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

61–70 of 131 posts

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#61

Post by TylerE »

jqm wrote: post #52
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…

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…

Frankly, I expect a certain level of proof that you have won long-term at Roulette.

A session win/loss log would be sufficient.

The house edge in roulette is huge. Anyone claiming to be a winner at roulette in the long term is either lying or delusional.

An equivalent claim would be someone claiming to double their money in the stock market every year for years on end.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#62

Post by ollysb »

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.

>> 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.

I think that would be a fair point to make

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#63

Post by sejje »

ollysb wrote: post #62
sejje wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> 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. I think that would be a fair point to make

I don't.

The idea that some players' skill is so low that their ability is indistinguishable from pure luck does not diminish the idea that basketball is very much a skill-based game.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#64

Post by msellout »

cheepin wrote: post #56
ssharp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Brokers take a transaction fee.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#65

Post by lasermike026 »

sejje wrote: post #28
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.

Watching Moneymaker win and then a series of others unknowns win convinced me that poker is a game of luck.

Why are real rounders not winning?

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#66

Post by hatu »

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…

Come on, you're presenting anecdotal evidence to prove that Roulette isn't statistically random with a built in mathematical house edge. It's just silly.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#67

Post by pbhjpbhj »

sejje wrote: post #24
sejje wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

EV = "Earned Value"?

Could you outline the process or point to a place to read up on it WRT poker?

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#69

Post by GeneralMayhem »

thetrb wrote: post #57
pimlottc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's online poker; there's almost certainly a record of every card dealt.

Re: Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky

#70

Post by flud43 »

I don't even know how people can even argue it isn't a game of skill anymore. Profitable poker players are just little, mini-casinos. That's it. It's not that complex of an idea.

I play heads-up hyper-turbos, as well as other games, on PokerStars. I've been studying poker, reviewing my play, and grinding for years. I'm a mediocre reg and I can grind out consistent profits. Here's my graph of 18,106 $15 heads-up hyper-turbos on PokerStars.

http://i.imgur.com/AQ26oVQ.png

It really, truly, is not that hard to make money at poker if you're willing to invest even a small amount of time doing quality study and review.

Post reply on HN