Arguement that Poker is a Game of Luck...

Agree.  Although you might need some luck in golf, you need WAYYYYYY more luck in  poker.

 

Just look at Jamie Gold as a perfect example, not a good poker player, just got a lucky run of cards.......for a week straight.

My thoughts?  Maybe, you've lost a lot of money in poker.

 

Not it to be honest. I don't even play huge stakes. Just an observation to be honest. Great contribution though.

I guess the question at the end of the day is why can Jamie Gold beat Alan Cunningham and I not beat Roger Federer in tennis? Becuase luck is definately an element of poker.

Reading about Jamie Gold, he is a very experienced player. Is he as good, long term, as say the top 40 professionals? No. He was a very good local player in the LA area for a few years. He was just catching cards like crazy in the main event, and then at the final table, he had a huge chip lead. he was able to take some chances that either the others couldn't or just plain wouldn't anyway. he would play 5 6 off to a raise and flop a nut straight. and this happened several times. If he played Allen Cunningham in say a best of 9 series, then I think Gold could hold his own. Cunningham wasn't outplayed as much as Gold just had a huge chip lead. One hand Cunningham had a pair of aces and he couldn't call because it was for all of his chips. Gold played like a maniac, just like Negreanu does. If Hellmuth sat in Gold's chair, he probably wouldn't have won as he wouldn't have played anywhere near as many hands as Gold does. Hellmuth starts whining whne he keeps getting 6 7 off, while Gold would have played those cards and gotten the nuts.

because in poker the hands you are dealt means something where as in basketball you holding a ball means just that.  Of course, luck is involve.  When you are an 80% favorite, you are expected to lose 20% of the time.  Numbers don't lie.

 

Of course, a average person can't beat Federer.  But an average person can beat a 70 years old Federer.  But an average person may not beat a 70 year old Helmuth.  Ever thought about it that way?

yeah that is right Col. like if you are playing against Doyle Brunson, he may look like an old fogie, but his experience is unmatched. and it is live experience, not on the internet. I have played with guys that have played poker 20 + years, and some can play, some can't. I see an old guy and most of the time they don't know what they are doing, are slow, etc. But some of them played stud poker in world war 2 and have tons of experience. You can't make assumptions. I've seen big Dorks sit down and win big because thay are catching cards.  Like Brunson says, you have to go by feel. sometimes you feel someone is bluffing, if you are right 15% of time it's a good move.

luck can help you on one hand, on one night, but in the long run skill will override that as the luck will even out. you have some bad beats and lucky wins, they even out in the long run, to win long term you have to play really well.

this argument never gets anywhere and its so repetitive to read, however you can always tell who the real poker players are by the responses.

 

WHO said poker was ALL skill?  Of course there is some luck involved and even the pros would tell you that.  However, over the long run the pros are the ones that are consistently winning and that's because of skill not luck.

 

And if you think that poker is mainly luck why wouldn't you beat Phil Ivey half the time?  The numbers don't lie, think about it? 

The key difference here is that poker is a GAME, not a sport.  Odds of beating an star athlete in his sport is virtually zero, whereas the chance of beating an excellent poker player is somewhat attainable.  In the short term, you have basically ZERO chance to beat a star athlete (Hypothetically, if a poker pro went all-in and all 8 people at the table called, his hand would be an underdog to hold up vs. the table). 

 

In poker, as Jamie Gold had shown, if you get hit by the deck and aren't afraid to gamble, almost anyone can win at a given time.  Plus, I think the term pro is vastly overrated and overused, as I think there are a lot of people that are very good at poker and can give the so called "pros" a run for their money on a fairly consistent basis. 

Cant deny that Luck is an important factor in cards. Poker being a game of luck statement is such a broad assesment, though, the pros are so outnumbered in these tournaments its rediculous to expect them to go out and win constantly.  For some people who do win a WSOP tourny it is the highlight of their careersand only tourny victory, pros will win numerous times in their playing careers.  Pros go into a casino and it isnt difficult to make a ton of money playing in cash games, some of the people who win these tournaments can sit in a cash game with a pro and are so far out of their element it almost funny. Why is it that an amateur card player doesnt play in the H.O.R.S.E. event, simple they have no game, Look the WSOP winners so far, if you take out NL holdem, the majority of champs are pros

 

I think you could beat Phil Ivey more than once in ten times if you were a decent poker player.

 

I agree the game is mostly luck.    ESPN doesn't want people to think that though.

 

They want you to think there are these "mystical" poker players out there who can make incredible reads and calls.

 

Its all in the definition of the word "luck".

 

The truth is that in poker you are very often a 2-1, or even a 4-1 favorite in hands.  When you play Federer in tennis, he is a 10,000,000-1 favorite.

 

So when you lose to a runner runner flush it seems horrible, but the truth is that the odds of that happening are far higher than you beating federer and it has nothing to do with luck but it has everything to do with probability.

 

Does this make it more unpredictable who wins short term events like individual tournaments?  Of course it does.  But its not luck, its higher variance on lower odds.

It really depends on how you play.  Some people play luck and some people play players.  The ones who play players are the winners. 

Go watch a cash game.

 

See if the better player wins that or not.

Ivey

Men the Master

Jen Harmon

Grey Raymer

Johnny Chan

Doyle Brunson

Jeff Lisandro

Howard Lederer

Mike Matusow

and others......

 

All out on the first day of the World Series of Poker.         Yea it's all about skill.     

You know what is funny?  People who have no problem wagering on a team at +150 where it is very possibly MORE likely that team will lose.....yet can't understand (or better yet, come to terms) with the numbers that are part of poker).  Poker, in a sense, is no different then what a person who is successful at sports wagering is trying to do:  GET YOUR MONEY IN GOOD.  And in poker, how you play (and what you observe) can actually HELP you gain information in order to make an even BETTER decision.  Look at all the variables that affect a sports contest....despite the best capping, you are lucky if you can gain a slight to reasonable edge.  In poker, it is VERY common to have a 2:1 to 4:1 edge.....or more. 

 

It just blows my minds how someone can drop a dime on a sports contest citing the fact that they feel a line is $.10 to $.15 off yet can't understand how much more of an advantage a SKILLED poker player has over an average one.  And understand that a skilled poker player may not win all the time, but that they are absolutely foolish not to attempt to exploit their obvious advantage in skill by playing in these events. 

Even the complete idiot laying -300 in baseball wins sometimes.  That doesn't prevent a successful and smart wagerer from snatching up a juicy dog if they feel it presents proper value. 

 

As I posted above, who said poker is ALL about skill?  Is poker ALL luck?  It's definitely a combination of luck and skill, even the pros would tell you that.

 

 

 

 that is 100 percent spot on !!!   

 

Multi-table tourneys (and poker in general) involve a lot more luck than most people even know.  And with all the knowledge available to "amateurs" these days via books, online play, poker forums, etc., I have been saying for a long time that the word "pro" is greatly overused in to describe poker players.  Pro degenerates would be a better description for the majority of them. 

 

And contrary to what a lot of poker players believe, I think poker is 75% LUCK and 25% skill as opposed to the reverse.  Regardless of how well you play, it still comes down to catching cards (or not getting outdrawn by your opponent) and winning more races than you lose. 

 

I consider myself a decent player, and have acquired a lot of knowledge from playing poker and reading many articles and books on the game.  But I have come to realize that the amount of time invested comes nowhere close to making it a worthwhile hobby.  And the only way to make it worth all the time invested is to get lucky like the lottery and win a big tourney sometime.  And the odds of that are virtually nil. 

Poker is a 90% skill game maybe higher... Over time better players will win at least 90% of the time.