Becoming a poker genius in one week

[doggystyle99]

Kind of why I started again but also to prove to some doubters that I have some concept of how to play. I also played again tonight and won another $300 from cash game. Started out the night fairly well. Got into a crazy hand where short stack all in, 3 callers including me. I flop trips, one guy bets, I call (slow play), other guy calls. Turn bettor goes all in and has us all covered, I call, other guy calls. Well, original short stack had a boat, turn gave chip leader a boat (he also had trips and worse kicker than me, and other guy hit a straight on turn. River pairs my kicker and I take down big pot. Did I get lucky? On the river, yes. But the turn was lucky for the other two bigger stacks (short stack should have perhaps won the small main).

Then I hit a bad patch where I lost 2 big hands in a row. First I get KK and with a bunch of limpers, I raise big - 20X the blind. 2 callers. Flop is 7,8,J. I bet go all in and one guy calls (bet was double my initial raise). Turn is a 5, river a J. Guy flips his hand. He has 64 offsuit for a straight. He called 1/3 of his stack preflop with that and bet the remaining 2/3 on a gutshot and hit. Then two hands later, I get QQ. Guy raises, I go all in, he calls, all pre-flop. He has JJ. J on the flop. I'm out and rebuy. Lose another goofy hand when I hit a flush on the turn with a paired board and a higher card than the pair. 2 callers. River double pairs the highest card. Well, turns out the guy in 3rd place who only had top pair (2 pair with the pair on board) has a full house (the other person had trips).

So many messed up hands where people got outdrawn all night on the turn and the river. Saw set over set where lower set hit quads. Saw big pair get cracked by a lower pair who flopped quads (the higher pair hit after to give the guy a useless boat).

I won some larger size pots later on, avoided a few pots that I could have won, avoided a few pots where had I stayed I would have lost money. All in all, luck was definitely a big factor as I lost way more from bad beats than bad play but I managed to turn things around with good play and hands started to hold.

LOL I highly doubt any body cares if you win or lose in poker, In my opinion from what you have written on here and how you view the game you're a fish and an unskilled player in Poker. And that is an informed judgement. It is funny though to read that you feel the need to prove your knowledge of the game to those who don't think you are skilled on an escort review board. Kind of like how you constantly need to prove to the SP's on the board that you are a good client.
Kudos to you for hijacking another thread and making it about you.

 

[sempel]

LOL I highly doubt any body cares if you win or lose in poker, In my opinion from what you have written on here and how you view the game you're a fish and an unskilled player in Poker. And that is an informed judgement. It is funny though to read that you feel the need to prove your knowledge of the game to those who don't think you are skilled on an escort review board. Kind of like how you constantly need to prove to the SP's on the board that you are a good client.
Kudos to you for hijacking another thread and making it about you.

Sorry, I hijacked a poker thread by discussing...wait for it...poker? Let me guess - your expertise is from playing 100,000 hands on pokerstars.net or partypoker.net - the free sites with fake chips?

I came onto a thread about poker and joined in a discussion about luck/skill. Douchebags such as yourself decided to take it upon yourself to pass judgement on my playing ability so I decided to play and keep track of the big hands I was involved in and whether I won/lost based on luck/skill. I lost a bunch of hands due to unskilled plays from others (e.g. guy investing 1/3 with garbage cards, calling the rest of his stack for a gutshot and hitting - BTW it was about $120 so with blinds pot was $250-260) where they did everything wrong except get lucky. However, I bounced back with skilled play and limited bad luck on a bunch of hands.

The funny thing is I post for anybody to read. Everyone has the choice to read or not to read. Yet YOU seem to read everything I post because your an expert on what I write and my posting history. So who's really got an issue. I'm betting it's you - oh wait, better not bet with my luck!

 

[doggystyle99]

Unfortunately you hijack every thread and make it more about you than the actual thread. Eg trying to convince SP's and hobbyists how good of a client you are while in reality you push their boundaries and your appointments without paying, or tying to convince posters on here how talented of a player you are in Poker while in reality you need to be lucky to win and then try to prove your doubters wrong as if anyone can verify. Again stop Super Trolling every post say your piece and move on. Opening up any thread and seeing you have hijacked it with your nonsense is annoying. Many others have called you out for this. You have shut down a few threads already with your nonsense behaviour.

PS I don't play online I play live cash games and have been doing so for a very long time, since I was a teenager. I've probably played 100 000 hands alone in charity Casinos limit games back in the day if you must know. I have played online and it's a different game, I really don't care for it, I'd rather sit across someone and bluff them and see their expression live then do it online, there is not as much thrill to it online.

 

[sempel]

Unfortunately you hijack every thread and make it more about you than the actual thread. Eg trying to convince SP's and hobbyists how good of a client you are while in reality you push their boundaries and your appointments without paying, or tying to convince posters on here how talented of a player you are in Poker while in reality you need to be lucky to win and then try to prove your doubters wrong as if anyone can verify. Again stop Super Trolling every post say your piece and move on. Opening up any thread and seeing you have hijacked it with your nonsense is annoying. Many others have called you out for this. You have shut down a few threads already with your nonsense behaviour.

PS I don't play online I play live cash games and have been doing so for a very long time, since I was a teenager. I've probably played 100 000 hands alone in charity Casinos limit games back in the day if you must know. I have played online and it's a different game, I really don't care for it, I'd rather sit across someone and bluff them and see their expression live then do it online, there is not as much thrill to it online.

Wait, now I need to be lucky to win instead of skilled? WTF? According to you originally, poker is not a luck-based game.

Don't get jealous just because I choose to continue adding to a discussion instead of providing one piece commentary. I think that comes across as worse - that is actually a person who doesn't give a crap and just says something to say something. But if you are all about one piece commenting, say your bit, stop reading the thread further, and get over it.

Obviously most of the things we say cannot be verified. So it comes down to credibility and rationale. Nobody knows me so granted I have limited to no credibility. However, I clearly have a rationale for posting what I post and it's not because I feel like making shit up. It's not like I watched a poker match on TV and decided to pretend I played and the hands I saw were the hands I actually played. People can choose to believe me or not. I don't lie because there's really no point to doing that on an online forum. Again, do I win some fake award for telling the most BS stories? Had I lost, I would have stated I lost. If I got lucky, I would admit that - and I did list the hands I know I got lucky on. But I also kept track of hands I probably should have won but didn't due to poor play and luck on other players' parts. Thus I maintain that luck is definitely a large part to the game.

Knowing how bad my luck is, I actually refuse to play limit and have only played a couple of times. I remember playing one hand where I had nothing on the flop, a draw on the turn, and the nuts on the river. It was the most disguised hand ever as in a NL game, a sizable bet would have forced me to fold. But in limit, it's definitely more about luck as so many people make it to the river. At least with NL, the player has the chance to get players to fold so he/she can avoid getting outdrawn.

 

[superstar_88]

Actually, I don't think you understand the implications as you think you do. But please, indulge me by explaining.

And please understand something - I've done university math and stats courses. I use math and statistics in my work. So I understand them. The difference between us is I recognize that math is purely theoretical and does not predict actual results. It may approximate them, and yes, in the long run, the stats should hold, but you seem to neglect the concept of variation - in other words, you assume the EXACT SAME conditions are always in play which they are not.

If you and me were to play a simple game of dice rolling - I win if the die shows 1-4, you win if the die shows 5 and 6, $1 bet every time, 1000 rolls. I think we both agree I would win 2/3 of the time and would walk away with approx. $600 versus $400 for you. I don't think there's any doubt. Right?

Now, change the conditions. Every so often, we change up the numbers - I still get 4, you still get 2, and it will be for random lengths - perhaps 10 rolls, perhaps 100. Now change the amount. Sometimes $1, sometimes $0.50, sometimes $2. Still $1000 total. Now, do you think I still win $600 and you win $400 if we repeat this scenario a bunch of times? I'd say no because of the variation in conditions. Sometimes it will hold but sometimes it won't and the swings could be quite significant.

The thing is I'm not stupid enough to not realize if I'm a bad player who pretends/hopes he's good, loses, and then thinks it's bad luck. I don't think you get that. I sit down at most tables and I'm either the best or one of the better players. But as pointed out, the best player does not always win. The same actions/plays that end up successful for some (i.e. semi-bluffing with draws) are unsuccessful for others. There are many times I've had open-ended straight flush draws. Against most hands, you are actually a favorite, even though you are behind. But after playing the hand many times and noticing that the draw doesn't hit as often as it should, I now have to play less aggressive in that situation. On the other hand, I've seen bad players who go all-in with shitty draws and somehow make them - and I'm not talking in a single night. I'm talking seeing them play weekly for months so 1000's of hands.

The reason casinos make money is due to the mathematical edge. There is the variation in betting from individual players but now it's 100's of players betting $20, 100's of players betting $5. So the statistics hold for them because when you look at it from a macro level, there is limited variation overall.

You've done math courses but I doubt you passed any of the courses and how on earth do you still have a job that requires you to do math?

 

[doggystyle99]

Actually, I don't think you understand the implications as you think you do. But please, indulge me by explaining.

And please understand something - I've done university math and stats courses. I use math and statistics in my work. So I understand them. The difference between us is I recognize that math is purely theoretical and does not predict actual results. It may approximate them, and yes, in the long run, the stats should hold, but you seem to neglect the concept of variation - in other words, you assume the EXACT SAME conditions are always in play which they are not.

If you and me were to play a simple game of dice rolling - I win if the die shows 1-4, you win if the die shows 5 and 6, $1 bet every time, 1000 rolls. I think we both agree I would win 2/3 of the time and would walk away with approx. $600 versus $400 for you. I don't think there's any doubt. Right?

Now, change the conditions. Every so often, we change up the numbers - I still get 4, you still get 2, and it will be for random lengths - perhaps 10 rolls, perhaps 100. Now change the amount. Sometimes $1, sometimes $0.50, sometimes $2. Still $1000 total. Now, do you think I still win $600 and you win $400 if we repeat this scenario a bunch of times? I'd say no because of the variation in conditions. Sometimes it will hold but sometimes it won't and the swings could be quite significant.

The thing is I'm not stupid enough to not realize if I'm a bad player who pretends/hopes he's good, loses, and then thinks it's bad luck. I don't think you get that. I sit down at most tables and I'm either the best or one of the better players. But as pointed out, the best player does not always win. The same actions/plays that end up successful for some (i.e. semi-bluffing with draws) are unsuccessful for others. There are many times I've had open-ended straight flush draws. Against most hands, you are actually a favorite, even though you are behind. But after playing the hand many times and noticing that the draw doesn't hit as often as it should, I now have to play less aggressive in that situation. On the other hand, I've seen bad players who go all-in with shitty draws and somehow make them - and I'm not talking in a single night. I'm talking seeing them play weekly for months so 1000's of hands.

The reason casinos make money is due to the mathematical edge. There is the variation in betting from individual players but now it's 100's of players betting $20, 100's of players betting $5. So the statistics hold for them because when you look at it from a macro level, there is limited variation overall.

I fully understand what I said earlier I don't think you understand, as I stated earlier anyone who thinks luck plays a larger factor than skill in poker is obviously not skilled enough for this game. Just because you have taken math in university and stat courses, work with math and statistics it doesn't make you a skilled poker player. As well as poker odds and percentages when playing poker there are so many other things to consider when making bets, raising or folding which I won't go into detail with you because I know you'd like to argue the point to death thinking you are right.

Wait, now I need to be lucky to win instead of skilled? WTF? According to you originally, poker is not a luck-based game.

Don't get jealous just because I choose to continue adding to a discussion instead of providing one piece commentary. I think that comes across as worse - that is actually a person who doesn't give a crap and just says something to say something. But if you are all about one piece commenting, say your bit, stop reading the thread further, and get over it.

Obviously most of the things we say cannot be verified. So it comes down to credibility and rationale. Nobody knows me so granted I have limited to no credibility. However, I clearly have a rationale for posting what I post and it's not because I feel like making shit up. It's not like I watched a poker match on TV and decided to pretend I played and the hands I saw were the hands I actually played. People can choose to believe me or not. I don't lie because there's really no point to doing that on an online forum. Again, do I win some fake award for telling the most BS stories? Had I lost, I would have stated I lost. If I got lucky, I would admit that - and I did list the hands I know I got lucky on. But I also kept track of hands I probably should have won but didn't due to poor play and luck on other players' parts. Thus I maintain that luck is definitely a large part to the game.

Knowing how bad my luck is, I actually refuse to play limit and have only played a couple of times. I remember playing one hand where I had nothing on the flop, a draw on the turn, and the nuts on the river. It was the most disguised hand ever as in a NL game, a sizable bet would have forced me to fold. But in limit, it's definitely more about luck as so many people make it to the river. At least with NL, the player has the chance to get players to fold so he/she can avoid getting outdrawn.

The only reason I said you need to be lucky to win is as per your earlier statement stating such. Again poker is a game of skill first and luck plays a smaller part in it.
Jealous of who you? Someone who on an escort review board needs to convince other members he is a skilled poker player, or someone who needs to convince other SP's and members on TERB that he is a good client to SP's, someone who every time he posts in any thread he sticks his head in he tries to derail it by responding to every post and making it about himself, hardly anything to be jealous of.

 

[sempel]

So, I played poker again this weekend and I'm still waiting for some indication that skill plays a more significant role versus luck. Given some of the hands I saw, luck is still a huge part of the game.

In one hand, I turned the nut straight. Someone bet, I raised significantly, someone else insta-called. River paired the board and made a flush. Other person checked and I checked. They made two pair on the turn and rivered a full house - 10% chance. Based on the bet, a skilled player would have realized his/her odds are slim and folded. But this person didn't and was rewarded.

I know this is an isolated example but I saw a bunch of hands where the person who was clearly behind gambled and won. That's luck, not skill. Like any casino games - roulette, craps, or anything else, there's a lot of luck since the odds are never in your favor. When someone tells me they are good at roulette I laugh at their BS and tell them they are just lucky, nothing more.

 

[Occasionally]

So, I played poker again this weekend and I'm still waiting for some indication that skill plays a more significant role versus luck. Given some of the hands I saw, luck is still a huge part of the game.

In one hand, I turned the nut straight. Someone bet, I raised significantly, someone else insta-called. River paired the board and made a flush. Other person checked and I checked. They made two pair on the turn and rivered a full house - 10% chance. Based on the bet, a skilled player would have realized his/her odds are slim and folded. But this person didn't and was rewarded.

I know this is an isolated example but I saw a bunch of hands where the person who was clearly behind gambled and won. That's luck, not skill. Like any casino games - roulette, craps, or anything else, there's a lot of luck since the odds are never in your favor. When someone tells me they are good at roulette I laugh at their BS and tell them they are just lucky, nothing more.

As I've said earlier in the thread, poker is a majorly luck based game.

All someone has to do is watch the granny video. An old lady who barely plays cards, had to be educated how to play the game, went up against seasoned vets, and still did great making it far. She had a knack for reading faces and betting based on that.

So it shows card knowledge is low on the priority list, and the so called vets she went up against were beaten by granny who never even played that card game in her life. So all the vets (except the last one) who were supposed to be so great at cards and bluffing couldn't take down granny.

Now someone is going to say..... "uhhhh.... poker is a long term game. experts need long term timing to prove their worth". If so, they aren't so expert after all.

Name one other sport or competitive match where experts need some buffer time and extended play to prove their superiority? You don't, because other activities are more about strength and skill and can be proven right away, and that avg joe who can't throw a football 10 ft will be toast from the get go. A chess master doesn't need 10 warm up games to win over casual gamer of chess. They'll win right away.

 

[Samranchoi]

As I said before but I guess ignorance is bliss:

There are some parallels between pro and amateur poker players and PGA and amateur golfers competing in a pro tournament. On any one day, an amateur can have the game of their life and wind up in first place. However, when is the last time an amateur won a PGA tournament. Approx 27 years ago (and that would be Lefty). Why? Golf tournaments are 4 rounds so while an amateur can be on top of the leaderboard after any round, the pro golfers overall skill set, which includes course management (similar to chip management in a poker tournament?) is far superior compared to an amateur player over the course of a four round event. The best golfers know when to go for it and when to lay back. Similar to the very best poker players. That is why some poker players make millions of dollars and others, not so much. I don't discount the aspect of luck in any game of chance but just like in many things, good luck seems to follow those players who are playing at the top of their game.

There is also professional bowling tournaments. Sure on any day house league bowler can have a better score than a pro bowler but in tournaments to make the finals, you have to bowl many games and only those with the highest average make the finals. So yes, this is another example where a professional bowler will always end up at the top even though a far inferior bowler may beat them once or twice or more.

 

[Samranchoi]

Who's all in on having a tournament to crown the first Texas Holdem champion

 

[Occasionally]

As I said before but I guess ignorance is bliss:

There are some parallels between pro and amateur poker players and PGA and amateur golfers competing in a pro tournament. On any one day, an amateur can have the game of their life and wind up in first place. However, when is the last time an amateur won a PGA tournament. Approx 27 years ago (and that would be Lefty). Why? Golf tournaments are 4 rounds so while an amateur can be on top of the leaderboard after any round, the pro golfers overall skill set, which includes course management (similar to chip management in a poker tournament?) is far superior compared to an amateur player over the course of a four round event. The best golfers know when to go for it and when to lay back. Similar to the very best poker players. That is why some poker players make millions of dollars and others, not so much. I don't discount the aspect of luck in any game of chance but just like in many things, good luck seems to follow those players who are playing at the top of their game.

There is also professional bowling tournaments. Sure on any day house league bowler can have a better score than a pro bowler but in tournaments to make the finals, you have to bowl many games and only those with the highest average make the finals. So yes, this is another example where a professional bowler will always end up at the top even though a far inferior bowler may beat them once or twice or more.

There's a big difference between someone who is pretty good to start with (college athlete, amateur golfer, house league bowler who is pretty good and playing for 20 years), vs. 80 year old granny who barely plays cards, never played holdem ever and has never played against competitive opposition.

Granny in poker, would be like putting me (middle aged, never an athlete) and having me go up against an NBA player in a game of 1-on-1 to 21 pts. The chances of an avg unathletic couch potato winning is 0%.

But in poker, anyone can win. heck, you don't even have to do anything in poker but sit and wait and lose blinds. There will be some people who go all out and lose. So by sitting there like a turtle you can guarantee position yourself a middle of the pack rank who will end up 4th place by sitting and waiting.

 

[Samranchoi]

There's a big difference between someone who is pretty good to start with (college athlete, amateur golfer, house league bowler who is pretty good and playing for 20 years), vs. 80 year old granny who barely plays cards, never played holdem ever and has never played against competitive opposition.

Granny in poker, would be like putting me (middle aged, never an athlete) and having me go up against an NBA player in a game of 1-on-1 to 21 pts. The chances of an avg unathletic couch potato winning is 0%

I believe you asked this question:


Name one other sport or competitive match where experts need some buffer time and extended play to prove their superiority?

I believe I proved there are,EOS.

 

[Occasionally]

I believe you asked this question:


Name one other sport or competitive match where experts need some buffer time and extended play to prove their superiority?

I believe I proved there are,EOS.

I'm talking pros vs. total scrubs who don't know what they are doing (granny), not pros vs. people who are pretty good already.

Buddy, granny had no idea what she was doing a week before, never even played hold em in her life and she outlasted and even took down half the table doing all-ins.

The arrogance of poker players is hilarious too. Watch the video. Every time granny takes down someone they show the other people laughing in disbelief like "OMG, how can this be?", when at the end of the day, the fate of a poker round is random card flipping. Don't get me wrong, there's some math to making hands, but still random card flipping.

It makes poker into a mockery. And that's why it got popular. Because "anyone can win".

 

[Samranchoi]

I'm talking pros vs. total scrubs who don't know what they are doing (granny), not pros vs. people who are pretty good already.

Buddy, granny had no idea what she was doing a week before, never even played hold em in her life and she outlasted and even took down half the table doing all-ins.

It makes poker into a mockery. And that's why it got popular. Because "anyone can win".

"Buddy", just admit you are wrong, because you are. You asked a question and now you have to qualify it. First of all, granny didn't win and she showed her amateurish skills by losing against a more skilled player. In the end the pro won, just like a pro bowler will win in the long run, as well as the pro golfer in a four round tournament. You were proved wrong, just live with it. An amateur is not a pro and for good reason.

 

[Occasionally]

"Buddy", just admit you are wrong, because you are. You asked a question and now you have to qualify it. First of all, granny didn't win and she showed her amateurish skills by losing against a more skilled player. In the end the pro won, just like a pro bowler will win in the long run, as well as the pro golfer in a four round tournament. You were proved wrong, just live with it. An amateur is not a pro and for good reason.

LOL.

She came in second place and outlasted every other "poker pro" except one guy. She even won money as the final two people won a prize.

The activity (make note I didn't called it a sport), had a table of so-called pros and almost all of them got beat by an old lady who had never played hold em until the organizer gave her a crash course how to play it a week before the tournament.

That goes to show it's a luck based silly game where anyone can win and do well.

Again, you are trying to compare amateurs vs pros. Granny in poker is not an amateur who right away has a chance to beat a pro at any time. She knew nothing. But still did well. That's like me teaching my 8 year old nephew how to play hold em and suddenly we all play and he gets luck and ends up second or third place.

Card games are like that. Anyone has a chance at winning because the key part of the game (random card drawing) can make anyone win at the end.

 

[Samranchoi]

LOL.

She came in second place and outlasted every other "poker pro" except one guy. She even won money as the final two people won a prize.

The activity (make note I didn't called it a sport), had a table of so-called pros and almost all of them got beat by an old lady who had never played hold em until the organizer gave her a crash course how to play it a week before the tournament.

That goes to show it's a luck based silly game where anyone can win and do well.

She had a skill, which is "reading" other player reactions. This is learned through age, experience and being taught. This is huge in the game of Texas Holdem. Absolutely huge. But then again how would you know, you have no clue how to play the game or defend a statement.

 

[Occasionally]

She had a skill, which is "reading" other player reactions. This is learned through age, experience and being taught. This is huge in the game of Texas Holdem. Absolutely huge. But then again how would you know, you have no clue how to play the game or defend a statement.

So granny with all her wisdom took down almost every other "poker pro" at the table despite never playing hold em before.

LOLOL.

Great "sport" there Samranchoi.

Since you brought up amateurs and pros and bowling.

I'd like to see a granny who has never bowled enter a bowling league against amateurs or pros bowling 200+ every match, and somehow finish second place like her poker tournie.

 

[Samranchoi]

So granny with all her wisdom took down almost every other "poker pro" at the table despite never playing hold em before.

LOLOL.

Great "sport" there Samranchoi.

Since you brought up amateurs and pros and bowling.

I'd like to see a granny who has never bowled enter a bowling league against amateurs or pros bowling 200+ every match, and somehow finish second place like her poker tournie.

Your ignorance astounds me but then again, based upon your lack of knowledge of the game of poker and sports as a whole, it is not surprising, LOLLOLLOL.

But to humour you, pros do not always bowl over 200 and in fact some have really terrible games where an amateur can bowl a higher score. But in the end, the pro will bowl more good to excellent games than bad whereas the amateur bowler will bowl more bad to average games than good to excellent games. Your obvious lack of knowledge is shining brighter than the sun.

 

[Occasionally]

Your ignorance astounds me but then again, based upon your lack of knowledge of the game of poker and sports as a whole, it is not surprising, LOLLOLLOL.

But to humour you, pros do not always bowl over 200 and in fact some have really terrible games where an amateur can bowl a higher score. But in the end, the pro will bowl more good to excellent games than bad whereas the amateur bowler will bowl more bad to average games than good to excellent games. Your obvious lack of knowledge is shining brighter than the sun.

You should my posts again. Granny is not amateur who has a history of putting up good poker games to compete with pros. She never played hold em in her life. She got put in this tournie as a farce to see what would happen and it makes poker look stupid. As I've said, not as skillful as people claim it is.

So why you keep bringing up "an amateur can beat a pro, but in the long run a pro wins" doesn't relate to this example.

We can disagree, but at the end of the day, your enthusiasm for poker and expert play is broken as it shows all those "poker pros" can't even beat someone who never played the game to begin with.

 

[Samranchoi]

You should my posts again. Granny is not amateur who has a history of putting up good poker games to compete with pros. She never played hold em in her life. She got put in this tournie as a farce to see what would happen and it makes poker look stupid. As I've said, not as skillful as people claim it is.

So why you keep bringing up "an amateur can beat a pro, but in the long run a pro wins" doesn't relate to this example.

We can disagree, but at the end of the day, your enthusiasm for poker and expert play is broken as it shows all those "poker pros" can't even beat someone who never played the game to begin with.

Simply, in case you forgot, you asked the following question:

Name one other contest or sport where it requires a "pro" long term playing in order to win out against non-pros. And this goes for any game with cards and dice. Probably none

I answered your question but you just don't like admitting you are wrong

And I don't think she has entered into any real live tournaments to prove your point. An exhibition or case study, as this was is very much different than a real tournament where hundreds of players are competing. Even with luck, she wouldn't last very long in a real tournament