Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
thehobbyist.substack.com
Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
#2Wasn't if Phil who said something to the effect of, "If it wasn't for luck, I'd win every hand!" Which seems pretty much the thesis of this writing (though without the arrogance); ultimately resolving in, process as a better indicator of skill than results, and the best deduction of process in luck skewed results is consistency over time which essentially requires more data to deduce.
Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
#3Wasn't if Phil who said something to the effect of, "If it wasn't for luck, I'd win every hand!" Which seems pretty much the thesis of this writing (though without the arrogance); ultimately resolving in, process as a better indicator of skill than results, and the best deduction of process in luck skewed results is consistency over time which essentially requires more data to deduce.
For what it's worth, people have studied what appears to be subject to a lot of random chance to me, a non expert - fantasy sports, and found skill plays a significant role and this study references poker studies if you have more interest.
Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
#4For things which have some combination of luck and skill, there tends to be a baseline skill for, average results given no/low skill. So in a thousand person event, you'll have some number of people performing at baseline and a smaller collection that have actually shown up with some skill. Depending on how high the skill floor is and how much variance there is, this often means people performing at baseline don't have any real chance of winning.
But! The variance still matters a lot for the skillful players: their chance of winning is 1/10 instead of 1/1000, and for the baseline folks the chance of winning is basically zero.
Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
#5This is why, for earning money, you should participate in positive sum games like the real economy. Poker is worse than 0 sum, its negative sum.
Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
#6His 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 financially rewarding. You need to play -a lot- to get good, and then you need to play a lot as a good player to make money. It is really a lot of work.
If you are not a winning poker player (in other words, your long term EV at the table is negative), you're just going to lose money on average, so playing more means losing more. It only makes sense to play in that case if you actually enjoy playing the game and treat your losses as the cost of entertainment.
But if you are a winning poker player, you still won't win enough to rely on the income unless you are playing A LOT. And by a lot I mean every day, for hours a day. And even more if you play online because the level of play is so much stronger online than live.
And then, even if you are a winning player, and you play a lot, AND you have enough average cash flow to make it worth it, you are still going to have periods where variance wipes you out and you're down for months straight. It's pretty brutal.
After all this time, I decided I'd rather get a different hobby than spending so much of my time grinding away in a smoky casino. I just play (infrequent) home games now.
Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
#7For things which have some combination of luck and skill, there tends to be a baseline skill for, average results given no/low skill. So in a thousand person event, you'll have some number of people performing at baseline and a smaller collection that have actually shown up with some skill. Depending on how high the skill floor is and how much variance there is, this often means people performing at baseline don't ha…
I know you were probably putting those numbers in as placeholders to illustrate the concept, but worth pointing out the advantage that (even a lot of) skill gives is nowhere close to 100x over weaker players.
Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
#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
Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
#9This is why, for earning money, you should participate in positive sum games like the real economy. Poker is worse than 0 sum, its negative sum.
Perhaps in a casino taking a rake. But if you're playing w/ friends? The good times make it positive sum. Even in a casino, the players can be getting enough utility / enjoyment out of the game that it's positive sum.
Re: Reflections on Luck and Skill from the Part Time Poker Grind
#10This is why, for earning money, you should participate in positive sum games like the real economy. Poker is worse than 0 sum, its negative sum.
Care to elaborate on how the real economy is positive sum and poker is negative sum?