|
People often think of poker as a game of chance, but really it's a game of skill that has chance involved. I think the problem is that a lot of people believe that it's skill-less because you are given cards at random, and therefore it's hard to predict what may unfold. Especially in a game like Texas Hold'em where you get only 2 cards, and have to decipher other people through the table cards and their position (both in chips and at the table relative to the blinds).
But the skill part comes in when you realize that you don't have to play any given hand, and when it comes to your turn, you can simply put down the cards you have and walk away until the next hand. This comes at the cost of whatever chips you have may have already surrendered to the pot (Good poker players realize that any money already invested in a hand isn't your money anymore), and you don't have a say of what the next cards seen are (although again, good poker players realize that after folding a hand, it's irrelevant to know what cards come after).
The true skill in poker is playing any given hand in the right position. Under the gun, someone may really only want to have a bad ass hand like AA, KK, or AK (or maybe others, i'm not really that great at poker) because they have to make their bet before anyone at the table does. If you have a decent chip lead, you could even play a little more loose because you've become a power at the table, therefore making your range of hands bigger, which makes it harder to decipher what hand you're holding at any given position at the table.
I'm sure that a lot of people will read this and point out the errors in my poker playing ways, but the point isn't the exact science, but that Poker in itself is a game of skill despite the fact that the base of the game revolves around chance. You don't have to take any of those chances, but may eventually when the time comes. You'll take several, and it's going to be a battle of wits after to try to deceive your opponent and trade blows with them.
I originally started this blog in mind talking about SC2 and BW, then leading on to poker. But now that I've gotten to explain to those who don't play poker why it's a game of skill more than chance, I thought it would be good to segue-way into what this has to do with SC2 and BW. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that in SC2, you have less battles than you do in BW. I feel like this is another part of why the game doesn't feel as dynamic as BW did (with the "it's only been two years" argument aside) - There are less chances to gain an advantage on your opponent through conflict. A lot of SC2's advantages feel like they're simply boosts from your own choices within yourself, and not the choices you're making to defend yourself against the enemy.
 
|
In most card games you read the cards...
In poker you learn to read your opponents. (And the cards in general.)
|
I actually found the biggest problem with starting poker was actually respecting the element of luck. When you start poker you think its all about skill, then you hit variance and lose a months profit in a single session.
I feel like the difference between a profitable poker player and a losing one, is the losing one doesn't respect the fact that poker actually has a lot to do with luck and you have to make enough provisions to make sure you don't get self-owned.
|
Calgary25995 Posts
I think everyone understands this about poker at this point...
|
On October 24 2012 01:07 Chill wrote:
I think everyone understands this about poker at this point...
I would like to think that, but unfortunately I'm pretty sure most don't. I think people understand the idea once it's told to them, but I don't think they really understood it before that, or even thought about it. I find myself forgetting this idea while playing sometimes, so it's nice to write/type it down somewhere to help myself remember it more often.
People often misunderstand the purpose of blogs or even the idea of when someone is trying to explain something to you. It's not that they are trying to teach you something, but instead they're verifying how much you know so they know where the conversation stands. If I want to continue this topic with someone else, I've already laid out a good enough ground work that it really won't matter who it is for the most part - because they already have a basic understanding of the subject at hand regardless of what they knew before hand.
|
You seem to know quite a bit about what other people misunderstand.
|
On October 24 2012 01:24 Smancer wrote:
You seem to know quite a bit about what other people misunderstand.
I've studied a lot of psychology, unfortunately. I also have made a lot of mistakes in my life so it's easy for me to see people act the way I use to act. It's really not that hard when you sit down and think about it. The key is being open to being wrong - If I'm wrong about people misunderstanding, then I will be shown that and I will have to accept it. This relates to another subject that I might blog about soon.
|
Kiwikaki gets poker
Find it amusing how good he is at it
|
Unfortunately, at least in live poker, you will NEVER reach the long run, or even come close to it. So it is very possible that someone very skilled at the game winds up a losing player.
For months, I lost with the best hand. MONTHS. I'd get my money in ahead again, and again, and again, and lost thousands. Eventually I had to quit simply because my bankroll grew too small. And yes, I did exercise proper bankroll management. I know poker, I've got a whole bookshelf with poker books I've read. I know pot odds, implied odds, reverse implied odds, low m-ratio tournament inflection point strategy, etc. etc. I studied the game for years. I kept losing but kept coming back because I knew I was making correct decisions, and therefore knew I should be winning. And I couldn't turn down profitable situations, until I was forced to.
So anyway, a couple weeks ago I went to Lake Tahoe. I hadn't played poker in over a year. I decided to give it one more try. Of course this was with the standard logic which kept me losing for months before: "There is no such thing as an unlucky person. The odds will always even out in the long run. Getting your money in with the best hand is guaranteed to show a profit eventually." So I sit down at a cheap table, buy in only $100. The first hand I get, literally the first hand, AA... A couple fish limp in early position, gets to me and I raise. I get one caller behind me, everyone folds. Flop comes out, K73 rainbow. I bet $35. I've now got over half my money in the pot, I'm committed. He shoves all in, I call. He shows KQ, I show AA. Queen on the river.
Really don't know what else to say. I can't deny the logic of probability, can't deny positive expected value. And yet, I can't reconcile this with the reality of consistently losing in profitable situations. When I used to hear other people say this, I would think, "he's just bad. He doesn't see his leaks." Now I know what "long run" and "variance" actually mean. They can be insurmountable, even with BRM.
|
yes, poker is a game of both skill and chance but to say that it is more chance than skill is not correct. u may be able to bluff your way to a few blinds if your on a string of shitty cards, thats skill. also laying down a good losing hand like u mentioned is skill. but if the other guy is getting high pocket pairs and you arent eventually youll get beat.
also, the community cards. complete chance. u may limp in with 10 8 off and flop 10 10 8. then u take all the money from the dude with 8 8. its situations like these that move the most chips into a pot at once. even the best players find it hard to make good money unless they get a huge hand like that. yes you can play the odds but when your opponent hits runner runner to beat your ace high straight and you just happened to be in for a ton, well all that nickle and dimeing was for nothing.
so yes, at the very best for your argument poker is 50skill/50 chance, but i am skeptical of even that. the point that im trying to make is that its hard to make a good hourly rate with just skill. you need a huge hand or a lucky ass flop every once in awhile to actually stay ahead, especially considering the rakes.
source: i deal poker and have seen thousands of different players play tons of hands at varying limits.
|
People often ask what's the percentage of skill/luck is in poker and the answer is never the same because the question is badly formulated.
The answer is the more you play, less there is chance.
You need more chance than skill to win a single tournament but you need more skill than chance to sustain going through hundreds of them.
|
On October 24 2012 01:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Unfortunately, at least in live poker, you will NEVER reach the long run, or even come close to it. So it is very possible that someone very skilled at the game winds up a losing player.
For months, I lost with the best hand. MONTHS. I'd get my money in ahead again, and again, and again, and lost thousands. Eventually I had to quit simply because my bankroll grew too small. And yes, I did exercise proper bankroll management. I know poker, I've got a whole bookshelf with poker books I've read. I know pot odds, implied odds, reverse implied odds, low m-ratio tournament inflection point strategy, etc. etc. I studied the game for years. I kept losing but kept coming back because I knew I was making correct decisions, and therefore knew I should be winning. And I couldn't turn down profitable situations, until I was forced to.
So anyway, a couple weeks ago I went to Lake Tahoe. I hadn't played poker in over a year. I decided to give it one more try. Of course this was with the standard logic which kept me losing for months before: "There is no such thing as an unlucky person. The odds will always even out in the long run. Getting your money in with the best hand is guaranteed to show a profit eventually." So I sit down at a cheap table, buy in only $100. The first hand I get, literally the first hand, AA... A couple fish limp in early position, gets to me and I raise. I get one caller behind me, everyone folds. Flop comes out, K73 rainbow. I bet $35. I've now got over half my money in the pot, I'm committed. He shoves all in, I call. He shows KQ, I show AA. Queen on the river.
Really don't know what else to say. I can't deny the logic of probability, can't deny positive expected value. And yet, I can't reconcile this with the reality of consistently losing in profitable situations. When I used to hear other people say this, I would think, "he's just bad. He doesn't see his leaks." Now I know what "long run" and "variance" actually mean. They can be insurmountable, even with BRM.
It happens. My brother who plays poker as a profession (but not neccesary a professional, two different things) says hes lost more hands when he was ahead than when he wasn't. But it is all about the long run though. Poker is full of momentum swings, and only the strongest can survive them. He had a few buddies come stay with him to try to grind it out online, but they couldn't handle the constant feeling that they may not break through.
He won a huge online tournament a few years ago with a ridiculous hand, but he was playing heads up, and that's a different game in itself.
|
On October 24 2012 02:09 scDeluX wrote:
People often ask what's the percentage of skill/luck is in poker and the answer is never the same because the question is badly formulated.
The answer is the more you play, less there is chance.
You need more chance than skill to win a single tournament but you need more skill than chance to sustain going through hundreds of them.
I wish I had said it this way. Well done, sir.
|
On October 24 2012 01:51 ParkwayDrive wrote:
yes, poker is a game of both skill and chance but to say that it is more chance than skill is not correct. u may be able to bluff your way to a few blinds if your on a string of shitty cards, thats skill. also laying down a good losing hand like u mentioned is skill. but if the other guy is getting high pocket pairs and you arent eventually youll get beat.
also, the community cards. complete chance. u may limp in with 10 8 off and flop 10 10 8. then u take all the money from the dude with 8 8. its situations like these that move the most chips into a pot at once. even the best players find it hard to make good money unless they get a huge hand like that. yes you can play the odds but when your opponent hits runner runner to beat your ace high straight and you just happened to be in for a ton, well all that nickle and dimeing was for nothing.
so yes, at the very best for your argument poker is 50skill/50 chance, but i am skeptical of even that. the point that im trying to make is that its hard to make a good hourly rate with just skill. you need a huge hand or a lucky ass flop every once in awhile to actually stay ahead, especially considering the rakes.
source: i deal poker and have seen thousands of different players play tons of hands at varying limits.
I wouldn't say it's 50% chance still because you can minimize your losses by either understanding the player's previous plays or not dealing with them at all because they are too chaotic. Or make yourself seem weak so he gets over confident, then hit him on a hand where he's not expecting it.
Even in the situatio nyou described, the player who limped in wouldn't have done that if he was smart. He took a chance, it paid off, but if he took those chances all of the time - He would be in the negatives eventually. he may even hit it big a few times, and win, but if he keeps doing what hes doing enough times, it will come back to get him.
Sometimes, losing is simply the outcome of a hand regardless of how you play it. When that shit happens, you can't just say "Well, poker is not for me because I'm bad luck." No, you just got unlucky, and you may get unlucky 10 more times, but with the right mindset, you can come out on top even if you get unlucky in every hand you play.
|
On October 24 2012 01:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Unfortunately, at least in live poker, you will NEVER reach the long run, or even come close to it. So it is very possible that someone very skilled at the game winds up a losing player.
For months, I lost with the best hand. MONTHS. I'd get my money in ahead again, and again, and again, and lost thousands. Eventually I had to quit simply because my bankroll grew too small. And yes, I did exercise proper bankroll management. I know poker, I've got a whole bookshelf with poker books I've read. I know pot odds, implied odds, reverse implied odds, low m-ratio tournament inflection point strategy, etc. etc. I studied the game for years. I kept losing but kept coming back because I knew I was making correct decisions, and therefore knew I should be winning. And I couldn't turn down profitable situations, until I was forced to.
So anyway, a couple weeks ago I went to Lake Tahoe. I hadn't played poker in over a year. I decided to give it one more try. Of course this was with the standard logic which kept me losing for months before: "There is no such thing as an unlucky person. The odds will always even out in the long run. Getting your money in with the best hand is guaranteed to show a profit eventually." So I sit down at a cheap table, buy in only $100. The first hand I get, literally the first hand, AA... A couple fish limp in early position, gets to me and I raise. I get one caller behind me, everyone folds. Flop comes out, K73 rainbow. I bet $35. I've now got over half my money in the pot, I'm committed. He shoves all in, I call. He shows KQ, I show AA. Queen on the river.
Really don't know what else to say. I can't deny the logic of probability, can't deny positive expected value. And yet, I can't reconcile this with the reality of consistently losing in profitable situations. When I used to hear other people say this, I would think, "he's just bad. He doesn't see his leaks." Now I know what "long run" and "variance" actually mean. They can be insurmountable, even with BRM.
Sounds like you are playing scared money?
Sometimes it doesn't matter how much you know about poker, if you don't have the psychological part of it down, you will never be a winning player. For some people it could even be genetically impossible to be a winning player because of their inability to have enough discipline over a very long period of time.
It also sounds like you have the definition of "correct" wrong. There is no "correct" way to play poker. A profitable style on one table, may be completely unprofitable on another, for example I play completely differently depending on what site I'm playing on online.
Take the example of Patrik Antonius, he is almost completely self taught, never read any books or anything. Another great example is Nanonoko, who plays a completely different style of profitable poker. Both of these players are the most successful players, and they don't necessarily use the "correct" style of poker.
On October 24 2012 02:37 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 01:51 ParkwayDrive wrote:
yes, poker is a game of both skill and chance but to say that it is more chance than skill is not correct. u may be able to bluff your way to a few blinds if your on a string of shitty cards, thats skill. also laying down a good losing hand like u mentioned is skill. but if the other guy is getting high pocket pairs and you arent eventually youll get beat.
also, the community cards. complete chance. u may limp in with 10 8 off and flop 10 10 8. then u take all the money from the dude with 8 8. its situations like these that move the most chips into a pot at once. even the best players find it hard to make good money unless they get a huge hand like that. yes you can play the odds but when your opponent hits runner runner to beat your ace high straight and you just happened to be in for a ton, well all that nickle and dimeing was for nothing.
so yes, at the very best for your argument poker is 50skill/50 chance, but i am skeptical of even that. the point that im trying to make is that its hard to make a good hourly rate with just skill. you need a huge hand or a lucky ass flop every once in awhile to actually stay ahead, especially considering the rakes.
source: i deal poker and have seen thousands of different players play tons of hands at varying limits. I wouldn't say it's 50% chance still because you can minimize your losses by either understanding the player's previous plays or not dealing with them at all because they are too chaotic. Or make yourself seem weak so he gets over confident, then hit him on a hand where he's not expecting it. Even in the situatio nyou described, the player who limped in wouldn't have done that if he was smart. He took a chance, it paid off, but if he took those chances all of the time - He would be in the negatives eventually. he may even hit it big a few times, and win, but if he keeps doing what hes doing enough times, it will come back to get him. Sometimes, losing is simply the outcome of a hand regardless of how you play it. When that shit happens, you can't just say "Well, poker is not for me because I'm bad luck." No, you just got unlucky, and you may get unlucky 10 more times, but with the right mindset, you can come out on top even if you get unlucky in every hand you play.
I think this is naive though. Its very very difficult to be a winning poker player in the long run these days. You might just be helping people waste their money.
|
On October 24 2012 03:37 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 01:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Unfortunately, at least in live poker, you will NEVER reach the long run, or even come close to it. So it is very possible that someone very skilled at the game winds up a losing player.
For months, I lost with the best hand. MONTHS. I'd get my money in ahead again, and again, and again, and lost thousands. Eventually I had to quit simply because my bankroll grew too small. And yes, I did exercise proper bankroll management. I know poker, I've got a whole bookshelf with poker books I've read. I know pot odds, implied odds, reverse implied odds, low m-ratio tournament inflection point strategy, etc. etc. I studied the game for years. I kept losing but kept coming back because I knew I was making correct decisions, and therefore knew I should be winning. And I couldn't turn down profitable situations, until I was forced to.
So anyway, a couple weeks ago I went to Lake Tahoe. I hadn't played poker in over a year. I decided to give it one more try. Of course this was with the standard logic which kept me losing for months before: "There is no such thing as an unlucky person. The odds will always even out in the long run. Getting your money in with the best hand is guaranteed to show a profit eventually." So I sit down at a cheap table, buy in only $100. The first hand I get, literally the first hand, AA... A couple fish limp in early position, gets to me and I raise. I get one caller behind me, everyone folds. Flop comes out, K73 rainbow. I bet $35. I've now got over half my money in the pot, I'm committed. He shoves all in, I call. He shows KQ, I show AA. Queen on the river.
Really don't know what else to say. I can't deny the logic of probability, can't deny positive expected value. And yet, I can't reconcile this with the reality of consistently losing in profitable situations. When I used to hear other people say this, I would think, "he's just bad. He doesn't see his leaks." Now I know what "long run" and "variance" actually mean. They can be insurmountable, even with BRM. Sounds like you are playing scared money? Sometimes it doesn't matter how much you know about poker, if you don't have the psychological part of it down, you will never be a winning player. For some people it could even be genetically impossible to be a winning player because of their inability to have enough discipline over a very long period of time. It also sounds like you have the definition of "correct" wrong. There is no "correct" way to play poker. A profitable style on one table, may be completely unprofitable on another, for example I play completely differently depending on what site I'm playing on online. Take the example of Patrik Antonius, he is almost completely self taught, never read any books or anything. Another great example is Nanonoko, who plays a completely different style of profitable poker. Both of these players are the most successful players, and they don't necessarily use the "correct" style of poker. Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 02:37 hoby2000 wrote:On October 24 2012 01:51 ParkwayDrive wrote:
yes, poker is a game of both skill and chance but to say that it is more chance than skill is not correct. u may be able to bluff your way to a few blinds if your on a string of shitty cards, thats skill. also laying down a good losing hand like u mentioned is skill. but if the other guy is getting high pocket pairs and you arent eventually youll get beat.
also, the community cards. complete chance. u may limp in with 10 8 off and flop 10 10 8. then u take all the money from the dude with 8 8. its situations like these that move the most chips into a pot at once. even the best players find it hard to make good money unless they get a huge hand like that. yes you can play the odds but when your opponent hits runner runner to beat your ace high straight and you just happened to be in for a ton, well all that nickle and dimeing was for nothing.
so yes, at the very best for your argument poker is 50skill/50 chance, but i am skeptical of even that. the point that im trying to make is that its hard to make a good hourly rate with just skill. you need a huge hand or a lucky ass flop every once in awhile to actually stay ahead, especially considering the rakes.
source: i deal poker and have seen thousands of different players play tons of hands at varying limits. I wouldn't say it's 50% chance still because you can minimize your losses by either understanding the player's previous plays or not dealing with them at all because they are too chaotic. Or make yourself seem weak so he gets over confident, then hit him on a hand where he's not expecting it. Even in the situatio nyou described, the player who limped in wouldn't have done that if he was smart. He took a chance, it paid off, but if he took those chances all of the time - He would be in the negatives eventually. he may even hit it big a few times, and win, but if he keeps doing what hes doing enough times, it will come back to get him. Sometimes, losing is simply the outcome of a hand regardless of how you play it. When that shit happens, you can't just say "Well, poker is not for me because I'm bad luck." No, you just got unlucky, and you may get unlucky 10 more times, but with the right mindset, you can come out on top even if you get unlucky in every hand you play. I think this is naive though. Its very very difficult to be a winning poker player in the long run these days. You might just be helping people waste their money.
It's not as difficult as you think. My brother does it for a job, and he says that the only bad part is how time consuming it is for him. he doesn't play a lot of big tournaments though - mainly only cash games which have a completely different feel to them. Still, knowing this, it's not difficulty that stops players from being winning poker players - it's time. They feel like they need to win big fast or they'll never win which isn't true.
Eventually, good decisions pay out better than bad ones even if you lose a huge pot or tournament doing it. Poker is just as much about accepting consequences as it is obtaining them.
|
Canada847 Posts
I haven't played much poker for years but I was in Vegas last month and I got into a ridiculous game at the Wynn. I would have stayed in this game all day but I had to leave after a few hours to catch my flight home 
Seats 2 and 3 are these two East Indian women -- mother and daughter. The mother literally does not know how to play. The daughter is teaching her but the daughter is just about as hopeless. They are obviously very wealthy (judging based on jewelry and clothing) and the money means nothing to them (the game is 1-3 no limit). They are fun and laughing and having a good time.
Seat 5 is a crazy aggro player who is so tired he is literally falling asleep at the table. He is a funny kid when he's awake but his play style is super aggressive and he loves to show his bluffs when he gets away with them. He honest to God fell asleep in the middle of a $300 pot. The dealer was like "sir? Sir? Umm ... SIR??" Then this player shook himself awake, glanced around the table, and raised $100.
I'm in seat 6, just trying to play smart tight aggressive - I haven't played in a year or more so I'm trying to be cautious!
Seats 7 and 8 are two 30ish guys from Houston. They seem like smart guys with good jobs. They may or may not know how to play good poker but they clearly are not trying. They are slamming back the free Coronas as fast as the cocktail waitress can serve them up (and they are tipping her $5 per drink so she is serving them up pretty fast!) They are laughing and having fun and playing very silly poker.
Seats 1, 4, and 9 are your average tight sensible players.
I had one truly bizarre hand with the Indian lady in seat 2 when I was dealt JJ, I raise and she calls preflop. The flop is Kxx, she checks I bet she calls. The turn is a J and I am feeling good. I bet big and she calls. The river is a blank. No flush or straight possible. I am 110 percent sure I have got this won since I can only lose to KK and she's never bet once. She checks the river, I bet about $80 thinking if I bet more she might fold. She just calls. Then of course she turns over KK with the stone cold nuts. Pot must have been $400. Everyone at the table is asking her why she didn't raise me, she explains that she wasn't sure if she had the best hand.
If I could consistently get into games like this I think I could make a living at poker. However from what I can tell these games are pretty hard to find nowadays. Still, it's nice when it happens 
|
lets say it is all based on skill and those who play in the WSOP are all relatively equal on skill. it seems logical that this is the case because now that there are so many players we see less and less domination and different people winning WSOP each year. if certain people on the pro level truly outskilled their opponents they would be winning more consistently.
once you are close enough in skill, then the luck of the cards is what determines outcome. theres no way skill is more than 50% of the game unless the variance in skill level of all players at the table is very large.
|
On October 24 2012 02:18 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 01:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Unfortunately, at least in live poker, you will NEVER reach the long run, or even come close to it. So it is very possible that someone very skilled at the game winds up a losing player.
For months, I lost with the best hand. MONTHS. I'd get my money in ahead again, and again, and again, and lost thousands. Eventually I had to quit simply because my bankroll grew too small. And yes, I did exercise proper bankroll management. I know poker, I've got a whole bookshelf with poker books I've read. I know pot odds, implied odds, reverse implied odds, low m-ratio tournament inflection point strategy, etc. etc. I studied the game for years. I kept losing but kept coming back because I knew I was making correct decisions, and therefore knew I should be winning. And I couldn't turn down profitable situations, until I was forced to.
So anyway, a couple weeks ago I went to Lake Tahoe. I hadn't played poker in over a year. I decided to give it one more try. Of course this was with the standard logic which kept me losing for months before: "There is no such thing as an unlucky person. The odds will always even out in the long run. Getting your money in with the best hand is guaranteed to show a profit eventually." So I sit down at a cheap table, buy in only $100. The first hand I get, literally the first hand, AA... A couple fish limp in early position, gets to me and I raise. I get one caller behind me, everyone folds. Flop comes out, K73 rainbow. I bet $35. I've now got over half my money in the pot, I'm committed. He shoves all in, I call. He shows KQ, I show AA. Queen on the river.
Really don't know what else to say. I can't deny the logic of probability, can't deny positive expected value. And yet, I can't reconcile this with the reality of consistently losing in profitable situations. When I used to hear other people say this, I would think, "he's just bad. He doesn't see his leaks." Now I know what "long run" and "variance" actually mean. They can be insurmountable, even with BRM. It happens. My brother who plays poker as a profession (but not neccesary a professional, two different things) says hes lost more hands when he was ahead than when he wasn't. But it is all about the long run though. Poker is full of momentum swings, and only the strongest can survive them. He had a few buddies come stay with him to try to grind it out online, but they couldn't handle the constant feeling that they may not break through. He won a huge online tournament a few years ago with a ridiculous hand, but he was playing heads up, and that's a different game in itself.
How accurately does he know this? Surely, you are familiar with "loss aversion" ? I've played a shitload of a poker and am a winning player but I wouldn't say I've lost more hands being ahead. I can surely remember more hands that I've lost while ahead than those I've lost.
|
The true skill to poker is playing your opponents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
