[BillytheKidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am amazed that a forum dedicated mostly to gambling is filled with so many people that are unwilling to believe a human can play a system. As a former member of a blackjack team, I am very aware of playing with a system and within a team. The success of a system is dictated by the ability to follow it. This is also the reason people lose money gambling. Many people on this website know a winning system for playing whatever version of poker they are playing but very few have the ability to follow the system.

Playing within a team increases this ability to follow the system. It eliminates the "responsibility" to make "good" decisions and to "think" because it is easier to defend "the system said push" than "I didnt think he had a Queen". This is what causes the numbers to match within expected norms of someone playing a system.

If a group of players decided to bet the river with TPTK or better 100% of the time else fold, their bet river stats over a period of time would be exactly the same. How many posts in STTF state "You have to go broke here and fire up another one"? Those that play the system (follow ICM & SNGPT etc) make steady money, those that dont post "SNGPT says push but I disagree" and make more or less money.

A "poker-bot" is a program executing a script without deviation.
A "team-poker-player" is a human executing a script without deviation.
A "thinking-poker-player" is a human executing a script with deviations based on "gut and feel".

I would expect that a "poker-bot" and a "team-poker-player" should produce the same results (very consistend stats), while a "thinking-poker-player" will have wide variations based on the opponents he has been playing against (adjusting to opponents).

I doubt nlnut would agree to this, but I would LOVE to be taught his system to eek out 1.5bb and rakeback as a part-time job and would happily share the results (but not the strategy) with the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing "systems" between blackjack and poker is useless. Blackjack is a game with rigid rules and few decisions. There is nothing even remotely approaching the dynamism in a single hand of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where you are exactly wrong in this case, it is precisely about following a system.

NOT about analyzing the "I think the dealer has a ten this time because she hasnt had one the last five times" or "He has to have air or he would of raised that turn". If you follow a system you get expected results and the larger the sample size the closer the results.

The system removes the dynamism (is that a word?) of a single hand of poker.