The problem with these kind of "become a great poker player in # weeks" is that everyone is pretty much playing the same strategy. There all told what cards to go in on, what cards fold, etc.
I can remember back when I used to play a lot online, I had worked my bankroll up quite nicely. I started to loose so I decided I would play lower stakes games where far more inexperienced players would be and I was "thinking I'll probably win" because I had gotten pretty good. The problem was, so many inexperience players would do such weird shit, it would screw up my strategy and I did even worse. For example, I would get pocket QQ, and I would bet large or go all in so nobody could stick around to see the next 5 cards on the table. I go all in on QQ, and some flake would call me on it. I'm thinking, fuck he's either got KK or AA. They would end up having something stupid like 9, J OS, but catch a straight when they had no business going all in on such stupid crap.
Exactly - I have been in this situation many times so I know exactly what you are talking about. Statistically, the opponent is a heavy dog but they still come out on top due to the luck of the cards.
Sample size. Statistics. One tournament is small sample size. Many tournaments large sample size. Flip a card for a million dollars 8 to Ace you win and 2 to 7 you lose and it's pretty much 50/50 you win or lose a million dollars so you could say all luck. But make a million 1 dollar bets and certainly zero luck. You are guaranteed to win. That's why casinos never lose. They are not making 1 bet. They are making a million 1 dollar bets with an advantage. That's the mentality of a professional poker player or a professional gambler for that matter.
I estimate having played 500,000 hands of real money (online and in person). So I am backing up what I say with real experience, not small sample size or pure theory.
You have made a huge assumption with your scenario and that is repetition under the same conditions. If I flip a coin with the same person and always choose heads, yes I will win almost 50% of the time. However, that's not how poker works. I am not running the exact same scenario every time with the same person(s). I might have AA, the best pre-flop hand possible, but depending on the number of opponents and the luck of the draw, I may not win the 80% of the time I should against 1 person, the 50% of the time against 2, etc. So using statistics as a pure argument for proving there's minimal luck makes little sense.
Exactly.
Grandma did great wiping out other players at the table and her best ability wasn't even actual card playing. She was making moves based on what she saw from other player's faces.
So it goes to show good poker players can come from anywhere and wipe out anyone.
The reason why you think pro poker players are the best is because all those poker shows on tv focus on canned tv shows which purposely pick a table or two of invited players to make a tv show. They don't show real tournies where the final table might have 1 pro and 6 no-names who made it, where pro player X and pro player Y didn't even make the first cut.
Don't get me wrong. Those shows were fun to watch as it was a new thing to see poker playing on TSN and Sportsnet, but it's all canned. Even the play by play commentating by that old guy is fake. That's not live commentating. They are commenting based on recording lines after watching and analyzing footage. So it's pre-baked commentating and excitement, which makes these tv show tournaments fun to watch.
Just like online tournaments. Pro players play these too, but with so many avg joes playing online, most online tournies are won by no-names.
So it shows that poker is a luck based game. If it was all about professional players (like any physical sport or chess...... or skeet shooting) it would be trained pro players mopping the floor. The chances of a no-name guy on his couch suddenly being invited to play and test a pro player in a full match would lose probably 99.99% of the time.
As the thread has shown..... old granny won.
If I remember correctly, it's actually a violation of gaming rules to have live commentating where hands are shown and someone sees them in real time. The WSOP did some November 9 final table broadcasts but they were delayed by like 30 min because of this. As a result, the players would get feedback from people to know what other players were doing, albeit 30 min delayed.
There are some good commentators and some bad ones and I appreciate the ones that comment like they don't know what happens, which may very well be the case. Perhaps I am wrong but in some cases I don't think the commentator analyzes the footage. They simply comment on what they see. Imagine you are given the same footage that you see on TV but put the sound on mute - you could easily come up with commentary about what the cards are, what you expect a player to do before they act, and then see the actual action. I think some shows do it like this.
First of all you can't be a poker genius in one week.
Second none of the other professional poker players has won a major pot over $100k, they are all British but I don't see the Fish, a veteran British poker player.
Third was they only played under 50 hands.
Last, this is a tv show that was expecting an outcome of granny winning something... it's not a science experiment ... but it was a controlled environment, just how much is the question? I've seen this show in Britain many times don't believe everything you watch, anybody search or does nobody factcheck?
Ive played a lot of poker in my time, granny wouldn't stand a chance.
VBB
Don't know the date of this broadcast but Devilfish died a few years back.
Granny read opponents? Correct me if I am wrong, if you know opponents hand you will win , no?
I have never played but it seems to me, you want to lose some small stake hands as this encourages fellow players to stay in the bigger hands where you got the winning hand .
If you lose intentionally at times you are fucking with opponents mind and then you got him where you want him.
I think you are wrong. The reason I say this is that knowing your opponents cards can help you out greatly but it doesn't mean you can win every time. I may know my opponent's cards. I know if my hand is ahead/behind. If I'm ahead, I want them to fold or call but, based on my own experience with being drawn out on too often, I prefer they fold. If I'm behind, I want the fold. In both cases, there are instances where the opponent will do the opposite of what you want for a number of reasons, and you lose as a result.
If I know my opponent has AA preflop, I will never put all my money in preflop but will happily call a small raise to see if I can win the hand by outdrawing them or by outplaying them. However, as much as I may try and convince them, some people are very stubborn and will call you down thinking they have the best hand and sometimes they do, other times they draw out.
The skill in poker is not reading hands, not understanding stats. The real skill is making opponents do what you want them to do. When you have the best hand, getting them to put money in is the goal. When you have the second best hand, getting them to fold or let you draw cheaply is the goal. Knowing their hand and statistics is important but at the end of the day, you want opponents to do a certain action in different situations and getting them to do so is the key.
Another skill is in knowing when to fold. I once had AA, flop was QQX. I bet, another guy raised. I knew him and I knew he had a Q so I showed him and folded. He couldn't believe it but I know I'm behind and I have little chance of catching the card(s) to go ahead.
Another simple way of thinking about things is when you have the best hand, maximizing the win. When you have a losing hand, minimizing the loss. All the above stuff can fit into this.