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

Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind

thehobbyist.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 94 posts

Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind

#31

Post by annacappa »

cortesoft wrote: post #20
annacappa wrote: post #15

The reason poker is a successful game is because bad players can win. Otherwise why would a person who was bad at the game stake any money at all. Personally I would rather take the luck out of it and attempt to normalize (perhaps by playing duplicate hands) but I imagine it would be quite boring for non poker nerds and therefore non lucrative for everyone.

> Personally I would rather take the luck out of it Then you should play Chess, or some other perfect information game. There are popular games that don't involve luck.

I do and I play duplicate bridge, a game that has taken the luck out of a card game. I just like poker theory - I ran a bot for years - and I just don’t like variance that much and I guess I like the game for the strategy more than who has the most chips at the end, although obviously without the hazard it’s not anywhere as entertaining

Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind

#32

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

jSully24 wrote: post #28
ryandrake wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thanks for your candid report. Not enough people tell it how it is, and everyone thinks they're special. That's a good point, too, one I failed to mention. A lot of people are losing poker players, but they don't know it. They don't keep records, and they don't manage and analyze their bankroll over time. A losing poker player has a negative EV. If you buy in to 20 $1000 tournaments, bink one of them for $15K, you'…

I thought this describes many gamblers: remember the wins, quickly forget the losers, be it pull tabs, blackjack, slots, etc.

It does, but there is a crucial difference between poker and most of those other forms of gambling, in that it's possible to be a long term winner at poker, as opposed to games that structurally favor the house. So, you have to be dumb to think you can beat slots long term; you merely have to be delusional to think you can beat poker long term.

Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind

#33

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

annacappa wrote: post #15

The reason poker is a successful game is because bad players can win. Otherwise why would a person who was bad at the game stake any money at all. Personally I would rather take the luck out of it and attempt to normalize (perhaps by playing duplicate hands) but I imagine it would be quite boring for non poker nerds and therefore non lucrative for everyone.

> Personally I would rather take the luck out of it and attempt to normalize (perhaps by playing duplicate hands)

There's something called "match poker" which does exactly that.

Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind

#34

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

annacappa wrote: post #31
cortesoft wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally I would rather take the luck out of it Then you should play Chess, or some other perfect information game. There are popular games that don't involve luck.

I do and I play duplicate bridge, a game that has taken the luck out of a card game. I just like poker theory - I ran a bot for years - and I just don’t like variance that much and I guess I like the game for the strategy more than who has the most chips at the end, although obviously without the hazard it’s not anywhere as entertaining

Curious what do you mean by "I ran a bot"? Like, you programmed and/or operated a bot that played on real money sites?

Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind

#36

Post by thornewolf »

interroboink wrote: post #22
saucymew wrote: post #8

"Poker is a combination of luck and skill. People think mastering the skill is hard, but they're wrong. The trick to poker is mastering the luck. That's philosophy. Understanding luck is philosophy, and there are some people who aren't ever gonna fade it. That's what sets poker apart. And that's what keeps everyone coming back for more." -- Shut Up & Deal

> mastering the luck I feel there are multiple notions of "luck" in common use and the ambiguous term leads to misunderstandings. In my mind, the purest form of luck is, by definition, not something that can be mastered. It is 100% beyond one's control to influence. Examples might include: your genetics, flipping a fair coin, etc. But lots of people talk about "luck" as though it's something that somehow one take adv…

the quote GP is considering "mastering luck" as understanding emotionally that sometimes you will lose. the quote asserts that handling your emotions is more difficult than the skill of the game.

so i think there is a chance that the quoted person would agree with your comment here, as I think it is orthogonal to the quote

Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind

#37

Post by _9omd »

ryandrake wrote: post #26
keyle wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your candid report. Not enough people tell it how it is, and everyone thinks they're special. Fact is, a lot of top players also have deals on the side, with brands and ambassador things. I feel you need those deals to make up for the bad runs. I love the game, but the variance can inflate egos and the grind makes other hobbies more attractive.

> Thanks for your candid report. Not enough people tell it how it is, and everyone thinks they're special. That's a good point, too, one I failed to mention. A lot of people are losing poker players, but they don't know it. They don't keep records, and they don't manage and analyze their bankroll over time. A losing poker player has a negative EV. If you buy in to 20 $1000 tournaments, bink one of them for $15K, you'…

A similar thing happens with stock and crypto traders. They do a ton of trading during a bull market and feel like a genius, because they bagged a few big wins, but they downplay all their big losses. At the end of the year and once short term capital gains are factored in, they end up making less than the total market index, but due to poor record keeping are convinced they’re some kind of trading savant. Once the market turns down they’ll likely lose it all and be forced to become a social media influencer selling bullshit trading courses to unsuspecting victims.

Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind

#38

Post by candiddevmike »

ryandrake wrote: post #6

His section on volume rings pretty true. I used to play a lot recreationally. And by "a lot" I mean probably on the medium-to-high side of recreational, but not even close to pro. Like attending every major regional event and attending WSOP every year for 10 years. Both cash and tournaments. I've stopped because of how much of a tiring grind poker is, and how much time you have to dedicate in order to make it financi…

I think a lot of what you said probably applies to day trading, too.

Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind

#39

Post by iJohnDoe »

fred_is_fred wrote: post #35
adfjalkfja wrote: post #27

online is getting pretty dicey these days sadly

Are there specific instances or issues? I am curious if you mean cheating, collusion, fraud, etc...

> you mean cheating, collusion, fraud

Yes, all of those things.

There are teams at the same table all working together by communicating with each other about what hands they have. The sucker at the table is the one not part of that team.

Also, it’s software, which means it can be written to favor the house.

Online gambling for real money is the equivalent of just setting your money on fire.

Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind

#40

Post by jjxw »

woah wrote: post #30

> Once you have identified an activity as being more luck than skill driven, a person’s process for the activity starts to become a much stronger signal for whether or not they are actually any good. This is the central point of the article, and I don't think it's true. If it were as easy as "following a good process", then anyone could get rich investing.

This is a point worth clarifying. I think a lot of people actually do get rich investing. It just turns out the "good process" in this case is leaving your money in a diversified portfolio for decades. This leverages making a bunch of bets that on average have a positive expected value over a long enough time horizon that you are able to realize the gains.

There are also certainly other ways to have an edge in investing (quant firms come to mind), but I think the most realistic option for "anyone" is readily available in the form of low fee index funds and a long time horizon.

Post reply on HN