. Sounds to me like they are possibly jealous they can not play poker to a certain level and/or are offended that others are just smarter than them - which is unfortunately a natural human instinct in many people (so I'm not surprised).
Let me finish by saying, *POKER IS A SKILL GAME*, in the long-run. Sure, luck plays a factor in poker, but in the end (large sample size of many hands/tournaments) it's the more skilled player that prevails over the less-skilled player. If one were to say, for example, that "it's 79% luck, 21% skill", then you don't know what you are talking about and should stop making yourself look more foolish, by no longer commenting on the subject.
Without naming names (let me just say, "Scalabrine" is NOT one of them), there are some people in this thread who have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what they are talking about - to a degree where one could actually get a really good laugh seeing how ignorant they are on the topic, while trying to sound otherwise. Sounds to me like they are possibly jealous they can not play poker to a certain level and/or are offended that others are just smarter than them - which is unfortunately a natural human instinct in many people (so I'm not surprised).
Let me finish by saying, *POKER IS A SKILL GAME*, in the long-run. Sure, luck plays a factor in poker, but in the end (large sample size of many hands/tournaments) it's the more skilled player that prevails over the less-skilled player. If one were to say, for example, that "it's 79% luck, 21% skill", then you don't know what you are talking about and should stop making yourself look more foolish, by no longer commenting on the subject.
21% skill is actually quite a very large number in this equation...I think you are putting down this ratio unfairly and really have not given it that much thought. If someone might say poker is all 100%luck...NOW THAT WOULD BE A FOOLISH REMARK.
I consider myself to be a somewhat decent player and certainly not at the bottom. I like tourneys mostly...Have won my fair share of them. Many, many, numerous times have "chopped" at the end and was guaranteed second place money as the situation dictated.
I will tell you positively that you cannot possibly finish in the money at any tourney without having some luck along the way...
Remember this OLD adage ALWAYS.
Good players will win some of the time...GOOD CARDS will win ALL of the time.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CaliSurferDude:
Without naming names (let me just say, "Scalabrine" is NOT one of them), there are some people in this thread who have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what they are talking about - to a degree where one could actually get a really good laugh seeing how ignorant they are on the topic, while trying to sound otherwise. Sounds to me like they are possibly jealous they can not play poker to a certain level and/or are offended that others are just smarter than them - which is unfortunately a natural human instinct in many people (so I'm not surprised).
Let me finish by saying, *POKER IS A SKILL GAME*, in the long-run. Sure, luck plays a factor in poker, but in the end (large sample size of many hands/tournaments) it's the more skilled player that prevails over the less-skilled player. If one were to say, for example, that "it's 79% luck, 21% skill", then you don't know what you are talking about and should stop making yourself look more foolish, by no longer commenting on the subject.
21% skill is actually quite a very large number in this equation...I think you are putting down this ratio unfairly and really have not given it that much thought. If someone might say poker is all 100%luck...NOW THAT WOULD BE A FOOLISH REMARK.
I consider myself to be a somewhat decent player and certainly not at the bottom. I like tourneys mostly...Have won my fair share of them. Many, many, numerous times have "chopped" at the end and was guaranteed second place money as the situation dictated.
I will tell you positively that you cannot possibly finish in the money at any tourney without having some luck along the way...
Remember this OLD adage ALWAYS.
Good players will win some of the time...GOOD CARDS will win ALL of the time.
21% skill is actually quite a very large number in this equation...I think you are putting down this ratio unfairly and really have not given it that much thought. If someone might say poker is all 100%luck...NOW THAT WOULD BE A FOOLISH REMARK.
I consider myself to be a somewhat decent player and certainly not at the bottom. I like tourneys mostly...Have won my fair share of them. Many, many, numerous times have "chopped" at the end and was guaranteed second place money as the situation dictated.
I will tell you positively that you cannot possibly finish in the money at any tourney without having some luck along the way...
Remember this OLD adage ALWAYS.
Good players will win some of the time...GOOD CARDS will win ALL of the time.
That is a nice way of saying he is not too bright, and I concur. If it was more like the 80% skill that the newbie mentioned, the best hands would hold up 4 out of 5 times, and that is not even remotely the case.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JimmyDrizzl:
21% skill is actually quite a very large number in this equation...I think you are putting down this ratio unfairly and really have not given it that much thought. If someone might say poker is all 100%luck...NOW THAT WOULD BE A FOOLISH REMARK.
I consider myself to be a somewhat decent player and certainly not at the bottom. I like tourneys mostly...Have won my fair share of them. Many, many, numerous times have "chopped" at the end and was guaranteed second place money as the situation dictated.
I will tell you positively that you cannot possibly finish in the money at any tourney without having some luck along the way...
Remember this OLD adage ALWAYS.
Good players will win some of the time...GOOD CARDS will win ALL of the time.
That is a nice way of saying he is not too bright, and I concur. If it was more like the 80% skill that the newbie mentioned, the best hands would hold up 4 out of 5 times, and that is not even remotely the case.
My feelings are so hurt, a few people who claim to be poker aficionados think I'm clueless
Pardon me while I go on permanent life tilt because a newbie passively aggressively feels the need to use CAPSLOCK to make his point, while one of this site's biggest wannabe political journalist joke has an opposing view and thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him is delusional
Wrong, wrong, Just wrong....If someone is going to post something as a hard and true FACT, it should be just that, a fact that can be proven, reliable and true.
If you want to post an OPINION....That is a completely different matter...State that something is just your opinion...not a true fact, an opinion.
Big difference between the two.
To bad you got beat by Full Tilt ...get over it...that's life. We all get scammed, beat, cheated, lied to, at some point in our lives. That's just the way real life is. Ask me some day how many times I got nailed for big money that I lost.
Just move on...That happened a year or two ago. I had money there as well...Not a large sum at all as I was suspicious of online poker in general and only played for small amounts, strictly for "entertainment" purposes... If I lost I didn't care as it was just for evening fun, and when I lost my minimal stake it was such a small amount it was no big deal.
I suspect by reading your comments you lost a huge sum and are still bitter over it. Try hard to let it go...you will feel better.
0
Quote Originally Posted by packersbackers:
My feelings are so hurt, a few people who claim to be poker aficionados think I'm clueless
Pardon me while I go on permanent life tilt because a newbie passively aggressively feels the need to use CAPSLOCK to make his point, while one of this site's biggest wannabe political journalist joke has an opposing view and thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him is delusional
Wrong, wrong, Just wrong....If someone is going to post something as a hard and true FACT, it should be just that, a fact that can be proven, reliable and true.
If you want to post an OPINION....That is a completely different matter...State that something is just your opinion...not a true fact, an opinion.
Big difference between the two.
To bad you got beat by Full Tilt ...get over it...that's life. We all get scammed, beat, cheated, lied to, at some point in our lives. That's just the way real life is. Ask me some day how many times I got nailed for big money that I lost.
Just move on...That happened a year or two ago. I had money there as well...Not a large sum at all as I was suspicious of online poker in general and only played for small amounts, strictly for "entertainment" purposes... If I lost I didn't care as it was just for evening fun, and when I lost my minimal stake it was such a small amount it was no big deal.
I suspect by reading your comments you lost a huge sum and are still bitter over it. Try hard to let it go...you will feel better.
Millions and millions of people still think online poker was legit, and that ultimate bet was an honest site, along with full tilt too,,,
"hey, who cares if UB chose to run a Ponzi scam based on their users money accounts, it's ok, I'll forgive them and reload now that this scandal is behind them",,,,a couple of em are above in this thread without doubt,,,,but I suppose I can't provide a shred of evidence so I must be having another deluded episode of rational thinking.
Yes JimmyDrizzl, welcome to covers,,,a site on the internet where scalabrine has been this sites punching bag since 2006 and the likes of him who love to talk about anything thats not related to sports run rampant here,,,it's cockroaches and rats like scalabrine that have chased away all the legit sports cappers from this site and have left nothing but SAF's and tout wannabes to fill these boards...enjoy your covers experience buddy, the glory days all long behind us now for this site
After reading your last post, as well as the one from a few days ago (see above), It is now all crystal clear to me. Scalabrine is right...you are crazy.
IT IS YOU that has chased away all the cappers and posters from this board, not Scalabrine as you falsely claim.
You are indeed a delusionial clueless idiot...YOU just don't know it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by packersbackers:
Millions and millions of people still think online poker was legit, and that ultimate bet was an honest site, along with full tilt too,,,
"hey, who cares if UB chose to run a Ponzi scam based on their users money accounts, it's ok, I'll forgive them and reload now that this scandal is behind them",,,,a couple of em are above in this thread without doubt,,,,but I suppose I can't provide a shred of evidence so I must be having another deluded episode of rational thinking.
Yes JimmyDrizzl, welcome to covers,,,a site on the internet where scalabrine has been this sites punching bag since 2006 and the likes of him who love to talk about anything thats not related to sports run rampant here,,,it's cockroaches and rats like scalabrine that have chased away all the legit sports cappers from this site and have left nothing but SAF's and tout wannabes to fill these boards...enjoy your covers experience buddy, the glory days all long behind us now for this site
After reading your last post, as well as the one from a few days ago (see above), It is now all crystal clear to me. Scalabrine is right...you are crazy.
IT IS YOU that has chased away all the cappers and posters from this board, not Scalabrine as you falsely claim.
You are indeed a delusionial clueless idiot...YOU just don't know it.
Without naming names (let me just say, "Scalabrine" is NOT one of them), there are some people in this thread who have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what they are talking about - to a degree where one could actually get a really good laugh seeing how ignorant they are on the topic, while trying to sound otherwise. Sounds to me like they are possibly jealous they can not play poker to a certain level and/or are offended that others are just smarter than them - which is unfortunately a natural human instinct in many people (so I'm not surprised).
Let me finish by saying, *POKER IS A SKILL GAME*, in the long-run. Sure, luck plays a factor in poker, but in the end (large sample size of many hands/tournaments) it's the more skilled player that prevails over the less-skilled player. If one were to say, for example, that "it's 79% luck, 21% skill", then you don't know what you are talking about and should stop making yourself look more foolish, by no longer commenting on the subject.
I guess we just got told by California Surfer Dude. We should take heed, because surfers "dudes" are known for their intelligence
0
Quote Originally Posted by CaliSurferDude:
Without naming names (let me just say, "Scalabrine" is NOT one of them), there are some people in this thread who have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what they are talking about - to a degree where one could actually get a really good laugh seeing how ignorant they are on the topic, while trying to sound otherwise. Sounds to me like they are possibly jealous they can not play poker to a certain level and/or are offended that others are just smarter than them - which is unfortunately a natural human instinct in many people (so I'm not surprised).
Let me finish by saying, *POKER IS A SKILL GAME*, in the long-run. Sure, luck plays a factor in poker, but in the end (large sample size of many hands/tournaments) it's the more skilled player that prevails over the less-skilled player. If one were to say, for example, that "it's 79% luck, 21% skill", then you don't know what you are talking about and should stop making yourself look more foolish, by no longer commenting on the subject.
I guess we just got told by California Surfer Dude. We should take heed, because surfers "dudes" are known for their intelligence
Vanzack, I believe poker is a skill game but with that most in poker have their personal specialty where they excel and if they only played that not the "it game" the poker landscape would look alot different but what I have found with poker is that you have to adapt and adapt alot and change strategies completely and if you are very proficient at changing your game up your performance will suffer causing more variance. This is where luck rears its ugly head and a run of bad luck here and you could be digging out of a big hole, Vanzack as far as your rant on it being a threshold skill I would say yes and no if each player specialized and the pool of lesser players was big enough you could last forever. I could write volumes on being a Poker Pro but I won't right now, I can tell you there are guys that grind a 2/5NL 800 max buy-in game here in CT and take home 30-40K a year so if thats what you would call a poker pro then yes guys do it all the time, now if your talking about a super highstakes pro I doubt you would see many and then their edge is so small they would have to play 100,000's of hands against each other for the person with the edge to finally move ahead of the pack I also think the top ten change every year because your just really talking about tourney poker I think if the top 10 had other criteria I think it would remain unchanged but if you win a few WSOP events you automatically rocket into top 10 while other guys may make far more then some one who has a good WSOP run. I think the top 10 is biased towards tourney poker and the rankings are a sham in my opinion.
Jimmy I did cash I was down close to 70K in the first 7 hands I played then hung around that before ending the taping with maybe 17-20K in the plus column not a big win but it was better than losing
0
Vanzack, I believe poker is a skill game but with that most in poker have their personal specialty where they excel and if they only played that not the "it game" the poker landscape would look alot different but what I have found with poker is that you have to adapt and adapt alot and change strategies completely and if you are very proficient at changing your game up your performance will suffer causing more variance. This is where luck rears its ugly head and a run of bad luck here and you could be digging out of a big hole, Vanzack as far as your rant on it being a threshold skill I would say yes and no if each player specialized and the pool of lesser players was big enough you could last forever. I could write volumes on being a Poker Pro but I won't right now, I can tell you there are guys that grind a 2/5NL 800 max buy-in game here in CT and take home 30-40K a year so if thats what you would call a poker pro then yes guys do it all the time, now if your talking about a super highstakes pro I doubt you would see many and then their edge is so small they would have to play 100,000's of hands against each other for the person with the edge to finally move ahead of the pack I also think the top ten change every year because your just really talking about tourney poker I think if the top 10 had other criteria I think it would remain unchanged but if you win a few WSOP events you automatically rocket into top 10 while other guys may make far more then some one who has a good WSOP run. I think the top 10 is biased towards tourney poker and the rankings are a sham in my opinion.
Jimmy I did cash I was down close to 70K in the first 7 hands I played then hung around that before ending the taping with maybe 17-20K in the plus column not a big win but it was better than losing
Vanzack, I believe poker is a skill game but with that most in poker have their personal specialty where they excel and if they only played that not the "it game" the poker landscape would look alot different but what I have found with poker is that you have to adapt and adapt alot and change strategies completely and if you are very proficient at changing your game up your performance will suffer causing more variance. This is where luck rears its ugly head and a run of bad luck here and you could be digging out of a big hole, Vanzack as far as your rant on it being a threshold skill I would say yes and no if each player specialized and the pool of lesser players was big enough you could last forever. I could write volumes on being a Poker Pro but I won't right now, I can tell you there are guys that grind a 2/5NL 800 max buy-in game here in CT and take home 30-40K a year so if thats what you would call a poker pro then yes guys do it all the time, now if your talking about a super highstakes pro I doubt you would see many and then their edge is so small they would have to play 100,000's of hands against each other for the person with the edge to finally move ahead of the pack I also think the top ten change every year because your just really talking about tourney poker I think if the top 10 had other criteria I think it would remain unchanged but if you win a few WSOP events you automatically rocket into top 10 while other guys may make far more then some one who has a good WSOP run. I think the top 10 is biased towards tourney poker and the rankings are a sham in my opinion.
Jimmy I did cash I was down close to 70K in the first 7 hands I played then hung around that before ending the taping with maybe 17-20K in the plus column not a big win but it was better than losing
Griding for 30-40k at 2/5 NL???
Uh, no thanks. I'd almost rather have a desk job. At least I'd have a resume with some kind of business related experience where I could be hired after 10 or 15 years. Plus, you'd get health care/dental coverage which is in addition to the 30/40K.
What about losing YEARS and big downswings. They are bound to happen. It's not like you can guarantee 30K at the end of the year in 2/5.
Count me out if that's the return on grinding at those limits...
0
Quote Originally Posted by GambleForProfit:
Vanzack, I believe poker is a skill game but with that most in poker have their personal specialty where they excel and if they only played that not the "it game" the poker landscape would look alot different but what I have found with poker is that you have to adapt and adapt alot and change strategies completely and if you are very proficient at changing your game up your performance will suffer causing more variance. This is where luck rears its ugly head and a run of bad luck here and you could be digging out of a big hole, Vanzack as far as your rant on it being a threshold skill I would say yes and no if each player specialized and the pool of lesser players was big enough you could last forever. I could write volumes on being a Poker Pro but I won't right now, I can tell you there are guys that grind a 2/5NL 800 max buy-in game here in CT and take home 30-40K a year so if thats what you would call a poker pro then yes guys do it all the time, now if your talking about a super highstakes pro I doubt you would see many and then their edge is so small they would have to play 100,000's of hands against each other for the person with the edge to finally move ahead of the pack I also think the top ten change every year because your just really talking about tourney poker I think if the top 10 had other criteria I think it would remain unchanged but if you win a few WSOP events you automatically rocket into top 10 while other guys may make far more then some one who has a good WSOP run. I think the top 10 is biased towards tourney poker and the rankings are a sham in my opinion.
Jimmy I did cash I was down close to 70K in the first 7 hands I played then hung around that before ending the taping with maybe 17-20K in the plus column not a big win but it was better than losing
Griding for 30-40k at 2/5 NL???
Uh, no thanks. I'd almost rather have a desk job. At least I'd have a resume with some kind of business related experience where I could be hired after 10 or 15 years. Plus, you'd get health care/dental coverage which is in addition to the 30/40K.
What about losing YEARS and big downswings. They are bound to happen. It's not like you can guarantee 30K at the end of the year in 2/5.
Count me out if that's the return on grinding at those limits...
Uh, no thanks. I'd almost rather have a desk job. At least I'd have a resume with some kind of business related experience where I could be hired after 10 or 15 years. Plus, you'd get health care/dental coverage which is in addition to the 30/40K.
What about losing YEARS and big downswings. They are bound to happen. It's not like you can guarantee 30K at the end of the year in 2/5.
Count me out if that's the return on grinding at those limits...
I agree, I wouldn't want to do this for 30/40k a yr but I was just asking what his definition of a poker pro was and I knew people doing this and to some people its better than working a regular job. Most of the guys I know doing this are un-marketable any way they are in their late 40's to early 50's lost manufacturing or sales jobs 10+ yrs ago and have been grinding away since during the poker boom making decent money for themselves.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Griding for 30-40k at 2/5 NL???
Uh, no thanks. I'd almost rather have a desk job. At least I'd have a resume with some kind of business related experience where I could be hired after 10 or 15 years. Plus, you'd get health care/dental coverage which is in addition to the 30/40K.
What about losing YEARS and big downswings. They are bound to happen. It's not like you can guarantee 30K at the end of the year in 2/5.
Count me out if that's the return on grinding at those limits...
I agree, I wouldn't want to do this for 30/40k a yr but I was just asking what his definition of a poker pro was and I knew people doing this and to some people its better than working a regular job. Most of the guys I know doing this are un-marketable any way they are in their late 40's to early 50's lost manufacturing or sales jobs 10+ yrs ago and have been grinding away since during the poker boom making decent money for themselves.
i am laughing here......phil ivey is a loan shark now a real turd lindgren one of the nicer guys sad he went bust. barry had a llc charity ...... figure it out. LEderer and ferguson and phil gordon and his fairy pal rafe they shd burn in hell the rest are all fukin thieves who rob newbies for buy ins. moneymaker is not a genius trust me here. a nice guy tho when not hung over. how many of these fkn thieves do the "producers"scam? they get such a big stack they must abandon it for fear of winning and having 100 backers at their face? How many times tj cloutier ask me for 1000 at the dice table....hahahah now when i see tj shooting dice i lay the point and piss him off im 3-3 !!!! play your self or buy bigpoo in, at least u know im honest. gd luck blingbling
bigFnPOO
0
i am laughing here......phil ivey is a loan shark now a real turd lindgren one of the nicer guys sad he went bust. barry had a llc charity ...... figure it out. LEderer and ferguson and phil gordon and his fairy pal rafe they shd burn in hell the rest are all fukin thieves who rob newbies for buy ins. moneymaker is not a genius trust me here. a nice guy tho when not hung over. how many of these fkn thieves do the "producers"scam? they get such a big stack they must abandon it for fear of winning and having 100 backers at their face? How many times tj cloutier ask me for 1000 at the dice table....hahahah now when i see tj shooting dice i lay the point and piss him off im 3-3 !!!! play your self or buy bigpoo in, at least u know im honest. gd luck blingbling
As a poker player of stature, I am more curious to hear your take on the subject of this thread.
Is poker a "threshold skill" as I theorize? If not, where do I go wrong? Without sponsorship and a large pool of "fish", is it possible to be a "poker pro"?
Why is the so called poker top 10 change every year? It would seem if there was truly skill that determined winners and losers, that this list would remain somewhat consistent - afterall - you dont see the top 10 in golf or tennis change top to bottom every year.
Thanks in advance.
I dont disagree with your threshold theory, but I simply question the ceiling. Does that ceiling move? The 80/20 luck/skill ratio is a bit high for my thinking, but lets use that. Wouldnt you agree that people have different ceilings? Therefore, if one could make it 75 luck/25 skill vs 80/20 people, in the long run they should do better than most. Now say that 75/25 finds a way to play with 85/15 or 90/10 people....odds are getting better and better.
I think skills can evolve and if you mix them with instinct it can be a weird process and hard to put a number on.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
As a poker player of stature, I am more curious to hear your take on the subject of this thread.
Is poker a "threshold skill" as I theorize? If not, where do I go wrong? Without sponsorship and a large pool of "fish", is it possible to be a "poker pro"?
Why is the so called poker top 10 change every year? It would seem if there was truly skill that determined winners and losers, that this list would remain somewhat consistent - afterall - you dont see the top 10 in golf or tennis change top to bottom every year.
Thanks in advance.
I dont disagree with your threshold theory, but I simply question the ceiling. Does that ceiling move? The 80/20 luck/skill ratio is a bit high for my thinking, but lets use that. Wouldnt you agree that people have different ceilings? Therefore, if one could make it 75 luck/25 skill vs 80/20 people, in the long run they should do better than most. Now say that 75/25 finds a way to play with 85/15 or 90/10 people....odds are getting better and better.
I think skills can evolve and if you mix them with instinct it can be a weird process and hard to put a number on.
Its more like 70% skill,30% luck. I agree with most everything stated in this thread as it applies to tournement and the high buy in events. You couldnt do it alone, you def need backing.
Cash games are different. I know I've been grinding here in vegas for almost 4 years and I know plenty of people that do it. Also not all locals are good, a good amount suck at poker but keep coming back.
0
Its more like 70% skill,30% luck. I agree with most everything stated in this thread as it applies to tournement and the high buy in events. You couldnt do it alone, you def need backing.
Cash games are different. I know I've been grinding here in vegas for almost 4 years and I know plenty of people that do it. Also not all locals are good, a good amount suck at poker but keep coming back.
Shockingly ignorant banter from the majority of you. Luck is worth mentioning to the recreational play, but for a professional player it is erased due to the millions of hands played. Few players, however, have the resolve to withstand the unavoidable down swings. Sounds like we have a few wannabe players in here judging by the language used. "70/30" and the like are numbers evident of your ignorance. VERY few people have what it takes to be a long-term professional player, I certainly do not, but that does not mean poker is a game of luck! Tournament poker, of course, has a definite "luck" factor, but cash games (what professionals play) do not.
0
Shockingly ignorant banter from the majority of you. Luck is worth mentioning to the recreational play, but for a professional player it is erased due to the millions of hands played. Few players, however, have the resolve to withstand the unavoidable down swings. Sounds like we have a few wannabe players in here judging by the language used. "70/30" and the like are numbers evident of your ignorance. VERY few people have what it takes to be a long-term professional player, I certainly do not, but that does not mean poker is a game of luck! Tournament poker, of course, has a definite "luck" factor, but cash games (what professionals play) do not.
Shockingly ignorant banter from the majority of you. Luck is worth mentioning to the recreational play, but for a professional player it is erased due to the millions of hands played. Few players, however, have the resolve to withstand the unavoidable down swings. Sounds like we have a few wannabe players in here judging by the language used. "70/30" and the like are numbers evident of your ignorance. VERY few people have what it takes to be a long-term professional player, I certainly do not, but that does not mean poker is a game of luck! Tournament poker, of course, has a definite "luck" factor, but cash games (what professionals play) do not.
No surprise that you are an extremely naive 18-20 year old. As you do, I believed my own bullsh it too when I was your age. But then I grew up. Hopefully, your ignorance will be erased as you get older, because your commentary is complete rubbish.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Nesci:
Shockingly ignorant banter from the majority of you. Luck is worth mentioning to the recreational play, but for a professional player it is erased due to the millions of hands played. Few players, however, have the resolve to withstand the unavoidable down swings. Sounds like we have a few wannabe players in here judging by the language used. "70/30" and the like are numbers evident of your ignorance. VERY few people have what it takes to be a long-term professional player, I certainly do not, but that does not mean poker is a game of luck! Tournament poker, of course, has a definite "luck" factor, but cash games (what professionals play) do not.
No surprise that you are an extremely naive 18-20 year old. As you do, I believed my own bullsh it too when I was your age. But then I grew up. Hopefully, your ignorance will be erased as you get older, because your commentary is complete rubbish.
Poker is not a game that can be measured on a scale of 'luck' and 'skill.' It is so much deeper than that.
Dealing with the 'unlucky' and mental toughness are aspects that are overlooked. Everyone gets unlucky, but how you deal with adversity and respond is the only thing that makes a truly great poker player.
0
Poker is not a game that can be measured on a scale of 'luck' and 'skill.' It is so much deeper than that.
Dealing with the 'unlucky' and mental toughness are aspects that are overlooked. Everyone gets unlucky, but how you deal with adversity and respond is the only thing that makes a truly great poker player.
poker is and will always be about luck. when you play a game where the best plyr in the world can lose 3 outta 10 times to the worst plyr it is luck.....basketball skill baseball skill.... poker luckshmucks
bigFnPOO
0
poker is and will always be about luck. when you play a game where the best plyr in the world can lose 3 outta 10 times to the worst plyr it is luck.....basketball skill baseball skill.... poker luckshmucks
if m jordan had no arms he would beat u in bball ...if tiger had a arm tied 'round his back he beat u at golf......if eh u get it i can beat any pro poker plyr a hand. that is luck. fk u. u will never beat tiger one frikkin hole. well maybe erik lindgren can.
bigFnPOO
0
if m jordan had no arms he would beat u in bball ...if tiger had a arm tied 'round his back he beat u at golf......if eh u get it i can beat any pro poker plyr a hand. that is luck. fk u. u will never beat tiger one frikkin hole. well maybe erik lindgren can.
what they are talking about - to a degree where one could actually get a really good laugh 
seeing how ignorant they are on the topic, while trying to sound otherwise. Sounds to me like they are possibly jealous they can not play poker to a certain level and/or are offended that others are just smarter than them - which is unfortunately a natural human instinct in many people (so I'm not surprised).
That is a nice way of saying he is not too bright, and I concur. If it was more like the 80% skill that the newbie mentioned, the best hands would hold up 4 out of 5 times, and that is not even remotely the case.
We should take heed, because surfers "dudes" are known for their intelligence 
Hot Forum Topics
