Interesting take on poker pros - Page 5

Joey Joe Joe · #41 03-20-2007, 01:02 PM

"that miniscule amount of favorable luck isnt making someone a top pro who doesnt have the skill."

Nobody said otherwise. The argument is simply that the most highly successful "name" pros are more likely to have been lucky than unlucky. Really, what is more likely, that Phil Ivey has been 3 standard deviations to the lucky side of the curve, or 3 standard deviations to the unlucky side?

And being up 52k is inconsequential? Do I give a [censored] if the percentage is close to 50% if I'm down 52k betting $1 a hand? If this was disguised as a game of poker, would the fanboys not be certain that the +52k guy was destroying the -52k guy due to his greater skill? Maybe not you, but many others would certainly say that being up 52k would be conclusive evidence.

AggieAce · #42 03-20-2007, 01:42 PM

I don't understand. Could you please rate every pro poker player based on luckiest to unluckiest? K THX

CraigJ · #43 03-20-2007, 01:55 PM

There would really be no way to do it in the real world, only because of lack of data. But theoretically it could be done and you could probably do it in a few different areas. For example if you could take every hand a person has played and see what percentage they have "sucked" out when they were the behind. That would be one way to quantify the good luck. Or take the reverse and take every hand they had played and see what percentage they got "sucked" out on when they were ahead. That would be a way to quantify the bad luck. Obviously we can't do that with all the poker pros, but that is only because we don't have the necessary data. Not because it is impossible.

holyfield5 · #44 03-20-2007, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"that miniscule amount of favorable luck isnt making someone a top pro who doesnt have the skill."

Nobody said otherwise. The argument is simply that the most highly successful "name" pros are more likely to have been lucky than unlucky. Really, what is more likely, that Phil Ivey has been 3 standard deviations to the lucky side of the curve, or 3 standard deviations to the unlucky side?

And being up 52k is inconsequential? Do I give a [censored] if the percentage is close to 50% if I'm down 52k betting $1 a hand? If this was disguised as a game of poker, would the fanboys not be certain that the +52k guy was destroying the -52k guy due to his greater skill? Maybe not you, but many others would certainly say that being up 52k would be conclusive evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point is it doesnt matter if he was on the "lucky" or "unlucky" side this is a game of skill, he would still be phil ivey.

no no true poker player would think anything if someone was up 52k over a billion flips.......ever hear players say variance?

poker isnt about black and white 50% flips, its about putting people on correct ranges of hands and applying your equity and making decisions.

that would be roughly equivalent of flipping a coin(50/50) but each time you win you get 1.2$ and each time you lose they get 1$(even if the other guy is lucky you still win, even if you are unlucky you still win as long as you flip enough). you do that you will profit over the long run everytime, if your decisions net you 1.4$ to 1$ if you lose you will profit even more(better player)

Joey Joe Joe · #45 03-20-2007, 02:16 PM

"the point is it doesnt matter if he was on the "lucky" or "unlucky" side this is a game of skill, he would still be phil ivey."

His name might still be Phil Ivey, but is it certain that he'd be thought of as one of the greats? If he'd been in the .1 percentile in terms of luck, nobody on earth would be talking about Phil Ivey being the greatest poker player.

"no no true poker player would think anything if someone was up 52k over a billion flips.......ever hear players say variance?"

Depends on your definition of true poker player, but I'm guessing that at least 95% of players would be pretty sure the guy up 52k is the best player.

CraigJ · #46 03-20-2007, 02:43 PM

GREAT POINT JOEY JOE JOE!

If Phil Ivy were in a low percentile of luck no one would be talking about the him being the greatest player in the world. Even though his skill would be exactly the same.

Now his luck may even out in the long run. But right now he couldn't be where he is. AGAIN, GREAT POINT!!

holyfield5 · #47 03-20-2007, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
GREAT POINT JOEY JOE JOE!

If Phil Ivy were in a low percentile of luck no one would be talking about the him being the greatest player in the world. Even though his skill would be exactly the same.

Now his luck may even out in the long run. But right now he couldn't be where he is. AGAIN, GREAT POINT!!

[/ QUOTE ]

yes they would lol, phil ivey was known before he had that awesome year of tourney finishes. phil ivey is KNOWN to DISLIKE tourneys because they are just a variance fest, he prefers cash games and has been playing the biggest cash games for a long long time. well before ESPN came along. Maybe one day when you finally figure poker out and become a winning player you will all look back on this thread and realize what idiots you were.

im done posting on this, i hope it clicks for you sometime before you are BUSTO.

Joey Joe Joe · #48 03-20-2007, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
GREAT POINT JOEY JOE JOE!

If Phil Ivy were in a low percentile of luck no one would be talking about the him being the greatest player in the world. Even though his skill would be exactly the same.

Now his luck may even out in the long run. But right now he couldn't be where he is. AGAIN, GREAT POINT!!

[/ QUOTE ]

yes they would lol, phil ivey was known before he had that awesome year of tourney finishes. phil ivey is KNOWN to DISLIKE tourneys because they are just a variance fest, he prefers cash games and has been playing the biggest cash games for a long long time. well before ESPN came along. Maybe one day when you finally figure poker out and become a winning player you will all look back on this thread and realize what idiots you were.

im done posting on this, i hope it clicks for you sometime before you are BUSTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

We think that luck plays a role in who is considered to be the best of the best, and that makes us idiots?

You believe that if Phil Ivey had gotten very very unlucky over the course of his career that he'd still be considered one of the greats?

That's good stuff. It would be laughable if it wasn't stuch a standard way of thinking.

Central Limit · #49 03-20-2007, 04:30 PM

Excellent points. There pretty clearly must be a distribution of luck. The question is, how much of a disadvantage are the players at the left side at relative to the right side? Interesting, interesting.

Side point: coin flips adhere to IID assumptions (independent and identically distributed). Poker hands are *probably* not independent and *definitely* not identically distributed. Certain hands are more important than other hands. Specifically, there are key hands when you take shots at higher limit games. If you win those key hands, you may permanently make the jump to the next level. If you lose those key hands, you've got to suck it up and move back down the ladder. Also, some games are higher variance than other games. So different hands are drawn from distributions with different variances.

So, if IID assumptions are violated, all bets are off as to whether the law of large numbers needs apply. I think this assumption underlies every pro-skill argument put forth in this thread.

CraigJ · #50 03-20-2007, 06:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent points. There pretty clearly must be a distribution of luck. The question is, how much of a disadvantage are the players at the left side at relative to the right side? Interesting, interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be interesting if that could be somehow be figured out and I wasn't even really getting that in depth. I was saying if somehow it could be determined that two players had equal skill then which ever of the two were farthest on the right would have the advantage.