|
|
#21
03-20-2007, 10:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 
|
|
#22
03-20-2007, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#23
03-20-2007, 10:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#24
03-21-2007, 12:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#25
03-21-2007, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#26
03-21-2007, 12:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#27
03-21-2007, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#28
03-21-2007, 10:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#29
03-21-2007, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
|
|
#30
03-21-2007, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
