Interesting take on Poker Pros (Part II)

CraigJ · #1 03-20-2007, 01:47 PM

The thread was getting cluttered so I decided to post new.

My position was Poker being a game of skill and luck, a dominant player like Phil Ivy could have the best of both worlds, he is skilled and lucky. I am not saying you need luck to be a good player. I agree skill out weighs luck in poker.

To try and simplify matters it was brought up that if you flip a coin one billion times the results for EVERYONE will be so close to 50/50 as to take luck out of the picture.

That is a billion times. So really you can't use that analogy/argument when dealing with the amount of poker hands played. Because it is going to be A LOT smaller than a billion hands and therefore we are going to be able to witness larger deviations.

Here is another way to look at whay I am saying. Let's say we have found two poker players who always make the correct decision. Now by correct decision, I don't mean based on the final outcome of a hand. For example, you have pocket Aces and are called all in pre-flop by 7 2 offsuit, you call and are out drawn, the flop is 7 2 2, you still made the correct decision.

We have our two fictional perfect players who always make the correct decision. What is going to determine which one at the end of their poker careers has the best results? (And for sake of argument we are going to assume they played the same number of hands at the same level.) The luck factor in poker will determine it.

Or let's look at it this way. Let's say Phil Ivy is dominating the poker world through skill alone, luck has very little to do with it. If we can find someone just as skilled as Phil Ivy but who is getting luckier who is going to come out on top?

All I have been trying to say is that if you have someone who is VERY skilled and VERY lucky. They are going to dominate the poker world.

James282 · #2 03-20-2007, 01:57 PM

We get it man, get lost.

James

CraigJ · #3 03-20-2007, 02:01 PM

There are some mean people on this site.

Jetto · #4 03-20-2007, 02:11 PM

If luck isnt invovled then Why Dont I see PROS TEAR UP LIVE EVENTS. and I mean TEAR.

holyfield5 · #5 03-20-2007, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If luck isnt invovled then Why Dont I see PROS TEAR UP LIVE EVENTS. and I mean TEAR.

[/ QUOTE ]

variance....those are extremely short term and not purely based on +EV

questions · #6 03-20-2007, 02:30 PM

The luck factor is diminished when your opponent gets predictable after a couple beers or late when he/she is tired.

If you had read Sklansky carefully, you would recall that he writes that you make money at poker by not just playing perfectly when others do not, but by exploiting their mistakes. People who are tired make more mistakes. Also some people are just better at making the right call and always will be.

questions · #7 03-20-2007, 02:32 PM

This helps explain why weekends are so profitable. B&M, too, as a matter of fact. A time during which it is late where players are playing.

disjunction · #8 03-20-2007, 02:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are some mean people on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the scary part. The scary part is who we consider nice.

CraigJ · #9 03-20-2007, 03:00 PM

Joey Joe Joe posted this in the other thread. It was such a good point I wanted to repeat it over here.

"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."

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.

questions · #10 03-20-2007, 03:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Joey Joe Joe posted this in the other thread. It was such a good point I wanted to repeat it over here.

"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."

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 ]

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.

There probably hasn't been any research done on a term as imprecise as "luck", but statistically luckwise, most of us probably lie closer to the middle than to either end. Where I am "better" than a caveman is, for one, I know what a card is. I know what a suit is. I know what an ace is. And that's just for starters. Put that caveman head's-up against just about anyone, regardless of luck, and over a few hands, he's gonna be broke.