Question About Pros Vs. Amateurs

[OrzyVibe 0]

This question was really spawned by Daniel's blog entry about Phil Gordon and how Gordon dogged E-Dog about his play....and that question is: how badly would a professional poker player REALLY beat an amateur. A decent amateur. Now, my point isn't that the pro wouldn't handle amateur players....I'm sure they would. BUT....would it be ridiculously bad? I mean, Daniel says in his blog that E-Dog would destroy Phil Gordon. Ok. Daniel would certainly know that more than I. But would it really be that lopsided?? I mean how bad could it possibly be considering that Gordon would have to at least be considered adequate?Here's my point, as ignorant as it may be: I just don't see anyone getting DESTROYED at the poker table if they are halfway decent. Outplayed? Yes. Even consistently outplayed. But there is luck involved. I guess we'd have to define the term 'destroyed' and how that would relate to one poker player beating another. And this isn't a post trying to defend Gordon....I don't even like what I've seen of the guy and he's certainly not a top-tier professional poker player.

[rogerwilco 0]

It definately depends on the format such a game would be played at. In a single tournament the cards can easily make up for skill. But if for example: Lindgren and and a good amateur played on 4 tables of 100/200 NLHE - or whatever - online (both with decent bankrolls) until one of them is broke, I have no doubt the amateur wouldn't have a chance.Also, I believe Phil Gordon is a much better poker player than a randomly picked tournament-donk.

[sleepi 0]

anyone could beat anyone in a random one time heads up match, they would have to play each other repeatedly, where in the long run the pro will win much more. if gordon played lindgren 20 heads up matches, then he would most certainly get destroyed.

[ChunkyLuver69 0]

what do you think it would be like lindgren wins 15 outta 20

[psujohn 0]

Out of 20 12-8 is completely destroyed. If E-dog played Gordon HU for 20 matches and the over/under was 12.5 I'd take the under. If you made it out of 2000 you'd see something closer to what the skill difference was.

[OrzyVibe 0]

Out of 20 12-8 is completely destroyed. If E-dog played Gordon HU for 20 matches and the over/under was 12.5 I'd take the under. If you made it out of 2000 you'd see something closer to what the skill difference was.

This makes no sense to me...if E-Dog wins 12 and Gordon wins 8 then Gordon got destroyed?? That isn't the definition of 'destroyed' to me. But I'm sure we'd all have a slightly different opinion on it.

[CobaltBlue 662]

This makes no sense to me...if E-Dog wins 12 and Gordon wins 8 then Gordon got destroyed?? That isn't the definition of 'destroyed' to me. But I'm sure we'd all have a slightly different opinion on it.

Considering in a given HU match that a good player's edge over a decent player is something along the lines of winning 55% of the matches, anything above that is pretty significant.

[rgold79 0]

Considering in a given HU match that a good player's edge over a decent player is something along the lines of winning 55% of the matches, anything above that is pretty significant.

This is also why it's hard to build a bankroll playing nothing but HU SNG's. Most people don't win often enough to beat the rake. It's a lot like trying to beat the vig in sports betting.

[SpiderGuard 0]

Think about it...if you just pushed all-in every hand in a NLHE match, eventually you'd probably get called as about a 60-40 dog. The edge a pro would have over that strategy wouldn't seem huge at all, but would ultimately lead to going broke quickly.

[snooptoddd 0]

Out of 20 12-8 is completely destroyed. If E-dog played Gordon HU for 20 matches and the over/under was 12.5 I'd take the under. If you made it out of 2000 you'd see something closer to what the skill difference was.

Considering in a given HU match that a good player's edge over a decent player is something along the lines of winning 55% of the matches, anything above that is pretty significant.

20 matches wouldn't be nearly enough of a sample to say that he destroyed him ... even if he won 15-16 matches. I just flipped a coin 20 times and heads "destroyed" tails 16-4 ...

[navybuttons 15]

This is also why it's hard to build a bankroll playing nothing but HU SNG's. Most people don't win often enough to beat the rake. It's a lot like trying to beat the vig in sports betting.

you can if your ROI is 20% :)yes 12 out of 20 is DESTROYED. suprisingly though, 20 HU matches is not that small of a relative sample. i would think the winner out 100 would be the winner out of 500 maybe 95% of the time. (if that makes sense)