Do people 'get' Poker?

homah_7ft · 21-06-2007 03:39PM

Would I be wrong in assuming all the people who pay for holidays etc from their winnings are matched by the losses of others who strangely enough are not posting on here?

ntlbell · 21-06-2007 03:40PM

homah_7ft wrote:

Would I be wrong in assuming all the people who pay for holidays etc from their winnings are matched by the losses of others who strangely enough are not posting on here?

You mean the people who just have a constant never ending run of "bad luck" or the people who aren't "skillfull" enough to be a consitient winning player?

homah_7ft · 21-06-2007 03:41PM

My assumption would be in any grouping of players there are some who are better than others. What percentage of those playing make a profit?

PeakOutput · 21-06-2007 03:45PM

brianthebard wrote:

I like poker, and I know skill is important, but luck has as big a part or moreso than skill. You can't tell me that getting a pair of kings in your hand and another two on the table isn't lucky. The hands you are dealt are pure luck, coincidence, whatever, the skill comes in how you manipulate other people to make them believe you have such and such in your hand.

everybody has the same chance as everyone else of getting four kings..........its how the other players will play against you when you have those four kings that makes them good players or not

cooperguy · 21-06-2007 03:46PM

Poker is predominantly a game of luck. In the longer term over many many hands an advantage will be shown, which indicates that there is a modicum of skill, but it still a predominantly luck based game. If you are a regular player and think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

Thats just not true. If you can read your opponents properly and play the game right then your chances of winning hugely increase. I know plenty of people who win consistantly you cannot do that if it is pure chance (unless of coarse you believe people are born lucky which is just ridiculous you can have a lucky streak but you cant be consistantly lucky).

5starpool · 21-06-2007 03:49PM

homah_7ft wrote:

My assumption would be in any grouping of players there are some who are better than others. What percentage of those playing make a profit?

It depends how you group them to be honest, although there are far more losing players than there are winning players.

Lafortezza · 21-06-2007 03:50PM

It's worse than a zero sum game, the casino or online poker site will take a small % of the money being played for to cover costs.

Estimates of % of players making a consistant profit range from 10% to 25%.
On the boards.ie poker forum I'd say that half the posters are good enough to make money over a decent space of time.

ntlbell · 21-06-2007 03:55PM

homah_7ft wrote:

Would I be wrong in assuming all the people who pay for holidays etc from their winnings are matched by the losses of others who strangely enough are not posting on here?

You mean the people who just have a constant never ending run of "bad luck" or the people who aren't "skillfull" enough to be a consitient winning player?

homah_7ft · 21-06-2007 03:56PM

ntlbell wrote:

Odd,

I would of assumed After Hours was one of the most hated forums, it's very hard to find somewhere with such a high concetration of complete morons.

But anway

There's not that much to "get" the "rules" are fairly straight forward and you can quickly learn how to play, if you're interested.

People may not get how someone can spend 4 hours a day playing every single day, people may not get that it is not about luck, people may not get the fact you can make an awful lot of money make a career for yourself become your own boss and lead a very healthy well balanced life style.

Poker has paid for an extension on my house, sent me on holidays, it's just about to buy me a brand new car and introduced me to lots of different types of people I otherwise would have never met.

There's nothing to "get"

I don't "Get" why those who are winning who must be a significant minority are the ones who are posting here. Well actually I do.

Burning Eclipse · 21-06-2007 03:58PM

ntlbell wrote:

Odd,

I would of assumed After Hours was one of the most hated forums, it's very hard to find somewhere with such a high concetration of complete morons.

But anway

There's not that much to "get" the "rules" are fairly straight forward and you can quickly learn how to play, if you're interested.

People may not get how someone can spend 4 hours a day playing every single day, people may not get that it is not about luck, people may not get the fact you can make an awful lot of money make a career for yourself become your own boss and lead a very healthy well balanced life style.

Poker has paid for an extension on my house, sent me on holidays, it's just about to buy me a brand new car and introduced me to lots of different types of people I otherwise would have never met.

There's nothing to "get"

Essentially what I wanted to ask, but too long for the title of a thread.

Back on the skill/luck debate. Over a period of about 2 months in college (march/april) I played about 6 games with a group of friends. Usually 6 handed. It was a tenner to play, just a fun home game. I won every game. Was I lucky that over 2 months I won every home game I played? No, I could read the people I played with and understood the concepts of pot odds and percentages better than them. Is it luck that over the last year I've won more money from poker than lost? The answer is fairly obvious.

PeakOutput · 21-06-2007 04:00PM

homah_7ft wrote:

Well actually I do.

feel free to share

homah_7ft · 21-06-2007 04:07PM

PeakOutput wrote:

feel free to share

It's what's known as a nonresponsive bias.

PeakOutput · 21-06-2007 04:10PM

ah ok i thought u were gonna say they post here to up their ego and they are not actually winners or something like that nvm

AmarilloFats · 21-06-2007 04:11PM

the hilarious ignorance and derived prejudices regarding poker are absolutely essential for the poker hierarchy to exist as it does...

It's all luck..Come play.

Oh and modern medicine is a hoax...Im entitled to my point of view(since when has ignorance been a point of view!!??) as i once beat granny outta €10 playing operation on the kitchen table...

ntlbell · 21-06-2007 04:14PM

homah_7ft wrote:

It's what's known as a nonresponsive bias.

I don't see your point.

Do people lose money player poker? Yes, the majority lose, a % break even and a small % are winning players.

But I'm still failing to see your point.

Cianos · 21-06-2007 06:03PM

I'm a professional poker player, have been for about 2.5 years. It's not a luck game believe me.

I just am very grateful that most people THINK its a luck game.

For a strong player, (moreso cash game as opposed to tournament), it is almost 100% skill.

I play thousands of hands in a day, a few days a week. The luck element is quashed when you are playing in this kind of volume.

johnp · 21-06-2007 06:12PM

TheFlaps wrote:

I've played poker before a good bit so I know what its about. Its 50% skill, 50% luck. Thats why the same guys never win or dominate tournaments like in sport. I actually like the game but discussing old hands on the internet is as boring as it gets for me.

I'd say the % skill is higher than that. That's why the same guys are always there at the end of tounaments, are minted and are famous

Also if you have a more experienced player playing a less experienced player the skill % will go even higher.

If you're telling me that you (or I) are 50/50 against Ivey, Negreanu, Hansen or any of the others, you're sadly mistaken and they'd love to be seated beside you.

johnp · 21-06-2007 06:13PM

Cianos wrote:

I'm a professional poker player, have been for about 2.5 years. It's not a luck game believe me.

I just am very grateful that most people THINK its a luck game.

For a strong player, (moreso cash game as opposed to tournament), it is almost 100% skill.

I play thousands of hands in a day, a few days a week. The luck element is quashed when you are playing in this kind of volume.

Yup, and the more the merrier

johnp · 21-06-2007 06:22PM

skywalker wrote:

For someone who has never played a hand of poker in his life, is there a tutorial to show me the basics anywhere?

Preferably something in flash or interactive, rather than a 100 page rule document.

Here's a Youtube on Texas Holdem from Howard Lederer. Part 1 of 10. The 1st should give you an idea of how to get started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-A7TueRwcg&mode=related&search=

RoadSweeper · 21-06-2007 06:36PM

online poker is rigged.

Peter Collins · 21-06-2007 06:47PM

ntlbell wrote:

Poker has paid for an extension on my house, sent me on holidays, it's just about to buy me a brand new car

AHHAAAA That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Dear oh deary me

Cianos · 21-06-2007 07:10PM

Peter Collins wrote:

AHHAAAA That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Dear oh deary me

Whats the joke?

Lazare · 21-06-2007 07:12PM

Peter Collins wrote:

AHHAAAA That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

A ha, that's it! Eureka!

I was wondering why you were so boring.

21-06-2007 07:16PM

This post has been deleted.

Chucky the tree · 21-06-2007 07:20PM

homah_7ft wrote:

Would I be wrong in assuming all the people who pay for holidays etc from their winnings are matched by the losses of others who strangely enough are not posting on here?

They are posting here.

TheFlaps wrote:

I've played poker before a good bit so I know what its about. Its 50% skill, 50% luck. Thats why the same guys never win or dominate tournaments like in sport. I actually like the game but discussing old hands on the internet is as boring as it gets for me.

patrickolee wrote:

Poker is predominantly a game of luck. In the longer term over many many hands an advantage will be shown, which indicates that there is a modicum of skill, but it still a predominantly luck based game. If you are a regular player and think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

Pighead · 21-06-2007 07:33PM

Peter Collins wrote:

AHHAAAA That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Dear oh deary me

Whats this, a positive post from Pessimistic Peter full of happiness and smileys? Oh no hang on a minute, its actually yet another cynical miserable fcuker of a post from boards very own sadsack. Pighead makes that 262/263 miserable posts from Pessimistic Cnut.

daveirl · 21-06-2007 08:37PM

This post has been deleted.

Peter Collins · 21-06-2007 09:01PM

Pighead wrote:

Whats this, a positive post from Pessimistic Peter full of happiness and smileys? Oh no hang on a minute, its actually yet another cynical miserable fcuker of a post from boards very own sadsack. Pighead makes that 262/263 miserable posts from Pessimistic Cnut.

"fcuker"
"cnut"

Nice language...just because I criticised him posting in the third person.

Poor oul piggy - I seemed to have hit a nerve.

Ah well.

Pighead · 21-06-2007 09:09PM

Peter Collins wrote:

"fcuker"
"cnut"

Nice language...just because I criticised him posting in the third person.

Poor oul piggy - I seemed to have hit a nerve.

Ah well.

Not at all buddy, Pighead uses that nasty language all the time. Doesn't matter if I'm happy, sad angry or placid. Its one of my few faults.

Was round in Mamas house last week and she cooked me a splendid Sunday Roast complete with stuffing, rich gravy and carrot and parsnip mix. After dinner I went "That was fcuking lovely ya wonderful oul cnut" Did this exclamation mean Pighead was angry and hurt? Did it fcuk, quite the opposite in fact.

Like the way you conveniently ignored every other fcuker calling you a miserable old cnut in the thread as well. Did they touch a nerve?

5starpool · 21-06-2007 10:15PM

Peter Collins wrote:

"fcuker"
"cnut"

Nice language...just because I criticised him posting in the third person.

Poor oul piggy - I seemed to have hit a nerve.

Ah well.

Look, there is your rock over there, go crawl under it.

Do people 'get' Poker?

Comments