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

Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#51

Post by chilldream »

stygiansonic wrote: post #35

I suppose, like the article mentions, it depends on the circumstances. It does appear that serious poker players do better in the long run as they not only consider pot-odds when playing but also management of their bankroll to ensure long-term survival. Is there an element of chance? Of course, but it's not the only factor - few things are black and white. But if someone choose to go all-in blind pre-flop then they…

> But if someone choose to go all-in blind pre-flop then they are choosing to play the game as pure gambling and their version of the game would be pure chance.

This isn't making the game pure chance; it's just cutting off that player from future decisions. The opponents still get to call or fold, which means the opponent is manipulating the odds that the all-in player will win a contested pot.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#52

Post by jqm »

jqm wrote: post #41
TylerE wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a load of rubbish submitted completely without any sort of proof. That might have gone on in a back-alley speakeasy in the Prohibition era, but in any sort of reputable casino - not a chance. The casino has no need to cheat at roulette. They have a built in edge.

It absolutely is not a load of rubbish. I have personally observed it many times. And I have spent a LOT of time observing. I don't claim to have "proof" however I know what I have seen. I also didn't say "reputable" (a strange word in this context). Also, every/most Casino does not engage in this but some do. Your claim "they wouldn't do this because they already have an edge" is just silly. Why wouldn't they take a…

As evidence for what I say I will tell you I have won thousands of dollars at Roulette. Far beyond what one should win "by chance" which should be a negative number for the amount I have played.

Things have changed a bit since then and I don't play anymore. If you start winning more than you should you become known. I will tell you that. And this changes things.

For example, one technique I used was taking advantage of dealers who had skill placing the ball...yes, these do exist. At one Nevada casino in a smaller town I stayed for a few days and played very small amounts of money while watching the dealers. One Asian lady was very adept at placing the ball on the green zeros when she wanted to. So I went to her table and played $40 which I lost. Then I left and watched her while playing small amounts at the craps table. I saw her practice placing the ball on the green zeros 4 times in a row (not sure why she would have done this in public). I walked back to her table and placed some reasonable bets all over the board. As soon as she released the ball I put maximum bets on the green zeros. What do you know? I must have got lucky! I then collected my winnings and checked out. That bet more than paid for my trip.

Roulette is not always as random as it is held up to be. No, I can't "prove it".

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#53

Post by chilldream »

jqm wrote: post #41
TylerE wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a load of rubbish submitted completely without any sort of proof. That might have gone on in a back-alley speakeasy in the Prohibition era, but in any sort of reputable casino - not a chance. The casino has no need to cheat at roulette. They have a built in edge.

It absolutely is not a load of rubbish. I have personally observed it many times. And I have spent a LOT of time observing. I don't claim to have "proof" however I know what I have seen. I also didn't say "reputable" (a strange word in this context). Also, every/most Casino does not engage in this but some do. Your claim "they wouldn't do this because they already have an edge" is just silly. Why wouldn't they take a…

If it's company policy, the employees have plenty of incentive to snitch to gaming boards. I used to hang out with a lot of casino dealers in Washington state and every one of them would sell out their boss that day if they were told to do something like this.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#54

Post by jqm »

chilldream wrote: post #53
jqm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is not a load of rubbish. I have personally observed it many times. And I have spent a LOT of time observing. I don't claim to have "proof" however I know what I have seen. I also didn't say "reputable" (a strange word in this context). Also, every/most Casino does not engage in this but some do. Your claim "they wouldn't do this because they already have an edge" is just silly. Why wouldn't they take a…

If it's company policy, the employees have plenty of incentive to snitch to gaming boards. I used to hang out with a lot of casino dealers in Washington state and every one of them would sell out their boss that day if they were told to do something like this.

You would think so. But I assure you, it occurs. It may be more the dealers themselves with the "casino" turning a blind eye. Maybe they themselves would face suspension of their licenses. Maybe ratting out a casino is not a good idea *looks over shoulder. I don't know.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#55

Post by josu »

hueving wrote: post #37
pitnips wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

>no one enjoys a stock market crash. >Oh, and don't get me started on naked futures/forward positions... Some of the people that purchase these are plenty happy during a crash. What is it about time-based derivatives that you have a problem with in particular?

He probably meant losing money on the stock market, not necessarily a crash

The key word is "naked"

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#56

Post by cheepin »

ssharp wrote: post #45
pitnips wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Poker's problems are entirely cosmetic. It uses the same chips and cards and is played in the same building as blackjack, so it's always going to be associated with other forms of house-edged gambling, even though it isn't. There are other places, like you noted, where people can gather, put money into a zero-sum game, and it's completely legal. There are also lots of nuances in many of these state laws, where poker…

It is "house-edged" in the sense the game is slightly negative summed due to the rake.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#57

Post by thetrb »

pimlottc wrote: post #27
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.

Yes, but only a show of hands of those still in, not of the player who folded. So how would they be able to analyze that he had the better hand?

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#58

Post by mikkom »

throwaway283719 wrote: post #36
pitnips wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Okay, I'll bite. Why is having a naked futures contract in the S&P500 (which costs around $100,000 for the e-mini) any more risky than owning $100,000 of stocks? [0] http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/e-mini...

I would claim it's actually less risky because it's more diversified if we are talking about volatility but owning 100k in stocks would also get you dividends that futures won't.

(Also you can get higher margins much more easier with futures than with stocks and high margin of course means more volatility (=risk) )

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#59

Post by yiransheng »

stygiansonic wrote: post #46
throwaway283719 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I'll bite. Why is having a naked futures contract in the S&P500 (which costs around $100,000 for the e-mini) any more risky than owning $100,000 of stocks? [0] http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/e-mini...

I'm not an expert (this is not my industry, so please correct me if I'm wrong) but I imagine it has to do something with the initial cost of entering the position. With a futures position you may end up losing more than you put in (your initial margin) but assuming you went long a stock without using margin, the most you could lose would be your initial investment. But perhaps it's not a fair comparison. I would say…

Also, if you are comfortable taking that amount of risk, you'd be better off to participate in the future market than buying large chunks of stocks on margin, at least you have extra liquidity.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#60

Post by throwaway283719 »

mikkom wrote: post #58
throwaway283719 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I'll bite. Why is having a naked futures contract in the S&P500 (which costs around $100,000 for the e-mini) any more risky than owning $100,000 of stocks? [0] http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/e-mini...

I would claim it's actually less risky because it's more diversified if we are talking about volatility but owning 100k in stocks would also get you dividends that futures won't. (Also you can get higher margins much more easier with futures than with stocks and high margin of course means more volatility (=risk) )

> I would claim it's actually less risky because it's more diversified

Yes, I agree (but then again, you could just replicate the index in your stock portfolio...)

> owning 100k in stocks would also get you dividends that futures won't.

Sure, and that's why the futures will generally appreciate faster than the stocks will - it makes up for the fact that you don't get dividends. Similarly, the fact that you only need to use a small part of your capital to hold futures means that you can earn interest on the rest, which provides a pull in the opposite direction, slowing down the rate of appreciation.

Post reply on HN