|
|
#11
03-18-2007, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting take on poker pros
I was just stating an observation. Kind of like the sky is blue. Doesn't really mean a thing to me. But I bet it does to the really lucky or even the really unlucky person. And no not that the sky is blue, the poker observation. I have found you have to be very clear on whay you say when you post here.
|
|
#12
03-18-2007, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on poker pros
Who you really have to feel sorry for is the really skilled poker player whose luck falls on the bad end. He could be living the life of Phil Ivy. He has the skill but unfortunately because he is one of the few who has an unproportionate amount of bad luck he hasn't gotten the same rewards.
|
|
#13
03-18-2007, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on poker pros
STOP BUMPIMG NO ONE CARES, KTHX.
|
|
#15
03-18-2007, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on poker pros
i undersatnd exactly what you are saying, and i believe doyal brunson fits that discription, come on what are the chances that you win 2 wsop back to back and with the same hand??? you make an excellent point and your theory is correct
|
|
#16
03-18-2007, 11:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on poker pros
Exactly! And I am not taking anything away from Doyle. He literally wrote the book on Poker. He is a poker genius. But the luck took him from a poker genius to a poker legend. He has the best of both worlds, the skill and the luck.
|
|
#17
03-19-2007, 03:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on poker pros
wow you guys have absolutely no understanding of statistics and probability. The reason we only count the long term and tell people with a 10k hand sample its not valid is because short term results wont even out and there will be a large luck factor.
Poker tourneys are short term results. Yes someone can get insanely lucky in a short term tourney and yes in that case the donkament "pros" are signifigantly lucky, but when it comes to pure poker over the long run there wont be people falling outside the distribution just because they are lucky.
|
|
#18
03-19-2007, 08:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on poker pros
Did you see the following thread?
Poker Theory: Poker Gods...
|
|
#19
03-19-2007, 11:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on poker pros
Wrong. There is always data that falls outside the normal distribution. It is rare usually about .3% but it is always there. So if you could take every poker player in the world and view every hand they played their entire life. You are going to find a few rare people who got "lucky" more often. They sucked out more. Their bad hands held up more. They got drawn out on less. However you want to define the "luck". Even though the "luck" is really only probabilities. And they have gotten the best of it. Or worst of it on the other end.
Again just saying if you have a really skilled poker player and they are the "lucky" one who fell into the .3% category, they are going to dominate at poker, again because of SKILL and LUCK (luck being probabilites going their way).
|
|
#20
03-19-2007, 11:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on poker pros
as i said, maybe lucky in the short term, the bigger the sample size the more perfectly the results will fit into it(flip a coin a billion times and i bet it comes out to 50% not some people do it and get 53 while others get 47) they might get lucky in a tournament but over the course of their career they have the same luck, just maybe they had their good run at a WSOP main event while someone else had it in a cash game.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
