BF2S Forums Do you gamble?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Or, whoever gets lucky wins. Uh oh, is that the one you wanted?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Hakei wrote:

This makes it sound like he's studying the game intensely and suggests that he uses 100% skill and doesn't have any luck.

Sure okay - someone playing the game for 5 days a week, 8 hours a day might realise that there is the element of skill - how many people actually do this as apposed to someone who just plays a couple of times a month and hopes for a lucky hand? 1%? I don't think you can call something as big as 'it's all about skill' with only a handful of players actually resorting to poker as a form of income.

Hence my reason for saying that you can't call the game 100% skill, because I bet he doesn't sit there, calling bets with nothing in his hand just to simply gain knowledge, nor would you try and see if someone is bluffing based on facial movement because you think watching a youtube video saying that people look to the right when they're lying is equatable to a psychology degree. People lose and people win, but you shouldn't claim that your win was based purely on skill because you thought you made a few good moves.

He is studying the game intensely - he is a pro poker player.  I'm sure he'll admit there are times of luck - that doesn't mean that to be a good poker player takes 100% skill.  Look at the man who wrote the article - he is a pro who has made millions of dollars playing poker - and devoting a lot of time to the theory of the game.  He obviously already knows odds and the math behind the game - as can virtually anyone.  The intangible comes in the game theory implemented in playing his opponent - and that's what he attributes to skill.

It's not about a universal tell where people look left when they bluff - it's about reading each individual and establishing a pattern.  The best poker players are really good at it; most aren't.

Obviously you either have never played poker or haven't played live that much at all, which makes me wonder how/why you are even carrying on this argument.

andy12 wrote:

If he put 8 people together of exact equal skill what other than luck determines who walks away with the cash?

Don't be an idiot.  You are recognizing that it takes skill in your question, which would make his argument correct.  Dumb hypothetical question fail.

phishman420 wrote:

Hakei wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Or, whoever gets lucky wins. Uh oh, is that the one you wanted?

Yup, thanks.

you're an idiot. of fucking course there is luck involved--it's a card game. in the long run (which is what matters), skill prevails over luck. is it really that hard to understand?

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-02-18 10:45:32)

Hakei wrote:

phishman420 wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Yup, thanks.

you're an idiot. of fucking course there is luck involved--it's a card game. in the long run (which is what matters), skill prevails over luck. is it really that hard to understand?

What's hard to understand is that you claimed you won $3000 playing poker, and after asking why did you win I answered "Because people win and people lose" You then quoted a wall of text saying that poker is all about 100% skill, I was simply saying that I don't think it's quite as simple as that and for low stakes games - skill is very rarely displayed.

If you've ever sat at a poker table, you've invariably heard the questions asked in the title of this article. While all serious players believe poker is a game of skill, they don't always agree on how skilful a game it really is. Some people believe the skill to luck ratio falls at somewhere around 70% - 30%, while others argue that the ratio is closer to 90% - 10%. If you ask me, however, I'll tell you something you won't hear from almost anybody else. Poker is 100% skilful.

Now, I know many of you are already skeptical about how I can make this kind of claim. What about bad beats? Or the times you're out-drawn on the river? How can I not figure these kinds of situations into my thinking? The fact is, I already have. Variance is part of poker and it would be highly unusual if bad beats didn't occasionally happen or if two-outers didn't sometimes hit on the river, as this would defy the laws of probability. The fact is, these kinds of events should have less of an impact on your overall results the more you play.

If you only play a few hands or a few hours of poker at a time, luck will undoubtedly play a bigger factor in your results than if you play regularly. For example, let's look at a player who puts in eight hours a day, five days a week, for 50 weeks per year, which is equivalent to 2,000 hours at the table. Assuming this is a solid, smart player who doesn't vary his or her stakes throughout the course of the year, I believe their talent will outweigh the effect of luck to ensure that they produce positive results year after year. That's not to say this player won't run into the occasional rough patch or have losing sessions, but by sticking to their game plan, these occasional down-turns shouldn't adversely affect their bottom line.

In effect, all players get paid for every good decision that they make and penalized for their bad ones. By continuously making high-quality decisions over the course of so many hours, skilful players should make more good decisions than bad, and see their bankrolls grow as a result. I have done this for more than 33 years, and know many other professional players who have produced similar results for many years. What this shows me is that, over the long haul, luck is not only insignificant when it comes to your results - it's non-existent.

It takes a true professional to look at poker in this way, and I fully expect that many people will disagree with my conclusions. That's why I'm holding a scheduled chat session entitled "Poker - Luck or Skill" on Full Tilt Poker at 15:00 ET (3PM ET) on Saturday, April 7th. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about my position and further explain why I believe that, over the long term, luck has nothing to do with being a winning poker player.

Last edited by phishman420 (2009-02-19 04:34:19)

Last edited by phishman420 (2009-02-19 09:18:34)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Not to mention Phil Ivey is more "professional gambler" than "professional poker player".  The guy is a degenerate gambler, simple as.  I remember one tourney Phil Ivey entered where he had to place at least second (I think the payout for second place was like $250K) just to break even with all the prop-betting he had done during the tourney.  I think he ended up first or second in the tourney.