What's FTP got, that the others didn't???

[TripleNet]

I have not heard of many professional craps, blackjack (if they play straight up and don't count cards), roulette players.

Poker is a game of skill.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure the long run ever arives in a single lifetime, or it may arrive for one person but not for others.

[/ QUOTE ]I think part of playing the game well is understanding variance and planning for it. A person who makes individual +EV decisions in a poker hand but goes broke because he's playing above his bankroll is not playing the game with optimal skill, IMHO, because managing your bankroll is part of the skill of poker. I think the long run is probably a fine amount of time for variance to even out, provided the player isn't taking actions that magnify the variance (like risking his entire bankroll on a single session).

[ QUOTE ]
A good example is that it is possible that the best poker plaer who ever lived just got extremely unlucky his first year playing poker for a living, went broke and then got a 9 to 5 job and was never heard from again.

[/ QUOTE ]This shouldn't happen if this great poker player played within his bankroll. If he played at a level too high to handle the variance in the game, then he probably wasn't the greatest player who ever lived. Or that's how I see it.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as semantics unless you expect others to be mindreaders on the internet it is best to type what you really mean unless you do not care about your message in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]I honestly thought I was being clear. Unforuntely I'm not perfect, so you'll have to pardon that.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
This shouldn't happen if this great poker player played within his bankroll. If he played at a level too high to handle the variance in the game, then he probably wasn't the greatest player who ever lived. Or that's how I see it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Am I to interpret this as meaning that you believe the long run is only one year? I suppose you do not remember that Doyle for one has gone broke before as well as many current and former professional poker players. By your definition only a player lucky enough to have never gone broke would ever be skillful, some irony huh?

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not heard of many professional craps, blackjack (if they play straight up and don't count cards), roulette players.

Poker is a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]This "skill" debate is useless.Not because it isnt valid,anyone one that has played poker knows it IS a game of skill not a game of chance.But as it has been pointed out a thousand times,why do you think they used the wording "games SUBJECT to chance"?Its clear they purposely worded it in a way that would allow them to manipulate that part of the legislation anyway they wanted to.So forget about the truth here,its irrelevant to them.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I to interpret this as meaning that you believe the long run is only one year?

[/ QUOTE ]No. I mean that you can mitigate variance enough in a single year so that you don't go broke. This is different than saying the long run will work itself out in a single year. I'm sure that you can go on a run of good or bad variance that will have longer term effects than a year, but that it won't necessarily break you through good BR management. I could be wrong, though.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you do not remember that Doyle for one has gone broke before as well as many current and former professional poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]I also know that many curernt and professional poker players are terrible with money, even if they are good at poker.

I'll admit it, I could be underestimating the long term effects of variance. Variance may be more insumountable than I believe. If so, well then I'm just wrong. It has happened before.

[Wake up CALL]

Jeff, I believe you have hit the nail on the head. If you search the Probability forum and find the ROR formula you will see that risk of ruin is pretty darn difficult (if not impossible) to reduce to zero (as you imply you believe) no matter what bankroll management technique you choose to utilize.

Another good, although simplified, example is a theoritical situation where you have 300 poker players all sitting at different tables with 9 inferior players. Identical hands will be dealt to every player at a rate of 35 hands an hour, 8 playing hours per day every day for one year. At the end of that year it would be normal for at least 15 of those skillful players to be broke (even if they were allowed to adjust the table limits at will) and 15 more of them to be more than twice as wealthy as the other 290 skillful players.

Risk of ruin is real and the long run may never arrive in one's lifetime. This is true like you said because of variance, the degree of skill in poker is so small for long periods of time that even a current winning poker player may really be a loser if he lives long enough. Add in the rake and you have made everyone at the table a loser from the first moment they post a blind.

[Jeff76]

Ah well, I guess I am guilty of whishful thinking, and since wishful thinking is source of poker profit, it looks like you were correct in your original post. I conceed. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bearly]

wake, what you said is just plain true.........b