Live data from Hacker News

Quitting the full-time poker scene

team-bhp.com

51–60 of 197 posts

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#51
post #21

I find interesting that no one (yet) in OP or in the comments has talked about my main complaint about playing Poker as a living: it's a zero sum game where you basically only take money from other people. It's not productive. For me, that in itself is as depressing as the grind. But it appears most players don't really care about this, maybe because life oftentimes is not fair and thus being productive is not seen a…

Would you say the market is like that also

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#52
post #35
post #15

I played back during the glory days of 2000-2004 and through the net-teller shutdown for America. Back then the money was absolutely absurd, because the game was very new online and very few people understood basics. This combined with the massive amount of marketing that was going on for television, tons of people were addicted to the thrill of the game. Every single year the game became more difficult as more peopl…

> looking for soft players that I had datamined I knew someone on the other end of this. Back in the early 2000s, the wife of a guy I worked with fancied herself a decent poker player. She lost some non-trivial amount of money in an online game and was worried about telling her husband. So, she tried to win it back and lost even more. I think you know where this is going (if not, see Gambler's ruin). She lost all of…

This is why you always keep separate savings accounts away from a spouse.

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#53
post #27
post #15

I played back during the glory days of 2000-2004 and through the net-teller shutdown for America. Back then the money was absolutely absurd, because the game was very new online and very few people understood basics. This combined with the massive amount of marketing that was going on for television, tons of people were addicted to the thrill of the game. Every single year the game became more difficult as more peopl…

[flagged]

I worked for a company that did this for awhile - they had custom written clients for all the major sites, just watching tables and recording the hand histories, which they provided as a subscription service. You could absolutely use the data to improve your margins. Think knowing how loose or tight your opponents were over thousands of hands.

Then we got acquired by Zynga and that business got sold off.

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#54
post #3

I was under the impression that online poker rooms are low key rigged and at the very least just cycle through preexisting card combinations rather than doing even a programmatic randomization (let alone using a true external source of randomization).

there was one major scandal @ UltimateBet where ex-sys admin had superuser access to people's holecards. But besides that, most rooms are legit, the rooms have decent incentive to make sure their RNG is robust since pro poker players are smart enough to pull data to figure things out if things are shady.

as another comment said below, RTA is probably biggest ways people take unfair advantage nowadays.

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#55
post #40
post #21

I find interesting that no one (yet) in OP or in the comments has talked about my main complaint about playing Poker as a living: it's a zero sum game where you basically only take money from other people. It's not productive. For me, that in itself is as depressing as the grind. But it appears most players don't really care about this, maybe because life oftentimes is not fair and thus being productive is not seen a…

I am not so sure. This is like saying you lose on lottery because the state always wins in total. Money wise yes but when you have a lottery ticket you entertain yourself with hopes and can dream about what you'd do with the megabucks. If you feel good for a while because of it ... did you really lose? Same with poker. Sure, you can only win if someone else loses but what if they had fun? In other words, is going to…

I play poker because it’s fun. I’m decent, I have won a few 100+ NL tournaments in Vegas and finish in the money as often as not. But I’m gambling well within my means, which is different for everyone. I have no idea if I take $1000 from someone if that’s their rent for the month or if it’s budgeted for entertainment.

Gambling is ancient and wired deep in the human psyche. It’s neither morally right nor morally wrong. It is just something we enjoy as a species. I feel bad for people addicted, but I also feel bad for people addicted to alcohol or addicted to reading the news. Everyone needs to moderate their own consumption.

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#56
post #52
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> looking for soft players that I had datamined I knew someone on the other end of this. Back in the early 2000s, the wife of a guy I worked with fancied herself a decent poker player. She lost some non-trivial amount of money in an online game and was worried about telling her husband. So, she tried to win it back and lost even more. I think you know where this is going (if not, see Gambler's ruin). She lost all of…

This is why you always keep separate savings accounts away from a spouse.

> This is why you always keep separate savings accounts away from a spouse.

Your username bio is hilarious--and it is also consistent with your advice.

Have an upvote (on your way to 1K)

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#57
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this not also true for many sporting or competitive pursuits that are also effectively zero sum? For sports I suppose one could argue there are benefits to exercise and for other competitive games with professionals like chess there are mental benefits from getting good at them. However, neither seem particularly "productive" outside of all the money that is funneled into events for marketing purposes. There is, o…

In non-tournament settings, every dollar you win at poker comes out of the pockets of another player at the table. It's truly a zero-sum game, as adding up the gains and losses of players at the table will result in zero. In contrast, tournament games (chess, golf, tennis, WSOP, esports, etc) may have significant entry fees, but at a professional level the total winnings are significantly more than the sum of all ent…

For poker it's actually negative sum at most venues outside of private games due to the fees taken by the organizer (i.e. the rake). But yes, point taken that at least within the closed system of the game poker is zero/negative sum.

My comment was more directed at the OP's assertion that poker is not 'productive' because it is zero-sum. I personally don't see how injecting corporate sponsors into otherwise zero sum games (only one team in sporting events can win, only one chess player can win the tournament) elevates competitive pursuits outside of poker to what can be considered 'productive'. OP's view could be that all of these pursuits are equally unproductive and that would be fair enough.

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#58
post #21

I find interesting that no one (yet) in OP or in the comments has talked about my main complaint about playing Poker as a living: it's a zero sum game where you basically only take money from other people. It's not productive. For me, that in itself is as depressing as the grind. But it appears most players don't really care about this, maybe because life oftentimes is not fair and thus being productive is not seen a…

Many competitive games/sports where you are trading ELO or rankings (chess, RTS, boxing) are like this, but I wouldn't judge it outright as "not productive."

I'd reckon it's more about the journey, the stories and friends we made along the way, even though there may be few.

Whenever someone asks, "Why do they do that?" I always share the man who holds the Guinness World Records for rolling an orange with their nose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66xwQZuic3E

Why not?

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#59
post #15

I played back during the glory days of 2000-2004 and through the net-teller shutdown for America. Back then the money was absolutely absurd, because the game was very new online and very few people understood basics. This combined with the massive amount of marketing that was going on for television, tons of people were addicted to the thrill of the game. Every single year the game became more difficult as more peopl…

Not much has changed in the current live poker meta. Yes, the average player may be better, but if you put in the consistent time to study/solvers/hand reviews, IMHO that puts you in the top 20 percentile. It's getting to the top 5-10 percentile that is killer.

Ultimately, like life, the only true edge you can control is game selection. Hence, that Rounders quote that rings eternal:

"Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker."

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#60
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poker player is providing entertainment for others. It's really not much different than working on a company backed by a rich investor where the CEO skillfully plays their cards to maneuver more money out of the rich fish while the other players also try to get what they can out of them.

> The poker player is providing entertainment for others. Yes, and the top earners in poker aren't always the best players, but rather skilled players who have some personality instead of putting on headphones and grinding and get invited to lucrative private games.

till you don't
Post reply on HN