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.
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.
"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.
This whole thread is about a granny with zero experience beating card pros, not "amateurs vs pros" which you turned this into where you brought up house league bowlers and amateur golfers.
You've got to understand the context of the thread and what people are talking about.
As for you claim granny wouldn't do well in a large tournament, says who? She already did great playing in a match where all the opponents were poker vets. So maybe she'll do great in a larger format.
Luck goes a long way.
She already proved someone with zero experience playing hold em can hold their own against "pros".
Don't worry bud.
In granny's video, she didn't come in first place. She ended up second where she knocked out many other vets with her zero experience playing hold em. So you can feel happy she didn't win as the last poker "pro" was able to take her down.
Look, this video proves NOTHING. It doesn't prove whether luck or skill has anything to do with poker. Granted, granny has never played the game before. But like any game that is mental and not physical, especially when there's some luck involved, if the person learns some of the basics of how the game is played, there is some chance they can win. If you take any other card game that involves skill (e.g. gin rummy), we can all agree that the best player may not always win only because they might have bad luck. Poker falls into this category.
Now, you can argue this both ways. You can say the granny was an amateur with limited skill who managed to beat pros, people who do this for a living and therefore are expected to have superior skills. Therefore, she must have gotten lucky. Or, you can look at the fact that she was tutored and learned some good techniques i.e. skills and applied them therefore skill is the reason she won. It's of course hard to see the true picture since we only get a snapshot of all the hands played. Lastly, like anything, poker involves consistency and sometimes pros have off days. The difference is in other sports, an off day means you lose to another pro but you'd still win against intermediate/advanced players. In poker, an off day can cost you a lot of money since you might play worse than the amateur who knows little.
I played this weekend and there were times I was up/down. There was one hand I was raised and I called and hit top pair. Each street was bet/call. Person had an overpair and I lost. I don't consider this bad luck. It wasn't even bad skill on my part - I figured the person had an overpair and was hoping to draw out. And since it wasn't a huge pot, it's no big deal. Similar story when I flopped top pair and a draw and someone else bet and I called. They had flopped two pair. Again, I thought I might be beat but I was looking to improve (arguably I got unlucky because they also had top pair with a worse kicker but their kicker hit).
What I will say is this. There were a few hands where I made some difficult calls and was right and that made me some money. There were a few hands that I won due to getting lucky. There were a few hands that I lost due to poor play. And there were a few hands where I got unlucky. What I noticed though is when I got lucky I didn't make much and the number of times was lower than the times I got unlucky, and the unlucky pots cost me a lot. Why? Because when I'm ahead I bet big and the other person getting lucky costs me a lot more.
