Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Winning $250k at Poker Taught Me About Money

thecut.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: What Winning $250k at Poker Taught Me About Money

#101

Post by travisjungroth »

QuotedForTruth wrote: post #35
IshKebab wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I don't really like poker. There's just too much variance. Unless you play again and again and again there's not much correlation between skill and the winner. I think it's why people also believe there is "beginners' luck" - there isn't really - the entire game has tons of luck. But when confronted with someone who clearly isn't skilled but wins anyway , poker fans really don't want to face the reality t…

The variance is also what allows poker to thrive and pro players to have an income though. Since poker is zero sum (really negative because of the casino's take) there has to be a steady supply of losing money playing. That means bad players have to believe they have a shot. If they never or very rarely won against higher skilled players, they'd dry up. Imagine casinos that had cash chess tables or basketball courts.…

Now I want to see $200 buy-in basketball tournaments.

Re: What Winning $250k at Poker Taught Me About Money

#102

Post by hnick »

> Women make good poker players because in a male-driven society, we’ve had to be much more sensitive to social cues. We’ve had to read people much better. I’m not saying women are inherently better at this. I think we’ve had to become better at it as a survival mechanism. Because men can be boors and still rule the world, but women really need to know what’s going on.

It's a common belief that women are more sensitive to emotional cues than men, but I've never heard it put like this. Interesting perspective.

Re: What Winning $250k at Poker Taught Me About Money

#103

Post by jordonias »

Phillipharryt wrote: post #93
Harimwakairi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's technically a type of cheating, but it's used here to mean profoundly bad luck. A cold deck is one that has been rigged to the advantage of one player, and then swapped in after the cut and shuffle (hence its "coldness"). Typically the deck would be stacked to give the victim a fantastically good hand, but the cheater one that's slightly better. The victim would bet a great deal thinking their hand was good only…

Regarding your last paragraph, that would be a bad beat. A cold deck is a string of poor cards, perhaps an entire sitting without getting any strong hands.

You're not wrong about it being a bad beat, but I think he was thinking of a "cooler".

Re: What Winning $250k at Poker Taught Me About Money

#104

Post by dbancajas »

I used to railbird the likes of Tom Dwan(durrr), Ivey, Patric antonious (patonious), ilary sahamies etc.. at full tilt poker. 100K in virtual cash transferring hands in a matter of seconds. Amazing. Durrr even had the million-dollar challenge with jungleman (Daniel Cates). I think he lost it. These were the guys who understood the game on a different level and basically cleaned-out live televised poker cash games (poker after dark anyone?). I aspired to be like them (mostly for the wrong reasons) but was so busy being a phd student. Lol. I heard they go to Macau to play live cash and some were even investigated for money laundering. Wondered what happened to those guys.

Re: What Winning $250k at Poker Taught Me About Money

#105

Post by alexashka »

hnick wrote: post #102

> Women make good poker players because in a male-driven society, we’ve had to be much more sensitive to social cues. We’ve had to read people much better. I’m not saying women are inherently better at this. I think we’ve had to become better at it as a survival mechanism. Because men can be boors and still rule the world, but women really need to know what’s going on. It's a common belief that women are more sensiti…

Poker is completely dominated by men, so I don't know what that is referring to. Poker is hardly about social cues - some of the best players simply sit staring at the same spot and wait a very similar amount of time for any non-trivial decision. It's not very exciting, but boy is it effective.

Re: What Winning $250k at Poker Taught Me About Money

#106

Post by dbancajas »

QuotedForTruth wrote: post #35
IshKebab wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I don't really like poker. There's just too much variance. Unless you play again and again and again there's not much correlation between skill and the winner. I think it's why people also believe there is "beginners' luck" - there isn't really - the entire game has tons of luck. But when confronted with someone who clearly isn't skilled but wins anyway , poker fans really don't want to face the reality t…

The variance is also what allows poker to thrive and pro players to have an income though. Since poker is zero sum (really negative because of the casino's take) there has to be a steady supply of losing money playing. That means bad players have to believe they have a shot. If they never or very rarely won against higher skilled players, they'd dry up. Imagine casinos that had cash chess tables or basketball courts.…

the term you are looking for is a donkey or a fish. A fish that has a lot of money is called a "whale". Back at pokerstars I was always amazed by some unknown out of a middle eastern country (UAE or SA) -- this is when they still display your country -- and they'd be playing with the pros 100/200$ blinds. I always thought, are they good or too much oil money?

Re: What Winning $250k at Poker Taught Me About Money

#108

Post by alexashka »

kadabra9 wrote: post #11

Tournament poker is just brutal. It's entirely common to go 15, 20 tournaments without cashing. You can play great poker, sometimes over the span of a few days, and suddenly get hit with a cold deck or get unlucky and poof you are eliminated with nothing, along with your chance at a 5 or 6 figure top prize. Then you have to suck it back up and move on to the next one. The variance is just insane, which is why a lot o…

Poker is brutal no matter how you go about it.

If it's not brutal - you're simply on a hot streak, or playing in unbelievably easy games.

Poker at the end of the day, is a matter of who cracks mentally. It is just so tedious. You can see this in live games for small stakes most clearly when someone gets bored after a couple hours of shit cards and does something he/she would never do an hour in. They call it tilt, I call it your inner wisdom letting you know you're wasting your life away.

Re: What Winning $250k at Poker Taught Me About Money

#109

Post by dbancajas »

shorsher wrote: post #99
base698 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be profitable in the golden days being a nit and just letting the huge swaths of players pay me off. So many all-ins to bluff me off while holding top set, nut straight, or nut flush. Just recently got back playing and am trying to learn to play against real players. I'm down overall after about 50 hours of play, but not very much. Any advice?

One book that I have really really enjoyed that is somewhat recent (2016) is The Grinders Manual [1]. It gives fantastic advice that is still relevant and is extremely readable. Covers a wide range of topics and came widely recommended to me. It’s helped my game a lot as I just started playing seriously about 5 months ago. It’s geared toward online cash playing, but I ignore most of the HUD stuff and can use all the…

what's your VPIP and 3B%? and what stakes do you hangout usually?

Re: What Winning $250k at Poker Taught Me About Money

#110

Post by dbancajas »

nickjj wrote: post #36

Online poker was really interesting before Black Friday. I used to play back then. Nothing crazy, about 60,000 hands of NLHE at low stakes cash games for fun. But the really interesting thing to me was how successful the video learning platform SAAS business was for Poker. These sites started to pop up where high level players would record their sessions and talk through their hands, then you paid per month for acces…

hey man! used to follow the scene too! I remember cardrunners and deucescracked! Tri Ng also had his 99$ book w/c i beleive was scammy. Did you win a lot?
Post reply on HN