Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky • Hacker News Board

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#21

Post by sejje » Wed, May 21, 2014, 5:54 PM UTC

mef wrote: post #13

His study of more than a billion hands of online Texas Hold’em found that 85.2 percent of the hands were decided without a show of cards. In other words, players’ betting decisions were of overwhelming importance in determining the outcome. Of the remaining 14.8 percent, almost half were won by a player who didn't hold the best hand but instead had induced the player with the best hand to fold before the showdown. Is…

I imagine that means that often, someone who would have won folded to a raise pre-flop, or on the flop, etc.

Later their flush (or whatever) came in, but they weren't in the hand any longer.

Two players showed down, but they were the player who won the pot and some third guy.

85.2% of hands were decided without players showing their own cards, certainly many of those hands had flops.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#22

Post by zeppelinnn » Wed, May 21, 2014, 5:57 PM UTC

sejje wrote: post #17

darasen wrote: post #4

There is a reason that the top players happen to very good at math.

This is not a rule. A lot of the players don't use much math--basic pot odds. They develop a feel for when they're making the right play, and openly admit to being "feel" players. I do believe they would be very good at doing on-the-spot calculations in their head, they're often just not very trained in math. Anyhow, surprisingly little in poker is math-dependent, particularly in normal ten-handed games. The cognitiv…

Your statement is true about the "feel" players, but even those players will perform EV analysis away from the table because by estimating percentages of certain tendencies you can figure out what the right play is in tricky situations, and over the long run that ends up saving more money than anything else

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#23

Post by sejje » Wed, May 21, 2014, 5:57 PM UTC

sejje wrote: post #9

dcsommer wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Poker is a game of skill with an element of luck. It is not a game of chance. It depends on the level of the players. For beginners and casual players with less strategy, the game is much more about luck.

By that reasoning, basketball is a game of chance, depending on the level of the players. They're going to lob it up there and hope it goes in. But their lob was a skill--one they don't control very well, but a skill nevertheless. Betting in poker is the same thing, and is the only thing the player controls. The way the cards come out is always chance, and the level of skill can't influence it.

@zep

No, the cards you "expect" will not come out "more often" after millions of hands. They will come out exactly as often as they're supposed to.

Whether or not a card will come out when you place your wager is still a matter of chance. You can't skill it into happening.

Skilled players are undoubtedly taking the likelihood into consideration when they place their bets, of course.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#24

Post by sejje » Wed, May 21, 2014, 6:01 PM UTC

sejje wrote: post #17

darasen wrote: post #4

There is a reason that the top players happen to very good at math.

This is not a rule. A lot of the players don't use much math--basic pot odds. They develop a feel for when they're making the right play, and openly admit to being "feel" players. I do believe they would be very good at doing on-the-spot calculations in their head, they're often just not very trained in math. Anyhow, surprisingly little in poker is math-dependent, particularly in normal ten-handed games. The cognitiv…

@zep

Of course feel players are doing EV analysis, but that's 99% about estimating hand ranges properly. The math is certainly the most simplistic part of the analysis.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#25

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 21, 2014, 6:01 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#26

Post by lawncheer » Wed, May 21, 2014, 6:01 PM UTC

candybar wrote: post #18

As a casual poker player, I find this line of reasoning specious. Sports betting, blackjack and even roulette with a biased wheel are all games of skill by this definition. Poker games are designed specifically to appeal to our gambling instinct so that better players can play the house while worse players gamble away their chips. It's true that from the perspective of the best players, it's not truly gambling, but t…

There is a big difference though, and it revolves around choice. A casino owner can not claim, that a roulette player can choose to get better. At some point, the "house" gets to a theoretically optimal edge (either by fixing the broken roulette wheel, or kicking out card counters). They will always have that mathematical edge.

In a poker game, any player can choose to get better, so much so you get to a a point where both players are playing game theory optimal. At that point, there is NO edge.

PS- support the PPA if you can!

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#27

Post by pimlottc » Wed, May 21, 2014, 6:01 PM UTC

mef wrote: post #13

His study of more than a billion hands of online Texas Hold’em found that 85.2 percent of the hands were decided without a show of cards. In other words, players’ betting decisions were of overwhelming importance in determining the outcome. Of the remaining 14.8 percent, almost half were won by a player who didn't hold the best hand but instead had induced the player with the best hand to fold before the showdown. Is…

Just because the player with the band hand folds before showdown doesn't preclude other players from staying in, forcing a show of hands.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#28

Post by sejje » Wed, May 21, 2014, 6:03 PM UTC

lasermike026 wrote: post #16

I have to disagree. Moneymaker, a complete nobody, winning the World Series of Poker.

Being a complete nobody is not reflective of one's skill.

That said, luck is the primary influence of outcome given a small enough time frame.

It's also possible to have your mistakes "fixed" by luck. Moneymaker was not better than Farha, I'll give you that.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#29

Post by pitnips » Wed, May 21, 2014, 6:04 PM UTC

sharkweek wrote: post #11

This is a really interesting read - I played a lot in college, but never really got "good" per se. We had a group of about 20 or so of us who played semi-regularly. There were two players who were both far superior to everyone else, but they didn't always win. Just like everyone else, they naturally suffered the turmoil of a bad beat here and there. But aggregate their winnings over the course of the two years we all…

And those both seem awfully similar to the stock market. If you're good at poker over the long-term, then you may be better off "gambling" than "investing." And hey, at least when you lose at poker, you may have still enjoyed it -- no one enjoys a stock market crash.

Oh, and don't get me started on naked futures/forward positions...

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#30

Post by jqm » Wed, May 21, 2014, 6:04 PM UTC

Roulette is often held up as an example of "random chance" but this is not entirely true.

There are on occasions patterns in Roulette, especially with certain dealers. In addition, there is a little trick casinos sometimes employ. They loosen the legs on the table to the point it wobbles slightly. The dealer will then lean against the table and watch as the ball is about to drop. They can then pop the ball out of an undesired slot by a well placed shove of the hip. Just something to watch out for if you are gambler.

I firmly believe just like in computing, the entire concept of "random" depends mostly on ones frame of reference.