Poker - Luck vs. Skill from a different angle

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
He (probably) means that if the top-players of poker gamble, everyone will think that every poker-player gambles. And therefore Poker will be seen as pure gambling.(Wich we dont want)

[/ QUOTE ]would he also say that basketball is a game of pure chance since charles barkley gambles so much?

[B Nation]

All he is saying is that it is hard to justify poker as a skill game to those who don't know the difference, when they see top players playing Blackjack and craps.

To those who don't recognize the difference, this would only reinforce the belief that poker is just another form of gambling.

I think.

[PantsOnFire]

Entertainment is inherently -EV. Guys who don't play poker have a job, save for retirement and also have a monthly entertainment budget that is used to keep them sane and give them a reason to make money (above the necessities of course).

These pros make a lot of money so their entertainment budget is pretty friggin high.

Besides, being skilled at poker and being a +EV longterm winner doesn't mean you automatically have +EV life money management skills. Just look at the life of who I consider to be the best poker player ever, Stu Ungar.

As a final note, I really believe that money means very little to most of these guys. Money is just chips to them for keeping score of the game. I'm sure a guy like Negranau has given his mom lots of stuff, has socked away a pretty good nest egg and still has lots of bucks to blow away anyway he feels like it. Not to mention he can go back to a poker table any time and replenish.

[candyman718]

Thank You B Nation. That's what I was trying to say.

[Matt Williams]

[ QUOTE ]
I know exactly what a prop bet is and no I am not talkin about short-stack play at the end of the tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you knew what a prop bet was, you wouldn't ramble on about players losing their bankrolls because they are short-stacked in a tourniment. Look it's OK. I didn't know what one was either until I read these forums on a reg. basis. But it is clear you have it confused w/ SS play.

[Mr. Ratface]

[ QUOTE ]
I know exactly what a prop bet is and no I am not talkin about short-stack play at the end of the tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
I know exactly what a prop bet is and no I am not talkin about short-stack play at the end of the tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does short-stack play in tourneys have to do with prop betting??

[PJM1206]

I am a strong believer that poker is a game of luck. I also think that the way you deal with luck is where and how the skill comes to play. The arguement is never ending because by defintion the game is based on probabilities whcih equals chance which equals luck they all mean the same. Below is an extract from a web dictioanary. The argument of luck vs skill is a waste of time:

Luck can be defined as as a chance happening, or as that which happens beyond a person's control. Luck is often regarded as a superstition, but it can be interpreted in many ways.

Luck as lack of control
Luck is that which happens beyond a person's control. This means that luck stands in opposition to one's control, but not to causation. This view incorporates phenomena that are chance happenings, a person's place of birth for example, but where there is no uncertainty involved, or where the uncertainty is irrelevant. Within this framework one can differentiate between three different types of luck:

Constitutional luck, that is, luck with factors that cannot be changed. Place of birth and genetic constitution are typical examples.
Circumstantial luck, that is, luck with factors that are haphazardly brought on. Accidents and epidemics are typical examples.
Ignorance luck, that is, luck with factors one does not know about. Examples can be identified only in hindsight.

Luck as a fallacy
A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the post hoc logical fallacy, which argues that because something is sequentially connected, it is connected otherwise, as well:
A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A caused B.
In this particuhalar perspective, probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections. A brick falling on a person walking below, therefore, is not a function of that person's luck, but is instead the result of a collection of understood (or explainable) occurrences. Statistically, every person walking near the building was just as likely to have the brick fall on them.

The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a six all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight".

Luck is merely an expression noting an extended period of noted outcomes, completely consistent with random walk probability theory. Wishing one "good luck" will not cause such an extended period, but it expresses positive feelings toward the one -- not necessarily wholly undesirable.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Boy did this thread go far afield. I think OP's original point was valid: that if poker is really skill, rather than luck, isn't it unusual that the very best in the world often have a very degenerate Lets GAAAMBOOOOL ! mentality, just like a family values politician who routinely enjoys the exquisite company of a whoore.

And 600 K is a lot of money to Negreanu. Not nearly as much as to me, but you can't blow it off by saying that its insignificant, like when it came out that Jordan was betting 20 K on a golf match. Negreanu I'm sure has plenty of money, but he does not have "Jordan money." 600 K matters. And that's my point. He is OK with, and can bet huge sums of money that are subject to huge swings of luck and still keep emotional and mental balance.

These guys can excel at a game of skill that has huge variance (READ: short term luck) precisely because they have mastered the skills of the game and in some weird and sick way enjoy riding through the variance.

Finally, don't forget that the first reason anyone is drawn to poker is the lure of huge, easy bucks. These guys are/ were no different. Its just that they were able to master the skills that it actually takes to excel. But there is at least a little gaambooler in any succesful poker player, even Lederer. Otherwise, they'd go crazy when the variance train leaves the building with half their stack.

And yeah, what the Hell does a prop bet have to do with Short Stack play? Please enlighten me.

[Mcot]

[ QUOTE ]
He is OK with, and can bet huge sums of money that are subject to huge swings of luck and still keep emotional and mental balance.

These guys can excel at a game of skill that has huge variance (READ: short term luck) precisely because they have mastered the skills of the game and in some weird and sick way enjoy riding through the variance.


[/ QUOTE ]


Disagree Disagree Disagree. The "pros" tilt just like anyone else. Ever watch Sammy, Eli, Negrenu ect...

Pros like Barry, Doyle, and Chip (although he tilts like mad online) are the exception not the rule.

Poker is a luck game. 1 flip of a card 1 way can cost you a 500k pot in some cases. 1 loss of AA v AK all in preflop can cost you the WSOP ME (strasser??) Do not try and tell me poker is not 100% luck. The only skill in poker is trying to manage this luck and try to find the favorable spots. But rarely are you going to find a situation where your all in and better than 70% to win.