Poker as a skill(Need help)

[Skallagrim]

My final post on this subject Larry, and I am only doing this one because a search reveals that you have made some informative and helpful posts in this forum in the past.

I think YOU need to look back on your original post. Not only me, but also TheProdigy and whangarei read it as a disagreement that poker is a game of skill.

In response, I said maybe that isnt what you meant, but if it is what you meant then "where do you play..." I made a joke of that belief, as did whangarei, because it is, IMO, a laughable belief. And, as I am sure you are aware, it is well known that players who believe the game is decided by chance are, except on the rare occasions they actually get lucky, the easiest players to beat.

I am not going to answer your questions because I dont see the point. If you have some point to make simply make it, dont ask me to guess it. If, as I thought I made clear originally, you were not trying to make the laughed at point, then you can simply say so and the kidding at your expense stops.

Again, Peace.

Skallagrim

[TheProdigy]

Lottery;

Please stop trolling.

All you did was try to make yourself out to be really smart while avoiding questions and making people guess as to what you meant while twisting their words.

You are hostile and quite useless to this thread. Please in the future refrain from responding in my threads if you have any respect because I feel your attitude is detrimental in the discussion. You need to calm down.


P.S. No point in quoting my post and dissecting the different parts(In BOLD) because I simply don't care.


Skall; Thank you for the link and thank you for the help. I have looked up a couple more articles and things are slowly coming together. I wish I had more time so I could write a really impressive paper, but unfortunately only have next week to write it. I am going to try my best though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] And yes, there are no reasons IMO to reply to LL as his only reason is obviously to troll this thread because if he had something useful he wouldn't have done it in a cryptic way. He was obviously just trying to start a useless argument.


Thanks to everyone else as well! That one site def. helped and I am hoping I can put something nice together!

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to everyone else as well! That one site def. helped and I am hoping I can put something nice together!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That is a very convincing article. Many thanks to Skall for his work in this effort. I hope he gets his due rewards.

Baryy Greenstein on PokerRoad radio took a similar approach to how I viewed the subject. He basically said "Duh, yeah its more skill than luck." Any poker player knows that. It's obvious the more you play the better you get, for example. He said anyone who says differently is just throwing up a smoke screen. But a solid argument like Skall and Lederer and Sklansky have worked on will hopefully help to get the game to be "legally" recognized as a skill game.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Lottery;

Please stop trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trolling. I was trying to make a point about how others jump to conclusions, read things into simple statements, and how they may be coming across in a forum... without spoon-feeding them.

If you consider that trolling, I don't. If you want to assume I'm just an idiot with 6k posts, feel free.

[ QUOTE ]
All you did was try to make yourself out to be really smart while avoiding questions and making people guess as to what you meant while twisting their words.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is not what I was trying to do. If that's how it was interpreted, that's both my fault... and theirs. I would say mainly theirs, in this case.

BTW, most of what you're accusing me of, is what I was trying to make Skall aware that he was doing imo.

[ QUOTE ]
You are hostile and quite useless to this thread. Please in the future refrain from responding in my threads if you have any respect because I feel your attitude is detrimental in the discussion. You need to calm down.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I already said, I was never NOT calm. Why do you assume I was angry, because I was willing to debate what people replied to me with?
More directly, I never responded to you, or really anyone else, with any hostility, so if you want to take comments within your thread, not directed at you, personally... that's your call.


[ QUOTE ]
and dissecting the different parts(In BOLD) because I simply don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called marking for emphasis.

Okay, you don't care. Feel free to ignore. Disappointing, because I would have been interested in reading your arguments for your premise.... unless your premise was, as Skall assumed, merely that poker is a game of skill.

In that case, it's been done.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, there are no reasons IMO to reply to LL as his only reason is obviously to troll this thread because if he had something useful he wouldn't have done it in a cryptic way. He was obviously just trying to start a useless argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you truly believe that, including the last part, why do you make unnecessary public statements such as this? I guess you just wanted to show Skall that you were supporting him... ?



Kurn had it correct. Since it seems that a simple statement wasn't clear enough, I'll spell it out for anyone else who gets this far:

My first reaction
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

... on reading this-

[ QUOTE ]
The thesis will be something like:
"Poker is a skill that can be used as an effective investment vehicle that may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

[/ QUOTE ]

...was that the main part of what you were going to discuss, seemed incorrect to me. If there had been specific data that I thought were a counterpoint to your argument, I would have added them and not used the word "instinctively".

I didn't have any facts to back up that instinctive reaction, so I would have liked to see what your arguments were to support that thesis.

But, since we trolls don't get final results to review, I guess I'll just have to torture myself, wondering...

[TheProdigy]

I will still post it.

The last reply of yours should've been your first reply. There was no need to teach any lessons, just make a good reply. That was your first good reply and I thank you for that.


Now exactly how do you disagree? You think that you can't continue to make returns? I want to hear exactly how you disagree exactly.

I understand that you cannot get an expected return, but over a long run you can expect a return(I think that should make sense). For example, over this year I have had 1 month where I lost money, but since I play many many hands, I have constantly returned winning month after winning month. The thing is, I even push my limits and am always trying to move up and play better players, so I don't even have a big advantage at any level yet. I think next year when I don't move up much from 2/4nl that I will have a lot less variance and better returns.

If you don't think poker is a skill game(long-term) and don't think that you can consitently get a return by playing it, then I do have data(my year of playing) that should help prove otherwise. I have played ~1mill hands and I would assume that is a pretty good sample to help change your mind.

But anyways, if you can be more specific about your problems with the thesis then I will definitely write a paragraph or two with your argument against my thesis as one of my refutations I include in the paper.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
The last reply of yours should've been your first reply. There was no need to teach any lessons, just make a good reply.
Now exactly how do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

sigh... I disagree with much of what is contained above, in the edited quote at the top of this specific reply, based on various replies in this disaster.

But, to avoid futher hijack around unrequested and unnoticed lessons, I'm dropping the effort.


[ QUOTE ]
Now exactly how do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm too afraid to reply to this.


[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think poker is a skill game(long-term)

[/ QUOTE ]

NOW I'm on tilt.....
I have never- NEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVER- ever said that poker is NOT a game of skill.

I have never implied that poker is not a game of skill.

NEVER

The continued responses popping up, that want to attribute this thought to my words, are (it has to be said) being made by people who evidently need to improve their English translation skills..... at least in this thread.
(if your paper, Prodigy, is ONLY about "poker is a skill game", then I retract that previous blanket statement and ask you to remove the unneeded parts of your thesis.)

Therefore, this is NOT part of the current discussion, in any way, shape or form.

If I have to be more clear than this, I'm running over someone's cat.


[ QUOTE ]
I want to hear exactly how you disagree exactly

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Instead, I'm breaking down your "thesis" statement

1) "can be used as an effective investment vehicle "
2) "may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return"
3) "despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

It's YOUR premise- you have to prove all of these things in your paper, or you need to remove the ones you can't.

Do it here, do it there, whatever.

[/rant]

[Skallagrim]

Its lunch time here and I cant resist breaking my promise.

For someone who harps a lot on english language skills, Larry, wouldn't you agree that the last 2 pages of posts could have been easily avoided by simply stating in your first post "... I instinctively disagree with the premise that there can be a controlled rate of return [or whatever it is you exactly disagree with]."

Or your second post could have been: "Ha, ha guys, its not the skill argument I disagree with its ..."

Good luck on your continued efforts to lure us in to discovering what it is you really think [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

Skallagrim

[Berge20]

All,

Please let's get this thread back to the original intent from this point forward. I think we're to a point of just going after each other (and how we choose to present or not present things) and I would prefer that it not devolve into more of the same.

[Skallagrim]

Point well taken Berge, my last post was made during a weak moment.

[Lottery Larry]

With apologies to Don Corleone:

"In the interests of the peace we make here today, I forswear my vengence now and in the future"