|
|
#11
03-20-2007, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ QUOTE ]
Why is that a great point, though??? Okay, yes, if Ivey were the unluckiest person in the world, he'd perform poorly. So what? He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world. How does that prove the implication that luck has everything to do with Ivey??? Doesn't make any sense. [/ QUOTE ] I think you just restated my point. "He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world." And I never said luck had EVERYTHING to do with Ivey. I said the most dominant player you could find would be the most skilled and most lucky. Is Ivey the most skilled and most lucky? I don't know but I bet he is ranking high in both areas. 
|
|
#13
03-20-2007, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why is that a great point, though??? Okay, yes, if Ivey were the unluckiest person in the world, he'd perform poorly. So what? He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world. How does that prove the implication that luck has everything to do with Ivey??? Doesn't make any sense. [/ QUOTE ] I think you just restated my point. "He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world." And I never said luck had EVERYTHING to do with Ivey. I said the most dominant player you could find would be the most skilled and most lucky. Is Ivey the most skilled and most lucky? I don't know but I bet he is ranking high in both areas. [/ QUOTE ] But look at Stu Ungar. (Maybe someone raised that point and you already responded, sorry.) He was a consistent tournament winner. From what I've read, had to do with innate talent (reading people, calculating odds, etc.) more than good cards/luck. In other words, how lucky was he? We can mostly guess, though I suppose if you really wanted to investigate, his hands are probably recorded somewhere. As a matter of fact, you could control for the luck factor, somewhat, couldn't you, if you wanted to do a formal study?
|
|
#15
03-20-2007, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
And how many times does it have to be repeated that poker is more about people than cards? I think that point is made in every poker book I've read, that it's not uncommon to get to a showdown, and the winning player is merely ace high. How would a hand get to that point?
This is how: because the losing player made a mistake. That also explains why the winner won. Luck didn't play a part. I've personally seen that happen many times.
|
|
#16
03-20-2007, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ 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.
|
|
#17
03-20-2007, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ QUOTE ]
If luck isnt invovled then Why Dont I see PROS TEAR UP LIVE EVENTS. and I mean TEAR. [/ QUOTE ] Because luck is involved over a short run. Short run luck can override skill, so less skilled players can win on any given day against a more skilled person. Over time, this is not the case. Skill is greater than luck over the long run, but touranments are short run.
|
|
#18
03-20-2007, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ QUOTE ]
Great Point, Joey Joe Joe. If Phil Ivy were in a low percentile of luck, it would probably even out for him in the long run, but as of right now he just wouldn't be where he is. [/ 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. If you lose to someone over a considerable number of hands, it's because that person is better at poker than you are, not because the poker luck fairy has sprinkled make flush dust on your foe.
|
|
#19
03-20-2007, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ 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.
|
|
#20
03-20-2007, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
