Becoming a poker genius in one week

[VERYBADBOY]

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

 

[sempel]

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.

 

[Big Rig]

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.

So, in this game shown there is a 3 card flop AFTER all the betting is done?

This game is called what?

 

[VERYBADBOY]

The date of the episode was back in April 2007 ... The fish died back in April 2015.

The game is called Texas Hold Em poker.


VBB

 

[doggystyle99]

Been around Casino gaming and Poker for a very long time and a few things to know.
A Hold'em poker cash game is different than tournament style game. Online poker is totally different than live games.
People who think luck plays a larger role in poker than skill obviously do not play this game on a regular basis. There is a reason certain players in the world are always ranked top 50 in tournaments and are cashing in majority of the tournaments they play, and it's skill not luck.
There is also a reason if you play cash games on a consistent basis the same players on a consistent basis are cashing out winnings and certain players get lucky here and there but are usually losers.
If you sit at a poker table and you don't know who the fish is within 30-60 minutes it's you.

 

[superstar_88]

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.



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.



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.



Don't know the date of this broadcast but Devilfish died a few years back.



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.

Makes little sense to you cause you don't understand statistics. Point is in the long run or large enough sample size we all get the same number of good hands and bad hands. It is how we play them that determines if we win or lose. You can get aces and win nothing from me whereas I can get aces and win your whole stack. We both play aces but you play them like a fish

 

[Occasionally]

Pros have better betting and stat skills, but still a luck based game.

Anything with dice and cards can make any no-name player a winner. That's why (as said above), pro players don't win all the tournaments. You have complete no-names willing to pay a fee and join and they can win too.

Just to show how lucky any game can be with dice and cards, our family has played monopoly here and there. One of my nephews won... and he was 7. He's slow, can barely do the cash right, and he didn't want to do any trades. We helped him out by counting cash and rents for him to speed up the game, but the core gaming was him.

And he beat all of us. He got lucky and kept landing on good properties and eventually outlasted all of us. And the rest of us were adults trying our hardest to win.

No doubt in the long run, we would beat him way more if we played 10 or 20 games, but due to luck, he still pulled off a win.

That's like poker. If I played a pro 10 times, I highly doubt he'd win every time. He might win 7 or 8, but I'm confident I'd win some matches too. All it takes is one all-in lucky round and that can wipe out everyone going in.

You don't get this type of stuff in chess or weightlifting, or playing against Tiger Woods. Even Tiger having a sore arm will beat an avg joe off the st. It would take someone who's a decent golfer to start with, and Tiger with a bad hip for him to possibly lose a round of 18.

 

[doggystyle99]

Poker is not a luck based game, if you are going in without any skill thinking you'll get lucky and win, you might occasionally win but mostly you'll end up losing your shirt.
Pokers pot odds and your actual odds play such a big role in the game and that is why the pros fully understand this and beginners don't. As well with poker being able to read your opponent plays a big role which is skill not luck. Not all casino games are equal in odds that is why Roulette is a horrible odds of a game to play and Baccarat is one of the better ones this is not to say people don't get lucky in Roulette or other games it's just stating that certain games have better odds of winning for the players.

 

[sempel]

So, in this game shown there is a 3 card flop AFTER all the betting is done?

This game is called what?

Not sure what you are saying here.

The date of the episode was back in April 2007 ... The fish died back in April 2015.

The game is called Texas Hold Em poker.


VBB

Thanks.

Pros have better betting and stat skills, but still a luck based game.

Anything with dice and cards can make any no-name player a winner. That's why (as said above), pro players don't win all the tournaments. You have complete no-names willing to pay a fee and join and they can win too.

Just to show how lucky any game can be with dice and cards, our family has played monopoly here and there. One of my nephews won... and he was 7. He's slow, can barely do the cash right, and he didn't want to do any trades. We helped him out by counting cash and rents for him to speed up the game, but the core gaming was him.

And he beat all of us. He got lucky and kept landing on good properties and eventually outlasted all of us. And the rest of us were adults trying our hardest to win.

No doubt in the long run, we would beat him way more if we played 10 or 20 games, but due to luck, he still pulled off a win.

That's like poker. If I played a pro 10 times, I highly doubt he'd win every time. He might win 7 or 8, but I'm confident I'd win some matches too. All it takes is one all-in lucky round and that can wipe out everyone going in.

You don't get this type of stuff in chess or weightlifting, or playing against Tiger Woods. Even Tiger having a sore arm will beat an avg joe off the st. It would take someone who's a decent golfer to start with, and Tiger with a bad hip for him to possibly lose a round of 18.

I agree. However, the one difference is you are not playing the same person/pro. You are playing with different people each time.

Poker is not a luck based game, if you are going in without any skill thinking you'll get lucky and win, you might occasionally win but mostly you'll end up losing your shirt.
Pokers pot odds and your actual odds play such a big role in the game and that is why the pros fully understand this and beginners don't. As well with poker being able to read your opponent plays a big role which is skill not luck. Not all casino games are equal in odds that is why Roulette is a horrible odds of a game to play and Baccarat is one of the better ones this is not to say people don't get lucky in Roulette or other games it's just stating that certain games have better odds of winning for the players.

While I would normally agree, I have seen guys who play constantly and they "appear" to know nothing about how to play. They make bad calls all the time. To be fair though, I have no idea whether they win/lose in the end. All I know is they bet all in with draws and either they don't make them or they make them often. However, against me, they generally hit. I've noticed the same pattern - hitting against certain opponents - I take advantage and enter into pots with them because I notice the pattern. It defies statistics but you do notice when you are on a lucky streak.

Makes little sense to you cause you don't understand statistics. Point is in the long run or large enough sample size we all get the same number of good hands and bad hands. It is how we play them that determines if we win or lose. You can get aces and win nothing from me whereas I can get aces and win your whole stack. We both play aces but you play them like a fish

Are we really going to finger point? Are you really going to say I don't understand statistics but do nothing to back it up with any meaningful argument? Gimme a break. Based on what you've written, I think you have no idea about statistics versus real life and how it all works. And while I don't know about you, I think it's fair to say having played half a million hands gives me some credibility on knowing what I'm talking about.

I'll also say again, your argument is based on theory, not reality. For instance, 1/220 you will get dealt AA. However, I once played for two weeks and never saw AA. I've played two days in a row for 20 hours (400 hands or so) and never gotten a pair (13/220), but pure statistics says I should get 23 pairs out of the 400 hands played. Granted, I don't expect 23 - might be more or less - but zero is an anomaly. So what is this attributed to? Sample size? Perhaps, but if I'm getting nothing and somebody else is getting 50 pairs out of 400 hands, there's something else at work - we call it luck.

I will also say again you can quote the pure mathematical statistics but since the conditions CHANGE, the stats won't hold. A coin-flip is considered 50/50 - two overcards versus an underpair. Except in the course of play, you might have the overcards, you might have the underpair in different situations. The suits change. The overcards may/may not be connected, may be same suit. So it's always a 50/50ish gamble but you may win all or may lose all in a single period.

Hard to console yourself with the "If I ran this a million times, I would win 60%" of the time. Fact is you lost your money and no stats are going to console you.

BTW, I've never heard of playing AA like a fish. I don't think that's even possible. A fish is someone who generally loses money because they play terribly. I don't think you can fault someone who loses with AA and consider them a fish. Kind of proves a lack of knowledge.

Statistics are based on pure mathematical calculations. Take the number of desirable outcomes and divide by total outcomes.

 

[superstar_88]

Not sure what you are saying here.



Thanks.



I agree. However, the one difference is you are not playing the same person/pro. You are playing with different people each time.



While I would normally agree, I have seen guys who play constantly and they "appear" to know nothing about how to play. They make bad calls all the time. To be fair though, I have no idea whether they win/lose in the end. All I know is they bet all in with draws and either they don't make them or they make them often. However, against me, they generally hit. I've noticed the same pattern - hitting against certain opponents - I take advantage and enter into pots with them because I notice the pattern. It defies statistics but you do notice when you are on a lucky streak.



Are we really going to finger point? Are you really going to say I don't understand statistics but do nothing to back it up with any meaningful argument? Gimme a break. Based on what you've written, I think you have no idea about statistics versus real life and how it all works. And while I don't know about you, I think it's fair to say having played half a million hands gives me some credibility on knowing what I'm talking about.

I'll also say again, your argument is based on theory, not reality. For instance, 1/220 you will get dealt AA. However, I once played for two weeks and never saw AA. I've played two days in a row for 20 hours (400 hands or so) and never gotten a pair (13/220), but pure statistics says I should get 23 pairs out of the 400 hands played. Granted, I don't expect 23 - might be more or less - but zero is an anomaly. So what is this attributed to? Sample size? Perhaps, but if I'm getting nothing and somebody else is getting 50 pairs out of 400 hands, there's something else at work - we call it luck.

I will also say again you can quote the pure mathematical statistics but since the conditions CHANGE, the stats won't hold. A coin-flip is considered 50/50 - two overcards versus an underpair. Except in the course of play, you might have the overcards, you might have the underpair in different situations. The suits change. The overcards may/may not be connected, may be same suit. So it's always a 50/50ish gamble but you may win all or may lose all in a single period.

Hard to console yourself with the "If I ran this a million times, I would win 60%" of the time. Fact is you lost your money and no stats are going to console you.

BTW, I've never heard of playing AA like a fish. I don't think that's even possible. A fish is someone who generally loses money because they play terribly. I don't think you can fault someone who loses with AA and consider them a fish. Kind of proves a lack of knowledge.

Statistics are based on pure mathematical calculations. Take the number of desirable outcomes and divide by total outcomes.

You have played a million hands and if you think it is luck then guaraneed you are lifetime loser. I hear this all the time. They tell me they have been playing poker before I was born. Implying their years of experience makes them experts. Well you have been playing like a fish all those years

 

[sempel]

You have played a million hands and if you think it is luck then guaraneed you are lifetime loser. I hear this all the time. They tell me they have been playing poker before I was born. Implying their years of experience makes them experts. Well you have been playing like a fish all those years

Sounds like something an ignorant person would say. How many hands have you played? What is your experience/expertise? I'm refuting all your crap arguments with actual evidence.

I'm not saying I'm the best player. I'm definitely not the worst player. And there will be instances during tournaments where you are running low on chips so you have to chance it with less than premium hands. However, I know when I've made the wrong move and lost big versus making the right move and getting outdrawn, and the latter happens often enough to me that I can cite bad luck as the cause versus bad play.

Final table of a decent charity tournament (yes I make final tables so I'm not doing so on good luck and prayers), chip leader raises under the gun. I have AK and raise all in. Will cost him 30-35% of his stack. He thinks for 30s and then calls with A9. Turns a straight. Now, if you can somehow tell me where I went wrong in this situation, I'll agree that I'm a fish. But you can't. I went all in with the best hand and am a 70%+ favorite. Chip leader is an idiot who made a stupid call and got lucky. I did everything right except got unlucky.

Now you might say that's ONE HAND. Do you know how many hands I can cite where similar occurences happened - A LOT. So I have anecdotal evidence to back me up versus your theories which to this point demonstrate nothing more than the fact that you might have read something somewhere and think you are an expert.

And while I agree that years of experience does not necessarily make one an expert in every case (I know old people who still don't know how to play), someone who plays, watches poker shows, studies books, and varies their play as I do has more knowledge than your average player.

I'm thinking you fit into a different category of player - a donkey!

On another note, I actually sympathize with the lady in the video. I doubt the other players in the game are good given the play observed so those who think they aren't experts/pros, I have to agree. Even the guy who won is an idiot. Final hand flop is A88 and opponent (a supposed amateur) goes all in. 99 is clearly a losing hand but the donkey calls the all-in bet and gets lucky when a 9 hits. I sympathize because the same garbage happens to me - an f'in two outer!

 

[superstar_88]

Sounds like something an ignorant person would say. How many hands have you played? What is your experience/expertise? I'm refuting all your crap arguments with actual evidence.

I'm not saying I'm the best player. I'm definitely not the worst player. And there will be instances during tournaments where you are running low on chips so you have to chance it with less than premium hands. However, I know when I've made the wrong move and lost big versus making the right move and getting outdrawn, and the latter happens often enough to me that I can cite bad luck as the cause versus bad play.

Final table of a decent charity tournament (yes I make final tables so I'm not doing so on good luck and prayers), chip leader raises under the gun. I have AK and raise all in. Will cost him 30-35% of his stack. He thinks for 30s and then calls with A9. Turns a straight. Now, if you can somehow tell me where I went wrong in this situation, I'll agree that I'm a fish. But you can't. I went all in with the best hand and am a 70%+ favorite. Chip leader is an idiot who made a stupid call and got lucky. I did everything right except got unlucky.

Now you might say that's ONE HAND. Do you know how many hands I can cite where similar occurences happened - A LOT. So I have anecdotal evidence to back me up versus your theories which to this point demonstrate nothing more than the fact that you might have read something somewhere and think you are an expert.

And while I agree that years of experience does not necessarily make one an expert in every case (I know old people who still don't know how to play), someone who plays, watches poker shows, studies books, and varies their play as I do has more knowledge than your average player.

I'm thinking you fit into a different category of player - a donkey!

On another note, I actually sympathize with the lady in the video. I doubt the other players in the game are good given the play observed so those who think they aren't experts/pros, I have to agree. Even the guy who won is an idiot. Final hand flop is A88 and opponent (a supposed amateur) goes all in. 99 is clearly a losing hand but the donkey calls the all-in bet and gets lucky when a 9 hits. I sympathize because the same garbage happens to me - an f'in two outer!

If someone hitting a 2 outer upsets you then you definitely are a losing player. I welcome those type of calls anytime and all the time. You are only focsed on those times they hit. You are obvious to all those times they miss

 

[RemyMartin]

If someone hitting a 2 outer upsets you then you definitely are a losing player. I welcome those type of calls anytime and all the time. You are only focsed on those times they hit. You are obvious to all those times they miss

You can't call any player a "losing player" without knowing the opponents he's playing with.

 

[Samranchoi]

All I am hearing is blah, blah , blah , blah, LOL. I have competed in many hold'em tournament and have won quite a few. Many say I am a very good player and not just lucky, but who gives a $&@?. Talk is cheap

At the next Terb social, a tournament should be held, winner takes all the money which has to be used toward a very long session with one or more women who could also act as the dealers.

 

[superstar_88]

....

 

[thumper18474]

All I am hearing is blah, blah , blah , blah, LOL. I have competed in many hold'em tournament and have won quite a few. Many say I am a very good player and not just lucky, but who gives a $&@?. Talk is cheap

At the next Terb social, a tournament should be held, winner takes all the4 money which has to be used toward a very long session withone or more women who could also act as the dealers.

If they're naked count me in!!
Out here in the D/R we had a poker league for years with a season ending tourney for guys who won every week
there was 1 guy who played with his buddies all the time in it
got a seat at the Niagara Fall open a few years back thru a satellite tourney and he won it ..over $2 million I think, he wasnt a pro by any means but he wasnt a mark either
he won by being unpredictable folded when he shouldnt have bet when he should have folded yapped all the time and kept all others off their game ....thats how he won

 

[Zoot Allures]

[/B]

If they're naked count me in!!
Out here in the D/R we had a poker league for years with a season ending tourney for guys who won every week
there was 1 guy who played with his buddies all the time in it
got a seat at the Niagara Fall open a few years back thru a satellite tourney and he won it ..over $2 million I think, he wasnt a pro by any means but he wasnt a mark either
he won by being unpredictable folded when he shouldnt have bet when he should have folded yapped all the time and kept all others off their game ....thats how he won

bingo

lose the smaller hands then when you have the winning hand everyone stays in thinking you aint got nothing

but that strategy only works if you know WTF you are doing otherwise you are a fish

Poker is won by those who know WTF they are doing and that takes brains and experience

It takes a lot of losing to be a winner plus brains which a lot of losers think they have but do not

I have played this game at the CNE and have won maybe $500 but mostly through luck. I took my money and ran with my free parking and entrance to the remainder of the CNE

It is a lot of fun but I know I am a fish when it comes to the big boys so I stay out of the bigger games

 

[sempel]

If someone hitting a 2 outer upsets you then you definitely are a losing player. I welcome those type of calls anytime and all the time. You are only focsed on those times they hit. You are obvious to all those times they miss

Lifetime losing player means the opponent is irrelevant

I'll agree that I am a losing player but it's not mainly due to bad play. I'm not the guy going all in with inside straight draws then complaining when I don't hit. I'm not the guy playing 22 and betting big with 5 overs on the board hoping I'm good. I'm the guy that has the straight and bets big forcing players to call large bets or all their chips to make flushes, full houses, or higher straights. I'm the guy that's betting top pair big when you have 2nd pair. I'm the guy that folds AA on the flop, turn or river because I know I'm beat and hoping a big pair is still good is ludicrous.

A two outer is generally about 20% preflop. Knowing that, I would normally say yeah, put me in many situations where I have an 80% chance of winning and I'll gladly take that and do well. But I've seen firsthand that I have lost way more than 20% of the time. Conversely, I can say that I estimate I don't win 20% of the time when I have the two outer. It's much lower than that. So I have bad luck coming from both sides. So forgive me if I do get a little peeved because clearly the stats as they are don't seem to apply. And for sure in my lifetime, my coin-flip winning percentage is well below 50%.

You can't call any player a "losing player" without knowing the opponents he's playing with.

I unfortunately will admit I'm a losing (or unsuccessful player) overall. The players though in a number of cases are not as good (knowledge wise, skill wise, etc.). I have actually played with a WSOP Main Event Champion and come out ahead. I've also played with some beginners/amateurs and lost. The skill of the opponent is a factor but sometimes not the most relevant because the fact is everyone is somewhat equalized at poker. However, I actually prefer playing with better opponents because they are more likely to fold when they know they are beat versus playing from behind with low odds. Again, for most people this would seem ideal - bunch of fishes ready to donate - but since I have bad luck, I fear (rightly so) that I am likely to get drawn out on and amateurs play more draws.

bingo

lose the smaller hands then when you have the winning hand everyone stays in thinking you aint got nothing

but that strategy only works if you know WTF you are doing otherwise you are a fish

Poker is won by those who know WTF they are doing and that takes brains and experience

It takes a lot of losing to be a winner plus brains which a lot of losers think they have but do not

I have played this game at the CNE and have won maybe $500 but mostly through luck. I took my money and ran with my free parking and entrance to the remainder of the CNE

It is a lot of fun but I know I am a fish when it comes to the big boys so I stay out of the bigger games

I have never played at CNE because it is limit. Problem with limit is unless you are playing for larger amounts, it becomes very easy to have many opponents continue playing with marginal draws because the price is right. In a $4/$8 game for example the pot could be $100 and it only costs you $4 or $8 to draw so many people stick around when there's a small chance. But that's limit - it seems to be luck based as many players stay until the end. Can't force people to fold with aggressive betting.

 

[superstar_88]

I'll agree that I am a losing player but it's not mainly due to bad play. I'm not the guy going all in with inside straight draws then complaining when I don't hit. I'm not the guy playing 22 and betting big with 5 overs on the board hoping I'm good. I'm the guy that has the straight and bets big forcing players to call large bets or all their chips to make flushes, full houses, or higher straights. I'm the guy that's betting top pair big when you have 2nd pair. I'm the guy that folds AA on the flop, turn or river because I know I'm beat and hoping a big pair is still good is ludicrous.

A two outer is generally about 20% preflop. Knowing that, I would normally say yeah, put me in many situations where I have an 80% chance of winning and I'll gladly take that and do well. But I've seen firsthand that I have lost way more than 20% of the time. Conversely, I can say that I estimate I don't win 20% of the time when I have the two outer. It's much lower than that. So I have bad luck coming from both sides. So forgive me if I do get a little peeved because clearly the stats as they are don't seem to apply. And for sure in my lifetime, my coin-flip winning percentage is well below 50%.



I unfortunately will admit I'm a losing (or unsuccessful player) overall. The players though in a number of cases are not as good (knowledge wise, skill wise, etc.). I have actually played with a WSOP Main Event Champion and come out ahead. I've also played with some beginners/amateurs and lost. The skill of the opponent is a factor but sometimes not the most relevant because the fact is everyone is somewhat equalized at poker. However, I actually prefer playing with better opponents because they are more likely to fold when they know they are beat versus playing from behind with low odds. Again, for most people this would seem ideal - bunch of fishes ready to donate - but since I have bad luck, I fear (rightly so) that I am likely to get drawn out on and amateurs play more draws.



I have never played at CNE because it is limit. Problem with limit is unless you are playing for larger amounts, it becomes very easy to have many opponents continue playing with marginal draws because the price is right. In a $4/$8 game for example the pot could be $100 and it only costs you $4 or $8 to draw so many people stick around when there's a small chance. But that's limit - it seems to be luck based as many players stay until the end. Can't force people to fold with aggressive betting.

If you think limit is just luck then again you should quit playing poker altogether. Why would you want people out? How else can you win any money? Any form of poker is skill. Draw. Razz. Omaha. You name it. You think it is luck cause you don't have the skill to win

 

[Occasionally]

If you think limit is just luck then again you should quit playing poker altogether. Why would you want people out? How else can you win any money? Any form of poker is skill. Draw. Razz. Omaha. You name it. You think it is luck cause you don't have the skill to win

Cards are luck. Admit it.

That's why poker tournies can be won by amateurs. If it was all skill, only poker pros would win.

And anyone growing up with siblings (like me), when I was old enough to understand cards or board games enough to get a grasp how to win.... I won my share of matches. Anything with dice and cards has a lucky element to it. Even though my brothers are 10 years older than me and played for years before I joined in, it made no difference.

I won my share.

There have been times my 80 year mom would join us for cards over the years. She's not exactly a card genius (bless her heart), can barely hold the cards properly in her hand, yet there have been times she even beat us.

Now if you want a luckless game..... play someone in chess. You won't be seeing any grandmaster losing very often to a no-name average joe who barely plays chess. In fact, it probably wouldn't happen at all.

While I'd have my wins against people in cards, I never came close to beating my dad in chess. I probably went 0-30.