Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

The thread was getting cluttered so I decided to post new.

My position was Poker being a game of skill and luck, a dominant player like Phil Ivy could have the best of both worlds, he is skilled and lucky. I am not saying you need luck to be a good player. I agree skill out weighs luck in poker.

To try and simplify matters it was brought up that if you flip a coin one billion times the results for EVERYONE will be so close to 50/50 as to take luck out of the picture.

That is a billion times. So really you can't use that analogy/argument when dealing with the amount of poker hands played. Because it is going to be A LOT smaller than a billion hands and therefore we are going to be able to witness larger deviations.

Here is another way to look at whay I am saying. Let's say we have found two poker players who always make the correct decision. Now by correct decision, I don't mean based on the final outcome of a hand. For example, you have pocket Aces and are called all in pre-flop by 7 2 offsuit, you call and are out drawn, the flop is 7 2 2, you still made the correct decision.

We have our two fictional perfect players who always make the correct decision. What is going to determine which one at the end of their poker careers has the best results? (And for sake of argument we are going to assume they played the same number of hands at the same level.) The luck factor in poker will determine it.

Or let's look at it this way. Let's say Phil Ivy is dominating the poker world through skill alone, luck has very little to do with it. If we can find someone just as skilled as Phil Ivy but who is getting luckier who is going to come out on top?

All I have been trying to say is that if you have someone who is VERY skilled and VERY lucky. They are going to dominate the poker world.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

We get it man, get lost.

James

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

There are some mean people on this site.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

If luck isnt invovled then Why Dont I see PROS TEAR UP LIVE EVENTS. and I mean TEAR.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If luck isnt invovled then Why Dont I see PROS TEAR UP LIVE EVENTS. and I mean TEAR.

[/ QUOTE ]

variance....those are extremely short term and not purely based on +EV

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

The luck factor is diminished when your opponent gets predictable after a couple beers or late when he/she is tired.

If you had read Sklansky carefully, you would recall that he writes that you make money at poker by not just playing perfectly when others do not, but by exploiting their mistakes. People who are tired make more mistakes. Also some people are just better at making the right call and always will be.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

This helps explain why weekends are so profitable. B&M, too, as a matter of fact. A time during which it is late where players are playing.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are some mean people on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the scary part. The scary part is who we consider nice.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

Joey Joe Joe posted this in the other thread. It was such a good point I wanted to repeat it over here.

"His name might still be Phil Ivey, but is it certain that he'd be thought of as one of the greats? If he'd been in the .1 percentile in terms of luck, nobody on earth would be talking about Phil Ivey being the greatest poker player."

Great Point, Joey Joe Joe. If Phil Ivy were in a low percentile of luck, it would probably even out for him in the long run, but as of right now he just wouldn't be where he is.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Joey Joe Joe posted this in the other thread. It was such a good point I wanted to repeat it over here.

"His name might still be Phil Ivey, but is it certain that he'd be thought of as one of the greats? If he'd been in the .1 percentile in terms of luck, nobody on earth would be talking about Phil Ivey being the greatest poker player."

Great Point, Joey Joe Joe. If Phil Ivy were in a low percentile of luck, it would probably even out for him in the long run, but as of right now he just wouldn't be where he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that a great point, though??? Okay, yes, if Ivey were the unluckiest person in the world, he'd perform poorly. So what? He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world. How does that prove the implication that luck has everything to do with Ivey??? Doesn't make any sense.

There probably hasn't been any research done on a term as imprecise as "luck", but statistically luckwise, most of us probably lie closer to the middle than to either end. Where I am "better" than a caveman is, for one, I know what a card is. I know what a suit is. I know what an ace is. And that's just for starters. Put that caveman head's-up against just about anyone, regardless of luck, and over a few hands, he's gonna be broke.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is that a great point, though??? Okay, yes, if Ivey were the unluckiest person in the world, he'd perform poorly. So what? He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world. How does that prove the implication that luck has everything to do with Ivey??? Doesn't make any sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just restated my point.

"He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world."

And I never said luck had EVERYTHING to do with Ivey. I said the most dominant player you could find would be the most skilled and most lucky. Is Ivey the most skilled and most lucky? I don't know but I bet he is ranking high in both areas.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

A+++, good read. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is that a great point, though??? Okay, yes, if Ivey were the unluckiest person in the world, he'd perform poorly. So what? He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world. How does that prove the implication that luck has everything to do with Ivey??? Doesn't make any sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just restated my point.

"He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world."

And I never said luck had EVERYTHING to do with Ivey. I said the most dominant player you could find would be the most skilled and most lucky. Is Ivey the most skilled and most lucky? I don't know but I bet he is ranking high in both areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

But look at Stu Ungar. (Maybe someone raised that point and you already responded, sorry.) He was a consistent tournament winner. From what I've read, had to do with innate talent (reading people, calculating odds, etc.) more than good cards/luck.

In other words, how lucky was he? We can mostly guess, though I suppose if you really wanted to investigate, his hands are probably recorded somewhere.

As a matter of fact, you could control for the luck factor, somewhat, couldn't you, if you wanted to do a formal study?

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
We get it man, get lost.

James

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf you read this forum?

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

And how many times does it have to be repeated that poker is more about people than cards? I think that point is made in every poker book I've read, that it's not uncommon to get to a showdown, and the winning player is merely ace high. How would a hand get to that point?

This is how: because the losing player made a mistake. That also explains why the winner won. Luck didn't play a part. I've personally seen that happen many times.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
We get it man, get lost.

James

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol . Why don't you get lost sparky. You have a gizzzilion posts and I am sure you have said things people don't agree with. I am sure you have overtalked certain topics. But "get lost" . You get lost.
Anyhow my thought that might get lost is that it seems to me, quite often , the loser of a hand got unlucky and the winner won. Next hand please.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If luck isnt invovled then Why Dont I see PROS TEAR UP LIVE EVENTS. and I mean TEAR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because luck is involved over a short run. Short run luck can override skill, so less skilled players can win on any given day against a more skilled person. Over time, this is not the case.

Skill is greater than luck over the long run, but touranments are short run.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Great Point, Joey Joe Joe. If Phil Ivy were in a low percentile of luck, it would probably even out for him in the long run, but as of right now he just wouldn't be where he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Phil Ivey were the most unlucky player in the world and this could be proven, he'd still be so close to where he is right now that nobody would know the difference.

Sure, his total winnings might be .03% lower than right now, so what. It's meaningless.

If you lose to someone over a considerable number of hands, it's because that person is better at poker than you are, not because the poker luck fairy has sprinkled make flush dust on your foe.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]

If Phil Ivey were the most unlucky player in the world and this could be proven, he'd still be so close to where he is right now that nobody would know the difference.

Sure, his total winnings might be .03% lower than right now, so what. It's meaningless.


[/ QUOTE ]


If he was the unluckiest poker player in the world he'd still be where he is right now?

Wow. People can be reasonably intelligent, and still think this way? Cool.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We get it man, get lost.

James

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol . Why don't you get lost sparky. You have a gizzzilion posts and I am sure you have said things people don't agree with. I am sure you have overtalked certain topics. But "get lost" . You get lost.
Anyhow my thought that might get lost is that it seems to me, quite often , the loser of a hand got unlucky and the winner won. Next hand please.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are not smart.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

CraigJ,

Make sure to note that Microbob is the nice one and PokerBob is the mean one. I do not have enough data on ClassicBob or DammitBob. bobbyi gets a DQ

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
CraigJ,

Make sure to note that Microbob is the nice one and PokerBob is the mean one. I do not have enough data on ClassicBob or DammitBob.

[/ QUOTE ]

why are you telling craigJ that, when I was responding to rakebackpro? are you dumb, too?

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CraigJ,

Make sure to note that Microbob is the nice one and PokerBob is the mean one. I do not have enough data on ClassicBob or DammitBob.

[/ QUOTE ]

why are you telling craigJ that, when I was responding to rakebackpro? are you dumb, too?

[/ QUOTE ]

CraigJ is the one who needs this essential information due to his comments earlier in the thread. I do not know about this rakebackpro. Actually I didn't read his post, I just read your response to it. Your posts read better that way.

i may be dumb too. i am the type of person who reads locked threads first just to see what happened. i try to stop but what if the thread gets moved before i read it?

i feel like microbob would have never gotten himself into this conversation. you should try to be more like him.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]

To try and simplify matters it was brought up that if you flip a coin one billion times the results for EVERYONE will be so close to 50/50 as to take luck out of the picture.

That is a billion times. So really you can't use that analogy/argument when dealing with the amount of poker hands played. Because it is going to be A LOT smaller than a billion hands and therefore we are going to be able to witness larger deviations.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if I understand your argument:

1) A billion coin flips (or poker hands) will effectively take luck out of the equation.
2) A poker player's career spans a lot less than a billion hands.

Therefore,

3) Poker has a significant element of luck involved over the long term, and the poker pros who dominate are people who are both lucky and good.

The obvious logical fallacy here is that you have not proven how MANY hands of poker it takes to render luck statistically insignificant. Obviously a billion hands does so, but so does 100 million. So does probably 10 million, for that matter. You have to do some statistical analysis here and estimate:

a) How many hands of poker comprise a typical career.
b) What type of standard deviation in terms of luck we can reasonably expect.

Only after you do this can you start to draw conclusions about whether luck plays any factor in a poker player's career over the long term.... and since is practically impossible to do since poker is such a complex game and you can't possibly analyze every single hand a particular player has played, it is hard to determine exactly how much "luck" a particular person has had over any significant period of time.

So we are down to just one opinion versus another essentially... we can all guess at how many hands it really takes to render luck statitistically insignificant, but everyone is going to have a different idea and nobody can really prove anything without some really hard-core data analysis, which might not even be possible to do.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If Phil Ivey were the most unlucky player in the world and this could be proven, he'd still be so close to where he is right now that nobody would know the difference.

Sure, his total winnings might be .03% lower than right now, so what. It's meaningless.


[/ QUOTE ]


If he was the unluckiest poker player in the world he'd still be where he is right now?

Wow. People can be reasonably intelligent, and still think this way? Cool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really not understand that Ivey is unlucky in the sense of getting sucked out on? I can guarantee you that he's been sucked out on more times than he's sucked out on someone else.

Why, because this happens to all decent poker players. You get sucked out on because you are in a position to get sucked out on. You have to get your money in being behind to suck out on someone, so yes, I'll claim that Ivey is unlucky in the sense that he gets sucked out on at an above average rate.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We get it man, get lost.

James

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol . Why don't you get lost sparky. You have a gizzzilion posts and I am sure you have said things people don't agree with. I am sure you have overtalked certain topics. But "get lost" . You get lost.
Anyhow my thought that might get lost is that it seems to me, quite often , the loser of a hand got unlucky and the winner won. Next hand please.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are not smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, does that mean you are or are you just James whippin boy. i figure he can speak for himself...... can't he?
hey i have an idea.... be a good little helper and PM him.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We get it man, get lost.

James

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol . Why don't you get lost sparky. You have a gizzzilion posts and I am sure you have said things people don't agree with. I am sure you have overtalked certain topics. But "get lost" . You get lost.
Anyhow my thought that might get lost is that it seems to me, quite often , the loser of a hand got unlucky and the winner won. Next hand please.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are not smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, does that mean you are or are you just James whippin boy. i figure he can speak for himself...... can't he?
hey i have an idea.... be a good little helper and PM him.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have no idea if james can speak for himself, although i assume he can. i was speaking for me, and am doing so again when i repeat the fact that you are not smart.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do you really not understand that Ivey is unlucky in the sense of getting sucked out on? I can guarantee you that he's been sucked out on more times than he's sucked out on someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can guarantee you that many species of birds migrate south for the winter. It probably doesn't further my argument, but it'll have as much strength as your argument above.

[ QUOTE ]

Why, because this happens to all decent poker players. You get sucked out on because you are in a position to get sucked out on. You have to get your money in being behind to suck out on someone, so yes, I'll claim that Ivey is unlucky in the sense that he gets sucked out on at an above average rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting claim. Better players are in a position to get sucked out on more often than bad players. A novel concept, and probably beyond my level of understanding.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

Phil Ivey is lucky

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting claim. Better players are in a position to get sucked out on more often than bad players. A novel concept, and probably beyond my level of understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't novel at all and most professionals understand it

p.s. I have no idea if you're being serious or not but based on the general level of stupidity exhibited in this thread I'll assume you are

p.p.s. I can't believe I read this thread, I feel that much stupider for it

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An interesting claim. Better players are in a position to get sucked out on more often than bad players. A novel concept, and probably beyond my level of understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't novel at all and most professionals understand it

p.s. I have no idea if you're being serious or not but based on the general level of stupidity exhibited in this thread I'll assume you are

p.p.s. I can't believe I read this thread, I feel that much stupider for it

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being sarcastic. There's certainly a lot of stupidity in this thread, but I dare you to find something I said that's stupid.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we can find someone just as skilled as Phil Ivy but who is getting luckier who is going to come out on top?

All I have been trying to say is that if you have someone who is VERY skilled and VERY lucky. They are going to dominate the poker world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such a person exists; his name is Patrik Antonius.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Ivey is lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Phil Ivey making an incredible read in a poker hand is relevant to this argument? Phil Ivey is a very good player. Nobody is saying otherwise.

edit: Okay, maybe it's relevant, but it sure doesn't contribute much evidence to the cause.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We get it man, get lost.

James

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol . Why don't you get lost sparky. You have a gizzzilion posts and I am sure you have said things people don't agree with. I am sure you have overtalked certain topics. But "get lost" . You get lost.
Anyhow my thought that might get lost is that it seems to me, quite often , the loser of a hand got unlucky and the winner won. Next hand please.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are not smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, does that mean you are or are you just James whippin boy. i figure he can speak for himself...... can't he?
hey i have an idea.... be a good little helper and PM him.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have no idea if james can speak for himself, although i assume he can. i was speaking for me, and am doing so again when i repeat the fact that you are not smart.

[/ QUOTE ]
and why is that pray tell......

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We get it man, get lost.

James

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol . Why don't you get lost sparky. You have a gizzzilion posts and I am sure you have said things people don't agree with. I am sure you have overtalked certain topics. But "get lost" . You get lost.
Anyhow my thought that might get lost is that it seems to me, quite often , the loser of a hand got unlucky and the winner won. Next hand please.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are not smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, does that mean you are or are you just James whippin boy. i figure he can speak for himself...... can't he?
hey i have an idea.... be a good little helper and PM him.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have no idea if james can speak for himself, although i assume he can. i was speaking for me, and am doing so again when i repeat the fact that you are not smart.

[/ QUOTE ]
and why is that pray tell......

[/ QUOTE ]

why are you not smart? i have no idea. could be a variety of things; genetics, education, environment during your formative years , etc.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

craigJ is the smartest man alive. You should write a book. It will be the book for the pros.

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

How did some of you find the internet

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Such a person exists; his name is Patrik Antonius.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much about him, but I do know there's a great video on youtube, a hand between him and Brunson and Brunson chaps his hide with pocket 3's to Antonius' A-2 offsuit. I love it. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
 

Justin,

"Wtf you read this forum?"

I was mislead by the title "interesting" take on Poker Pros.


I was further mislead by the interesting take on poker pros, part 2, which I thought would be an equally hilarious and yet different 'take on poker pros.' When I found that it was the same exact thread but with a different title, I figured I'd let the OP know that what he is saying is not new, and certainly not 'interesting.' All poker pros got lucky at some point. Some of the most successful were the luckiest. Or at least they weren't the unluckiest. I read the forum from time to time, usually only long enough to remember how sad it is that forums like this have become a waste of time!

James