Article for beginners - opinions sought!

Cianos

In the process of writing an article that is an introduction to what it takes to be a winning player. I'm trying to make it as basic and beginner friendly as possible, as well as realistic and accurate. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated;

Fundamentals Of Winning Play

Cheers lads

Pokerevents

Hi Cian,

I think it is important to point out to new players that hold'em is 75% luck and 25% skill. Any player, regardless of experience and knowledge, can enter into any single event and win it. However it is the more skillfull players that come out on top over time.
Thats one of the beauties about the game. Take Mathews Stevens and Phil the power Taylor, who came in first and second in the pacific poker challenge, both in their words learners to the game. How would a "learner" fair out at the worlds darts championship at the Lakeside or in Sheffield at the U.K masters, not very well me thinks.
Fintan.

DeVore

But they COULD hit the bullseye three times with three darts. Its not very likely but then it wasnt very likely a new player would win the PPP Irish Open...

75% luck? 25% skill? I'd love to know how you arrived at those numbers!

Then the same 30 people who make up the majority of every final table I play or deal in the Fitz must be the luckiest 30 people in Dublin.... Kevin Farrelly is one lucky SOB too!

DeV.

Doc Farrell

Pokerevents wrote:

Hi Cian,

I think it is important to point out to new players that hold'em is 75% luck and 25% skill. Any player, regardless of experience and knowledge, can enter into any single event and win it. However it is the more skillfull players that come out on top over time.
Thats one of the beauties about the game. Take Mathews Stevens and Phil the power Taylor, who came in first and second in the pacific poker challenge, both in their words learners to the game. How would a "learner" fair out at the worlds darts championship at the Lakeside or in Sheffield at the U.K masters, not very well me thinks.
Fintan.

Any new players reading this please note that if you are relying on 75% luck over 25% skill to make an end of month profit on your games then you will get destroyed.
Do not bet money you cannot really afford in the hope of getting lucky. If the game lasts for 8 hours and has 150 players in it all the lucky rabbits feet in the world won't save you from your DOOM. :eek:
A little over the top....? that's the way it'll feel...

NickyOD

Pokerevents wrote:

Hi Cian,

I think it is important to point out to new players that hold'em is 75% luck and 25% skill. Any player, regardless of experience and knowledge, can enter into any single event and win it. However it is the more skillfull players that come out on top over time.
Thats one of the beauties about the game. Take Mathews Stevens and Phil the power Taylor, who came in first and second in the pacific poker challenge, both in their words learners to the game. How would a "learner" fair out at the worlds darts championship at the Lakeside or in Sheffield at the U.K masters, not very well me thinks.
Fintan.

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that high a % of poker is luck. It may be true for a single tournament but when you venture into poker you never pin all your hopes on such a short space of time. Being a winning player is all about the long hall. The most skillful players are always the ones who come out on top over a longer period of time, they are the one's consistently making money week in week out. A poor player may be lucky enough to win one tournament but over a long period time might not even break even. So when you put it in terms of being good enough to be consistent you can certain reverse those percentages.

Pokerevents

Excuse my ignorance. I should have said in my opinion approx 75%luck 25%skill.
How I arrived at this assumption has being basically being drawn from experience and advice.
Christy Smith ex Irish champion (his sister also won the title) and many times finished at final table with two second places and a third to his credit, told me He believes it's closer to 80% luck. You a can teach a lucky player to be a good player, but you can't teach a good player to be lucky.
Without a doubt luck plays a major role in poker, however it is certainly the better players who come out on top time and time again, as they have that skillfull advantage, that is also a major factor. I firmly believe anyone can win a tournament once off.

Cianos

I think everyone misunderstood Fintans point. Luck plays a big part in the short term for any player, and it is only in the long run will skill shine through. I think the point Fintan was making was to let beginning players know that luck has such a big part in it so as they wont get disheartened or discouraged when the cards dont fall right, even though they think they are playing the correct way and making the right decisions.

Hectorjelly

How much luck is involved in any one game depends on the structure, but in most 75% would be a conservative estimate (IMO). Good players edges are quite small.

DeVore

Sorry, can you define what you mean by "lucky player".

You say: "You a can teach a lucky player to be a good player, but you can't teach a good player to be lucky."

Are you saying that some players have a higher rating in some etherial property which makes favourable cards come out more often for them then for someone with a lower rating in this property?

I'm a dealer, I shuffle the cards so if that is the case then I'm CLEARLY being influence (irradiated?) by this persons "luck" in some way at the quantum level.
This is highly disturbing and I'd like this to stop immediately! Can exposure to
this "luck" cause me harm? Perhaps cancer? Will we one day find the luck-particle?

Can you explain to me how one person is "luckier" then another?

DeV.

Pokerevents

I think it's very important for newer players to have a standard for starting hands. The newer the player the more strict and should almost never diviate from these standard. As players become more experienced they should gradually broaden there scope for starting hands, as they will be able to read the game more and make better decisions.
Skalanskys formula is a good one for novice players.

Pokerevents

Funny thing is dev I can't explain it. Luck has no simple definition.
But for certain some people seem to get more of it than others. In our immediate circle of about 25 to 30 players we play 3 to 4 tournaments per week. It seems certain players are more lucky than others. One player in particular I never can take a pot from, he will always catch a card or out draw me or win a 50/50 race everytime. On the other hand I know one or two players that never seem to beat me. I get lucky against them from time to time or win any 50/50 race. Is there an explanation, I dont know is the answer.
Am I imagining this or does happen others?

Cianos

Well a purely scientific view would say that those who appear to be "lucky" are just going to experience the same level of luck as following the laws of probability given enough time.

However, I personally think there are other factors beyond the laws of probability that effect what we call "luck".

Doc Farrell

Cianos wrote:

In the process of writing an article that is an introduction to what it takes to be a winning player. I'm trying to make it as basic and beginner friendly as possible, as well as realistic and accurate. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated;

Fundamentals Of Winning Play

Cheers lads

Cian,

A very impressive article. Well done. Unfortunately here is the truth about online poker. According to Lou Kreiger in a survey on cardplayer.com almost 90% of all online players are losing players. I'm not sure where he gets his figures from but you can find the article archived on that site.

The reality is new players will take a year and a couple of grand to start making a repeatable small profit online. And as they go up in limits the chance of losing it all in one hand multiples.

Anyway, well done on the article and good luck with your business. I hate to be the doomsayer on this site but very very few make money from poker and the sooner new players find out about it the better for them.
Des

Pokerevents

Good points Des, and certainly worth pointing out to all new players who are series about winning.
Good luck Cian.

Running Bing

if poker was 75% luck it would be near impossible for stu ungar to win three wsop tournaments (im noy sure but did he only enter three?). it would also be near impossible for people like phil helmuth and jonny chan to win it twice and consistently finish in high positions and also people like dan negraneau and phil ivey to finish in the money with such consistency. Id say nl ring games are more 80% skill and 20% luck. limit ring games 70% skill and 30% luck and tournament poker 65% skill and 35% luck. these are all approximations and are only my opinion but I think their pretty close. Off course over a period of years the game is almost 100% skill as luck will even out and the better players will get the money.

Hectorjelly

Babybing wrote:

if poker was 75% luck it would be near impossible for stu ungar to win three wsop tournaments (im noy sure but did he only enter three?). it would also be near impossible for people like phil helmuth and jonny chan to win it twice and consistently finish in high positions and also people like dan negraneau and phil ivey to finish in the money with such consistency. Id say nl ring games are more 80% skill and 20% luck. limit ring games 70% skill and 30% luck and tournament poker 65% skill and 35% luck. these are all approximations and are only my opinion but I think their pretty close. Off course over a period of years the game is almost 100% skill as luck will even out and the better players will get the money.

Tournaments like the WSOP have very deep stacks and long blind levels, so theres a lot more skill involved than the average tournament. Your % guesses are way way off, on average in any one session a limit player would hope to make 1 or 2 Big Blinds, but normal sessions win or loss would be many times that, so skill plays a very small part in any one session. Limit is very much a case of getting the best hand, and the edge that good playes have is extracting an extra bet here or there.

People like Phil Ivey and and Daniel Negraneau dont finish in the money as consistantly as you would think, there has been a whole mythology built up around tournament superstars which is based on selective perception, ie you only hear about their good results.

Pokerevents

I would agree with u hector. If skill was anywhere near the percentages suggested why in any given tournament the odds the bookmakers give for top players to win are massive. Take The Irish open , Donnacha O' Dea (without doubt the most successfull Irish poker player ever) was priced at 33 to 1.
I would think them percentages would be more applicable to a soccer game rather than a poker tournament.

DeVore

You see, we've now created this idea of "lucky players" to explain the Stu Ungar anomaly.

Step 1.
1. Attribute your opponents repeated wins over you to be "luck" and therefore there is a lot of "luck" in the game.

2. Then we need to create the concept of "lucky players" to explain the concentration of this etherial property in a single person over time.

DeV.

DeVore

Pokerevents wrote:

I would agree with u hector. If skill was anywhere near the percentages suggested why in any given tournament the odds the bookmakers give for top players to win are massive. Take The Irish open , Donnacha O' Dea (without doubt the most successfull Irish poker player ever) was priced at 33 to 1.
I would think them percentages would be more applicable to a soccer game rather than a poker tournament.

And yet the final table was made up almost exclusively of professional poker players and well known Irish ones at that.
Rory Liffey, Peter Roche, Alan Betson, Tony Cooney etc.

How come I see the same faces over and over again at the final table in the Fitz? What is Kevin O'Farrelly? The luckiest person alive?

DeV.

Pokerevents

I think it stands to reason the skillfull players have a series advantage, and that is why over time they come to the top. However I still believe any one player can walk in off the street and win any single tournament.

NickyOD

Pokerevents wrote:

I think it stands to reason the skillfull players have a series advantage, and that is why over time they come to the top. However I still believe any one player can walk in off the street and win any single tournament.

Absolutely. You can teach a feaces throwing monkey to play cards, stick him in a tournament and there's a chance he'll win. Just take a look at any large online tourney and you'll see some idiot stretching the pot odds to the extreme, catching cards and sucking out on everyone at the table, but the majority of players at a final table will always be the best players in the tournament.

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

And yet the final table was made up almost exclusively of professional poker players and well known Irish ones at that.
Rory Liffey, Peter Roche, Alan Betson, Tony Cooney etc.

How come I see the same faces over and over again at the final table in the Fitz? What is Kevin O'Farrelly? The luckiest person alive?

DeV.

Im not sure what your point is exactly, but you see the same people at the final table of the fitz every week because they play every tournament.