Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's not a paradox.It's just untrue.It's easier to beat bad players.You need more breaks to go your way when you are playing good players.You need less luck against bad playersPeriod
jesus, thank god, i though i was gonna have to post this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If I misused the word paradox then I apologize, I've never been the smartest guy in the room--well, maybe once or twice, and then I was probably standing in a line.
no, i just meant, we can end thread now (?). But I typed it incorrectly.Anyway, it is a paradox if we presume you need more luck vs bad players, but you don't, so it's not. Fallacy, is probably a better word for the thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk of distinguishing luck and skill in poker is moot.Poker is a pure skill game, period, no argument necessary. Chance (luck) is simply one of the tools skilled players use to play a skillful game. I think that's where people need to make a distinction luck is a tool not a hindrance to the skilled player.Sometime chance/luck rewards the bad player, but I don't see how you make that leap and call poker a game of luck and skil. It's a pure skill game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker is a pure skill game, period, no argument necessary. Chance (luck) is simply one of the tools skilled players use to play a skillful game. I
huh?You may have taken this thread back a few notches.Please clarify.
Sometime chance/luck rewards the bad player, but I don't see how you make that leap and call poker a game of luck and skil. It's a pure skill game.
you answered your own question.It involves luck.In short term, it involves a large percentage of luck
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I should clarify to be more on point with the OP.True whining about a bad player's inability to play well or get lucky off bad decisions is a strangely counterintuitive notion. I mean in any other sport you don't complain when the opposition makes mistakes, but that's the nature of this game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. I should clarify to be more on point with the OP.True whining about a bad player's inability to play well or get lucky off bad decisions is a strangely counterintuitive notion. I mean in any other sport you don't complain when the opposition makes mistakes, but that's the nature of this game.
It's also quite common for 2 or more players to play a hand correctly and for the "more skilled" player to not win. Variance is not just about "Bad luck caused by mistakes opponents make"
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's also quite common for 2 or more players to play a hand correctly and for the "more skilled" player to not win. Variance is not just about "Bad luck caused by mistakes opponents make"
Yeah, I see your point, maybe that resolves the parodox. The whining is about variance as well as poor decisions by bad players.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree; but, when a player goes out first table they have no business whinning, it wasn't the thousands of players that ousted them, just the first nine. Now, the people that go deep, yeah, I can see some whinning because nobodies a miracle worker. ..even then though, if its a sport you have to accept ( some ) responsibility. Well, unless your the guy who swears every time you win it was skill, and every loss was luck... That is exactly what I was talking about. This is illogical--The worse my oponnent plays the more luck plays a part, and therefore the harder it is for me to win. Now lets break that down further,The worse my opponent plays, the harder it is for me to win.Strange, isn't it?
I think the problem here lies in the way you're wording your argument. "The worse my opponent plays" is an inherently vague description. By "worse" you mean that a lesser skilled opponent plays in ways that will lose him money in the long run, and the "harder" consequence of that is the variability of illogical play. "Better" players, players who make logical decisions in order to profit in the long-term, are easier to read if you are likewise a good player can therefore anticipate these logical decisions.The point stands that the "worse" your opponent plays -- meaning, the more decisions he makes that lose value for him over the long-term -- by definition make it easier for you to win. I suspect that the pros who whine about bad competition are just frustrated from a beat, or actually angry with themselves for making a bad decisions that put them at risk unnecessarily.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The point stands that the "worse" your opponent plays -- meaning, the more decisions he makes that lose value for him over the long-term -- by definition make it easier for you to win. I suspect that the pros who whine about bad competition are just frustrated from a beat, or actually angry with themselves for making a bad decisions that put them at risk unnecessarily.
excellent first postwelcome.get to strategy forum
Link to post
Share on other sites
chess is the only game (sports inculded) where luck is not a factor.Even in golf, luck is present. several uncontrollable situations can occure.also, I agree with whats said about the comments some poker pro's, and most amateurs make when faced with an unlucky situation, but i believe that it is part of the game.Your ability to comment on a players decision and make them aware that you understand more than them can help you in a few ways. One is a tilt factor, if you can controll yourself from goin on tilt, you can start to push your opponent into a slight tilt vs you after you bash their poor play.Two is the ability to put a little fear in your opponents. With luck being such a factor, being able to make your opponents think they dont stand a chance because you know so much more about the game than they do is a very helpfull tool when playing.other than that, good post
Chess definitly has luck. For example I always want to play against a cicilian and not play against a center counter. I can't control what my opponent plays, but if I get lucky I can certanly gain an advantage from some openings.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chess definitly has luck. For example I always want to play against a cicilian and not play against a center counter. I can't control what my opponent plays, but if I get lucky I can certanly gain an advantage from some openings.
hmmmmm..Is that luck?It falls under "decisions made by your opponent"Not "luck"
Link to post
Share on other sites
If I misused the word paradox ...
You didn't. This is, IMO, a matter of relativity. To state categorically, as someone did that it's easy to beat bad players is not true in all situations. What may be true is that over time it is expected one will come away with more money when facing a single inept opponent.However, playing at a table where fifty percent of the opponents are real dorks puts the "good" player at a disadvantage. The good player is not following an inside straight to the river in the face of a significant raise with a pair on the board after the flop. But if three of the dorks have straight draws and do call, it becomes much more likely, statistically, that somebody's trips are sucked out.I think your statement of the paradox is correct, just also subject to the relativity rule.
Link to post
Share on other sites
However, playing at a table where fifty percent of the opponents are real dorks puts the "good" player at a disadvantage.
false.oh, unless by "disadvantage" you mean "win less pots than he would if everyone folded". But he'll win more MONEY.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The true paradox - and the one I sometimes have trouble getting my head around in relation to the fundamental theorem - is that sometimes two players can both play a hand profitably. The situation is more common in limit where you can't control the pot odds offered. Think for example of a TPTK vs nut flush draw kind of hand. TPTK profitably bets the turn under the fundamental theorem and the draw profitably calls. I think it's simply an effect of dead money already in the pot but it's sometimes hard to reconcile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The true paradox - and the one I sometimes have trouble getting my head around in relation to the fundamental theorem - is that sometimes two players can both play a hand profitably. The situation is more common in limit where you can't control the pot odds offered. Think for example of a TPTK vs nut flush draw kind of hand. TPTK profitably bets the turn under the fundamental theorem and the draw profitably calls. I think it's simply an effect of dead money already in the pot but it's sometimes hard to reconcile.
Yeah, when I first started reading Sklanskian stuff, I found it confusing as well that both players make money by calling the bet in your situation above. The thing is, every decision you have to make is seen as independent of the previous ones. At every point after a raise or reraise and action is back up to you, the money you had invested is no longer yours and belongs to the pot. So you're right in saying that it's the effect of the dead money already in the pot.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chess definitly has luck. For example I always want to play against a cicilian and not play against a center counter. I can't control what my opponent plays, but if I get lucky I can certanly gain an advantage from some openings.
Yeah, I play my draws hella aggro in chess. Usually the other guy looks at me funny when I shove all my pawns into the middle of the board.
Link to post
Share on other sites
false.oh, unless by "disadvantage" you mean "win less pots than he would if everyone folded". But he'll win more MONEY.
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...