Poker Paradox

[Royal_Tour 0]

I disagree and don't think you can demonstrate that. If it were true, then the pros at the WSOP, when faced with tables full of amateurs, would win. When I have watched unedited professional play, the one thing thats tends out is the consistency of the play amongst the players. Bad players are not just inconsistent, they are making decisions not even in line with their own best interests.

Huh... U know i never thought of it that way...Poker and the form holdem has been around for decades, but Now, YOU just changed everythingYou are abosultely correct!! Bad players can eliminate the skill by playing soo badly that all their decisions are meaningless against any pro cuz they have successfully eliminated the pro's edge.dear god, do u hear yourself? do you understand what you're saying?You really think if any of what you say is true, that it wouldnt have been brought to life in books years ago?Dont you think someone would come out with a "poker for donks to stay donks" book? Or a "eliminate better players edges by playing worse"God, I'm amazed you can even operate your computerWhen the WSOP wasnt full of thousands of players, it was won by PRO'sIts the THOUSANDS of players that make it difficult for pros to winAA is the best hand right? Obviously... Now AA vs 2,7 is a huge favorite.But AA vs 2,7 3,4 9,9 JQ, 5,8 will still be a favorite, but wont win as oftendo ..... you..... see.......why???

[11 to 1 0]

Huh... U know i never thought of it that way...Poker and the form holdem has been around for decades, but Now, YOU just changed everythingYou are abosultely correct!! Bad players can eliminate the skill by playing soo badly that all their decisions are meaningless against any pro cuz they have successfully eliminated the pro's edge.dear god, do u hear yourself? do you understand what you're saying?You really think if any of what you say is true, that it wouldnt have been brought to life in books years ago?Dont you think someone would come out with a "poker for donks to stay donks" book? Or a "eliminate better players edges by playing worse"God, I'm amazed you can even operate your computerWhen the WSOP wasnt full of thousands of players, it was won by PRO'sIts the THOUSANDS of players that make it difficult for pros to winAA is the best hand right? Obviously... Now AA vs 2,7 is a huge favorite.But AA vs 2,7 3,4 9,9 JQ, 5,8 will still be a favorite, but wont win as oftendo ..... you..... see.......why???

Wow. Do you tilt this easily at the table?I'll answer this when I have time, I stand by my assertion. And RT? NEW things are found all the time in all disciplines. (Not that what I am saying is particularly new.) Things change kiddo, see: "evolution."

[Royal_Tour 0]

Wow. Do you tilt this easily at the table?I'll answer this when I have time, I stand by my assertion. And RT? NEW things are found all the time in all disciplines. (Not that what I am saying is particularly new.) Things change kiddo, see: "evolution."

yes i do tilt, its a huge leak in my game. Nothing new.and evolution is not only a ridiculously far leap from fundamentals of poker, but shouldnt even be used as an example in the first place.You want to use an example, use Backgamon, hell even Magic the Gaythering.Both other games that Pro's and Great players have no trouble dominating the competition

[fleung22 1]

yes i do tilt, its a huge leak in my game. Nothing new.

oh yeah? what would you say causes you to tilt most often?no reason...just curious and askin...not like i might be playin you tonight or anything.

[Actuary 3]

I disagree and don't think you can demonstrate that. If it were true, then the pros at the WSOP, when faced with tables full of amateurs, would win. When I have watched unedited professional play, the one thing thats tends out is the consistency of the play amongst the players. Bad players are not just inconsistent, they are making decisions not even in line with their own best interests.

Luck is the biggest factor in any one, two, ten tournies.The "better players" do have an aggregate Cashing advantage over amatuers.It's just impossible to see by looking at individual events.One day you will see how stupid your above post sounds.If pros cant; beat amatuers, according to you.Then Amatuers beat pros, yes?Then Amatuers must be better than pros, yes?Then if Amatuers play better than pros, then they should not be able to beat the Pro, because you can't beat bad players. Huh ?If you had 80 pros and 20 amatuers in one tourney and top 10 paid.and 20 pro and 80 amatuers in another similar tourney...Average placing of a pro will be higher in the tourney with less Pros.Because the avergae player will be worse.If you were to do that tourney 20 times, for certain.One, time, no idea(and for clarity: by pro I just mean a solid good player. And by Amatuer, i mean someone who really doesn't understand the game. Or we can just say pros are the top 2500 tourney players and amtuers are the rest..whatver... just not using "pro" to mean it's your job necessarily)

[fleung22 1]

Luck is the biggest factor in any one, two, ten tournies.The "better players" do have an aggregate Cashing advantage over amatuers.It's just impossible to see by looking at individual events.One day you will see how stupid your above post sounds.If pros cant; beat amatuers, according to you.Then Amatuers beat pros, yes?Then Amatuers must be better than pros, yes?Then if Amatuers play better than pros, then they should not be able to beat the Pro, because you can't beat bad players. Huh ?If you had 80 pros and 20 amatuers in one tourney and top 10 paid.and 20 pro and 80 amatuers in another similar tourney...Average placing of a pro will be higher in the tourney with less Pros.Because the avergae player will be worse.If you were to do that tourney 20 times, for certain.One, time, no idea

what you don't seem to understand is that for a pro to have and edge his opponent must respect his raise.i..i...i just can't go thru with it. how the hell did acesup keep up the bs for 48 hrs?

[chgocubs99 0]

what you don't seem to understand is that for a pro to have and edge his opponent must respect his raise.i..i...i just can't go thru with it. how the hell did acesup keep up the bs for 48 hrs?

Better question is, how did people buy it for the first 47?

[Actuary 3]

Better question is, how did people buy it for the first 47?

Because they want to believe it's true.

[psujohn 0]

If anyone is really bored at work and can get access to a fairly complete list of entrants and cashes in the last ME I'd be curious to see:- what percentage of the field was "pros"- what percentage of cashes was pros- what percentage of the prize pool went to prosand - what percentage of the prize pool when to pros vs the percentage of the field that was pros.Tournaments - especially very large ones - are kind of funny because we tend to remember the winner or perhaps the final table but in something like the ME a huge portion of the prize pool is given out before the FT. And there are plenty of not FT places that yield a tremendous ROI.Pulling numbers completely out of my a$$ I'd guess that less than 10% of the field at the ME is "known pros" - even using a pretty broad definition of that term - and I'd guess that they take well over 20% of the prize pool. Completely made up numbers - I'd be curious to know the real numbers though not curious enough to search it out myself. If as I'm guessing, pros take home a much larger share of the prize pool than their relative numbers would suggest then they clearly have a distinct advantage over the amateurs.

[Actuary 3]

psujohn,it'snot even about empirical data, altough, I agree it would support it.It's about the common sense.If great players can beat good playersAnd great players cannot beat really bad players, then who's the Best Players?Reallly Bad ones?oh... I see.. it's easiest to beat players just a step worse than you; but not too much worse. It just sounds so stupid it pains me to think people defend that logic.

[chgocubs99 0]

psujohn,it'snot even about empirical data, altough, I agree it would support it.It's about the common sense.If great players can beat good playersAnd great players cannot beat really bad players, then who's the Best Players?Reallly Bad ones?oh... I see.. it's easiest to beat players just a step worse than you; but not too much worse. It just sounds so stupid it pains me to think people defend that logic.

I have been wrong during several arugments on here and grumpily admitted it to everyone. Hopefully this guy comes back and admits he was wrong about this.

[fleung22 1]

psujohn,it'snot even about empirical data, altough, I agree it would support it.It's about the common sense.If great players can beat good playersAnd great players cannot beat really bad players, then who's the Best Players?Reallly Bad ones?oh... I see.. it's easiest to beat players just a step worse than you; but not too much worse. It just sounds so stupid it pains me to think people defend that logic.

You ever hear the phrase, "sometimes it's better to know nothing than a little"?It really applied to me when I first became more serious about the game. When I first played tournament poker I had the aggression and some card sense but no idea about the real percentages. For example I moved in with QJs on a pro who had raised and he called my reraise which put him all in. He showed AK and for some reason I was just SO sure I was going to make a flush...not even just a pair. The flop had an Ace and two hearts and by the river I got my flush so it validated my thinking at the time. I actually beat that pro a few more times soon afterwards.It wasn't until I started to read a bit and learn more about the game that I hit a wall and kept losing to that same pro. How could I be learning more and beating bigger limits but losing to the same guy I was beating before??When you know nothing a pro can't really put you on a short range of hands. He'll make less moves and be more dependant on the cards. My body language only spoke of confidence because I didn't realize how bad my plays were when I had little knowledge of the game.So now you add some knowledge to me and the experience of losing and my body language starts to be more in line with a "normal player". In essence my advantage before was being so stupid it made me unique.The more I learn the more in line I play like the common guy the pro beats except he has a LOT more experience in making the right move.After learning quite a bit more since then I feel much better about playing that same pro but it's taken a lot of losing to him to gain the knowledge and experience to even come close.The pro is better than both the average player and complete idiot but i think the complete idiot poses a greater threat to the pro.

[psujohn 0]

Bet, fold and raise at random without ever looking at your cards. Guaranteed to make you millions. Oh, and sue 2+2 for teaching you enough to start losing.

[hblask 1]

Bet, fold and raise at random without ever looking at your cards. Guaranteed to make you millions. Oh, and sue 2+2 for teaching you enough to start losing.

Curiously, if you can *appear* random to your opponents, you have a significant edge. If you *are* random, you will lose. A lot. Many, if not all, pros use a randomization factor in their game to keep from becoming too predictable. Bad players are also random, but not in a good way. While it does provide the same edge of being unreadable, well,... you know.

[11 to 1 0]

Huh... U know i never thought of it that way...Poker and the form holdem has been around for decades, but Now, YOU just changed everythingYou are abosultely correct!! Bad players can eliminate the skill by playing soo badly that all their decisions are meaningless against any pro cuz they have successfully eliminated the pro's edge.dear god, do u hear yourself? do you understand what you're saying?You really think if any of what you say is true, that it wouldnt have been brought to life in books years ago?Dont you think someone would come out with a "poker for donks to stay donks" book? Or a "eliminate better players edges by playing worse"God, I'm amazed you can even operate your computerWhen the WSOP wasnt full of thousands of players, it was won by PRO'sIts the THOUSANDS of players that make it difficult for pros to winAA is the best hand right? Obviously... Now AA vs 2,7 is a huge favorite.But AA vs 2,7 3,4 9,9 JQ, 5,8 will still be a favorite, but wont win as oftendo ..... you..... see.......why???

Let me try and unravel a few things and keep the issues separated.1. The "if no one ever said it before, you must be wrong, because if it was right someone would have said it before" is a fallacious argument in any debate about any topic. It is, first, a non-sequitor because it is unrelated to the issue at hand, whatever it is. It is also, almost always based on an untrue assumption, at best an unprovable one which is: "Someone else would have already said it." Usually, somebody else already did. Or several somebodies, most likely.2. About evolution. The definition of the word is: change over time. As in: "Manufacturing methods for safety glass have evolved significantly over the last thirty years."Poker evolves. It does so quite rapidly, as a matter of fact. Like all evolving systems, it also generates new forms. But then, all things evolve at all times, because stasis is a concept rather than a state of being. A side discussion unrelated to the specific topic at hand. The point of my original reference was that a "new" idea may very well be correct as that is how all things evolve, through what has not been seen before. 3. Restating the basic premise: if there are a significant number (let's say 50%) of donks at a poker table, skill becomes a moot factor. (For the most part.) Why is this true? I can't prove that it is. It is my opinion. As your objection is an opinion. Neither of these assertions is "provable." We could discuss the issue, I suppose, but I rarely engage in debate with anyone who takes the "God, you are so effing dumb-" route. It's boring, not relevant and a poor substitute for actual dialogue. 4. You made one of the arguments supporting my thesis. It was this: Now AA vs 2,7 is a huge favorite. But AA vs 2,7 3,4 9,9 JQ, 5,8 will still be a favorite, but wont win as often...First, you present this as if it were fact - how about giving the actual percentages? Are the card sets suited, BTW? How are the expectations changed by the number and kind of hands, exactly? Of course, I'd agree, preflop, AA is the favorite, even if by a very small margin. So....what's your point? My point is those five dweebs are going to call a raise - very likely all five of them. Maybe not with five totally crapola hands, but with very marginal ones. If you raise pre-flop to thin the field it won't work, strategy is nullified.They will also stay to the river if they get ANYTHING at all on the flop. That is, if they need runners for a straight, they think they might win. You can't bluff 'em or raise 'em off a hand. What I am saying is that stupidity in sufficient quantity trumps skill. I cannot prove it, nor do I claim that I can. I will say, as a personal aside to keep you from wasting your typing time, that I have sufficient self-esteem to not actually care what some anonymous guy on a message board thinks of my intelligence. I would be interested in a discussion with stats. Or links to same. Otherwise, we have expressed our opinions and can drop the issue after you tell me again what a dumbass I am for the amusement of whoever you think is reading and impressed by such. 11 to 1

[bdubsims 0]

Let me try and unravel a few things and keep the issues separated.1. The "if no one ever said it before, you must be wrong, because if it was right someone would have said it before" is a fallacious argument in any debate about any topic. It is, first, a non-sequitor because it is unrelated to the issue at hand, whatever it is. It is also, almost always based on an untrue assumption, at best an unprovable one which is: "Someone else would have already said it." Usually, somebody else already did. Or several somebodies, most likely.2. About evolution. The definition of the word is: change over time. As in: "Manufacturing methods for safety glass have evolved significantly over the last thirty years."Poker evolves. It does so quite rapidly, as a matter of fact. Like all evolving systems, it also generates new forms. But then, all things evolve at all times, because stasis is a concept rather than a state of being. A side discussion unrelated to the specific topic at hand. The point of my original reference was that a "new" idea may very well be correct as that is how all things evolve, through what has not been seen before. 3. Restating the basic premise: if there are a significant number (let's say 50%) of donks at a poker table, skill becomes a moot factor. (For the most part.) Why is this true? I can't prove that it is. It is my opinion. As your objection is an opinion. Neither of these assertions is "provable." We could discuss the issue, I suppose, but I rarely engage in debate with anyone who takes the "God, you are so effing dumb-" route. It's boring, not relevant and a poor substitute for actual dialogue. 4. You made one of the arguments supporting my thesis. It was this: Now AA vs 2,7 is a huge favorite. But AA vs 2,7 3,4 9,9 JQ, 5,8 will still be a favorite, but wont win as often...First, you present this as if it were fact - how about giving the actual percentages? Are the card sets suited, BTW? How are the expectations changed by the number and kind of hands, exactly? Of course, I'd agree, preflop, AA is the favorite, even if by a very small margin. So....what's your point? My point is those five dweebs are going to call a raise - very likely all five of them. Maybe not with five totally crapola hands, but with very marginal ones. If you raise pre-flop to thin the field it won't work, strategy is nullified.They will also stay to the river if they get ANYTHING at all on the flop. That is, if they need runners for a straight, they think they might win. You can't bluff 'em or raise 'em off a hand. What I am saying is that stupidity in sufficient quantity trumps skill. I cannot prove it, nor do I claim that I can. I will say, as a personal aside to keep you from wasting your typing time, that I have sufficient self-esteem to not actually care what some anonymous guy on a message board thinks of my intelligence. I would be interested in a discussion with stats. Or links to same. Otherwise, we have expressed our opinions and can drop the issue after you tell me again what a dumbass I am for the amusement of whoever you think is reading and impressed by such. 11 to 1

I think your idea is interesting, but fundamentally flawed. Here's why.You're defining "strategy" or "skill" incorrectly. You're exactly correct saying that a "pro" who continually tried to bet these sucky opponents off hands, or relentlessly bet aces throughout a hand while others are drawing into him despite how the board developed, may very well end up a long-term loser in this game. That is because this would not be skillful play.Players who whine "If my opponents were better, I could beat them" don't understand this basic concept of skillful playing. In poker, you don't adjust your opponents to your preferred style in order to win, you adjust your style to beat whatever opponents you encounter. If you try to play an amatuer like a pro (ie., setting up elaborate traps, anticipating bluffs, etc.) you will not be playing skillfully, you will be playing poorly, and you shouldn't be surprised if you lose.Hope that clears some of this up.

[chewybarber 0]

I think your idea is interesting, but fundamentally flawed. Here's why.You're defining "strategy" or "skill" incorrectly. You're exactly correct saying that a "pro" who continually tried to bet these sucky opponents off hands, or relentlessly bet aces throughout a hand while others are drawing into him despite how the board developed, may very well end up a long-term loser in this game. That is because this would not be skillful play.Players who whine "If my opponents were better, I could beat them" don't understand this basic concept of skillful playing. In poker, you don't adjust your opponents to your preferred style in order to win, you adjust your style to beat whatever opponents you encounter. If you try to play an amatuer like a pro (ie., setting up elaborate traps, anticipating bluffs, etc.) you will not be playing skillfully, you will be playing poorly, and you shouldn't be surprised if you lose.Hope that clears some of this up.

I think this makes sense--and I am one of the idiots at the table, but I'm working on that.

[chgocubs99 0]

I didn't know it was possible for someone to write so much, yet say nothing at all.

I think your idea is interesting, but fundamentally flawed. Here's why.You're defining "strategy" or "skill" incorrectly. You're exactly correct saying that a "pro" who continually tried to bet these sucky opponents off hands, or relentlessly bet aces throughout a hand while others are drawing into him despite how the board developed, may very well end up a long-term loser in this game. That is because this would not be skillful play.Players who whine "If my opponents were better, I could beat them" don't understand this basic concept of skillful playing. In poker, you don't adjust your opponents to your preferred style in order to win, you adjust your style to beat whatever opponents you encounter. If you try to play an amatuer like a pro (ie., setting up elaborate traps, anticipating bluffs, etc.) you will not be playing skillfully, you will be playing poorly, and you shouldn't be surprised if you lose.Hope that clears some of this up.

Very well said sir.

[umop-apisdn 0]

Bottom line - play against drunk people in cash games. Memorize a few really good jokes before you hit the tables too, helps loosen it up.

[fleung22 1]

Bottom line - play against drunk people in cash games. Memorize a few really good jokes before you hit the tables too, helps loosen it up.

Is that YOU'RE strategy?...now I know why I always lose to you...at least give me some better jokes

[dna4ever 2]

i was playing poker last night and got a paradoxthank you, thank you, i will be here all night

[JSHamm 9]

i was playing poker last night and got a paradoxthank you, thank you, i will be here all night

[Royal_Tour 0]

I think your idea is interesting, but fundamentally flawed. Here's why.You're defining "strategy" or "skill" incorrectly. You're exactly correct saying that a "pro" who continually tried to bet these sucky opponents off hands, or relentlessly bet aces throughout a hand while others are drawing into him despite how the board developed, may very well end up a long-term loser in this game. That is because this would not be skillful play.Players who whine "If my opponents were better, I could beat them" don't understand this basic concept of skillful playing. In poker, you don't adjust your opponents to your preferred style in order to win, you adjust your style to beat whatever opponents you encounter. If you try to play an amatuer like a pro (ie., setting up elaborate traps, anticipating bluffs, etc.) you will not be playing skillfully, you will be playing poorly, and you shouldn't be surprised if you lose.Hope that clears some of this up.

He didnt deserve this response.Honestly, The fact that he is trying to group a card game such as poker into a consistently evolving process where strategies and skill sets of the game will become more and more mature throughout the ages is foolish.Its psychology and math with lots of luck. simple.

[dna4ever 2]

OH COME ON NOW! PARADOXPAIR OF DUCKS!THATS PURE HILARITY!

[JoeyJoJo 18]

OH COME ON NOW! PARADOXPAIR OF DUCKS!THATS PURE HILARITY!

I am going to penalize you two pm's for explaining your joke.