Becoming a poker genius in one week
- Thread starter ilikewindmills
- Start date
Unlike other things like sports or chess, poker is 1% skill, 99% luck. Luck of the cards.
Case in point, when I used to play cards with my brothers as a kid, I barely knew the games we'd play every round, but knew about basic stuff like hand rankings and such.
I'd say at the end of the day, we all won about the same amount of the time. Every once in a while, someone would go all in and lose. It's like flipping a coin.
Scrabble was similar when I got old enough to know decent vocabulary. No doubt, they knew more words, but if I got lucky some matches and got S's or blanks, or got the X scoring mega points, I could win though their word expertise was probably double mine. What's anyone average player going to do if they get tons of vowels with no good consonants to play?
This grandma video goes to show anyone can beat poker guys.
On the other hand, I never beat my dad at chess. I don't think I even ever got close. And in gym class, as one of the stockier kids, I got destroyed in anything that involved endurance (long distance running), but in sports that didn't involve constant action (running + walking + taking shifts), and included some physical bumping and shoving, I could hold my own.
Case in point, when I used to play cards with my brothers as a kid, I barely knew the games we'd play every round, but knew about basic stuff like hand rankings and such.
I'd say at the end of the day, we all won about the same amount of the time. Every once in a while, someone would go all in and lose. It's like flipping a coin.
Scrabble was similar when I got old enough to know decent vocabulary. No doubt, they knew more words, but if I got lucky some matches and got S's or blanks, or got the X scoring mega points, I could win though their word expertise was probably double mine. What's anyone average player going to do if they get tons of vowels with no good consonants to play?
This grandma video goes to show anyone can beat poker guys.
On the other hand, I never beat my dad at chess. I don't think I even ever got close. And in gym class, as one of the stockier kids, I got destroyed in anything that involved endurance (long distance running), but in sports that didn't involve constant action (running + walking + taking shifts), and included some physical bumping and shoving, I could hold my own.
More like 40% skill, 60% luck. The more skilled you are, the less luck plays into it. Poker is a game about reading your opponents and manipulating them. I've won games where I've had crappy luck simply because I knew how to play my opponents and whittle down their chips to the point where I'd have to lose 9 times out of 10 when the chips were all on the table in order to actually go bust. If you can't win in that scenario, I'm not sure "bad luck" is the way to describe it.Unlike other things like sports or chess, poker is 1% skill, 99% luck. Luck of the cards.
If you are a amateur in poker playing experts you have 0 chance of winning . You might win one hand or two by luck but no way will you win the tournament . Pros prey upon the naiveMore like 40% skill, 60% luck. The more skilled you are, the less luck plays into it. Poker is a game about reading your opponents and manipulating them. I've won games where I've had crappy luck simply because I knew how to play my opponents and whittle down their chips to the point where I'd have to lose 9 times out of 10 when the chips were all on the table in order to actually go bust. If you can't win in that scenario, I'm not sure "bad luck" is the way to describe it.
Poker is far more luck based than skillIf you are a amateur in poker playing experts you have 0 chance of winning . You might win one hand or two by luck but no way will you win the tournament . Pros prey upon the naive
There is some skill involved with what to discard but that is it
A rank amateur will win the same number of games against a pro BUT will lose overall because pro has far better betting strategy
If a pro is dealt crappy cards best he can do is bluff, and an amateur won't take that bait because he lacks skill
There is definitely a large luck factor, especially in tournaments where the blinds rise high enough to the point where it's a game of BINGO and you commit a large chunk of your stack each hand. Having played a fair amount, I can tell you that regardless of your skill and your ability to read opponents, or in the cases where you have the better hand (statistical favorite to win) and your opponent puts their money in with 2nd best hands, luck is the cards that come out. The skill is in getting opponents to put in the money with 2nd best hands or fold with the best hand. I actually prefer to play more skilled opponents because they usually play more logically and fold weaker hands versus paying to see more cards when their odds of winning are extremely low. For most that would be ideal but for me, I would rather opponents fold and take the win versus being drawn out - happens way too often to me.More like 40% skill, 60% luck. The more skilled you are, the less luck plays into it. Poker is a game about reading your opponents and manipulating them. I've won games where I've had crappy luck simply because I knew how to play my opponents and whittle down their chips to the point where I'd have to lose 9 times out of 10 when the chips were all on the table in order to actually go bust. If you can't win in that scenario, I'm not sure "bad luck" is the way to describe it.
Very hard to console yourself when you got an opponent to go all in before the cards come out and you have pocket aces and lose. You were 80% or more to win but that means nothing when you lose.
Actually a ton of amateurs have won major tournaments. The whole reason poker became so popular is when an amateur, Chris Moneymaker, won the WSOP Main Event and the world realized it was possible for an amateur to win.If you are a amateur in poker playing experts you have 0 chance of winning . You might win one hand or two by luck but no way will you win the tournament . Pros prey upon the naive
Most poker pros win at cash games where there is less reliance on the cards because the blinds don't increase so there's no pressure. If they lose some/all of their money they can top up again.
They had a show "The Big Game" where an amateur was staked $100,000 and played against 5 pros - amateur keeps any winnings. Many amateurs went broke but some did make money. The best amateur made around $150,000. I will say he wasn't the best amateur of the lot and got lucky in certain spots.
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.
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.
Last edited:
There is a saying that goes: You don't know what you don't know.Poker is far more luck based than skill
There is some skill involved with what to discard but that is it
It applies to other poker, not just holdem. If the stakes are not high enough, people can just stay in and keep fishing with no fear. The stakes have to be large enough so that when you make a move, it has to be a big enough bet to create some intimidation.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 back when I used to play a lot online, I remember I had worked my bankroll up quite nicely. I started to loose so I decided I would play lower stakes came where far more inexperienced players would be thinking I'll probably win because I had gotten pretty good. The problem was, so many inexperience player 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.
You're the reason why there are professional poker playersUnlike other things like sports or chess, poker is 1% skill, 99% luck. Luck of the cards.
Case in point, when I used to play cards with my brothers as a kid, I barely knew the games we'd play every round, but knew about basic stuff like hand rankings and such.
I'd say at the end of the day, we all won about the same amount of the time. Every once in a while, someone would go all in and lose. It's like flipping a coin.
Scrabble was similar when I got old enough to know decent vocabulary. No doubt, they knew more words, but if I got lucky some matches and got S's or blanks, or got the X scoring mega points, I could win though their word expertise was probably double mine. What's anyone average player going to do if they get tons of vowels with no good consonants to play?
This grandma video goes to show anyone can beat poker guys.
On the other hand, I never beat my dad at chess. I don't think I even ever got close. And in gym class, as one of the stockier kids, I got destroyed in anything that involved endurance (long distance running), but in sports that didn't involve constant action (running + walking + taking shifts), and included some physical bumping and shoving, I could hold my own.
Bingo. We have a winner. Bang on.If you are a amateur in poker playing experts you have 0 chance of winning . You might win one hand or two by luck but no way will you win the tournament . Pros prey upon the naive
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.Actually a ton of amateurs have won major tournaments. The whole reason poker became so popular is when an amateur, Chris Moneymaker, won the WSOP Main Event and the world realized it was possible for an amateur to win.
Most poker pros win at cash games where there is less reliance on the cards because the blinds don't increase so there's no pressure. If they lose some/all of their money they can top up again.
They had a show "The Big Game" where an amateur was staked $100,000 and played against 5 pros - amateur keeps any winnings. Many amateurs went broke but some did make money. The best amateur made around $150,000. I will say he wasn't the best amateur of the lot and got lucky in certain spots.
Bad title. This is not a poker genius. Poker is made up of many skills. All she learned was the skill of reading whether people were lying or telling the truth. Reading people. That is a powerful skill but doesn't make one a poker genius.
Not to mention that so many more people play on-line that in person.Bad title. This is not a poker genius. Poker is made up of many skills. All she learned was the skill of reading whether people were lying or telling the truth. Reading people. That is a powerful skill but doesn't make one a poker genius.
Exactly.Bad title. This is not a poker genius. Poker is made up of many skills. All she learned was the skill of reading whether people were lying or telling the truth. Reading people. That is a powerful skill but doesn't make one a poker genius.
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.
Nobody ever said pro players aren't better in the long run. Pro players know odds, betting strategies and can handle pressure better.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.
But given the nature of the game (cards), there's a to of luck involved.
That's why you are even resorting to long term statistics.
In just about any other sport where there's pro players playing against no-name avg guys, a pro player will win 99.99% of the time because there is no luck involved. Or the luck is so small, you aren't going to need long term calculations to figure out a pro player is better.
If Michael Jordan challenged an avg couch potato to a game of 21.... never mind playing against him in a 48 minute game, the only people who would beat him are other pro players, and maybe some skilled college players who are pretty good too. You aren't going to get a 300 lb fatty who can barely dribble winning.
And the chances of someone beating a highly skilled chess player barely playing the game is basically zero too.
But in games with cards or dice (always a luck factor built into the game mechanics), any dude can pull off a victory in a tournament with the right cards and going all-in at the right time.
As someone else said, that Moneymaker guy won. He made the whole poker craze go apeshit because he was mowing down pro players as a no-name player.
Granny did it.
Absoluely the smaller the sample size the larger the luck factor. No professional poker player in their right mind plays just 1 hand. And there is not just one moneymaker. There were hundreds if not thousands of moneymakers in that tournament. so as a group there were probably more moneymakers than pros so in one tournament it's not as lucky as it looks that one of the amateur moneymakers would come out on top. In fact probably better odds to put your money on an amateur winning it than a pro just cause there are so many more of them.Nobody ever said pro players aren't better in the long run. Pro players know odds, betting strategies and can handle pressure better.
But given the nature of the game (cards), there's a to of luck involved.
That's why you are even resorting to long term statistics.
In just about any other sport where there's pro players playing against no-name avg guys, a pro player will win 99.99% of the time because there is no luck involved. Or the luck is so small, you aren't going to need long term calculations to figure out a pro player is better.
If Michael Jordan challenged an avg couch potato to a game of 21.... never mind playing against him in a 48 minute game, the only people who would beat him are other pro players, and maybe some skilled college players who are pretty good too. You aren't going to get a 300 lb fatty who can barely dribble winning.
And the chances of someone beating a highly skilled chess player barely playing the game is basically zero too.
But in games with cards or dice (always a luck factor built into the game mechanics), any dude can pull off a victory in a tournament with the right cards and going all-in at the right time.
As someone else said, that Moneymaker guy won. He made the whole poker craze go apeshit because he was mowing down pro players as a no-name player.
Granny did it.
Luck definitely plays a part in poker, but if that's your strategy.... well... good luck.
The best players use parts aggression, skill, and mostly position to win chips. They pressure you in both obvious, and subtle ways.
Chris Moneymaker got extremely lucky in several hands / showdowns to win, but he was also very aggressive, and played very well. He was lucky, for sure, but he had skill. You can be on a "heater" where things break your way for a time, but it can catch up to you.
So much about tournament playing is building up your stack and using your chip advantage to bully smaller stacks, but in the end it cones down to decision making. Putting your opponent on a hand and making the right decision based on the information you've gathered. Few amateurs have that instinct.
I'd say luck is less than 10%.
The best players use parts aggression, skill, and mostly position to win chips. They pressure you in both obvious, and subtle ways.
Chris Moneymaker got extremely lucky in several hands / showdowns to win, but he was also very aggressive, and played very well. He was lucky, for sure, but he had skill. You can be on a "heater" where things break your way for a time, but it can catch up to you.
So much about tournament playing is building up your stack and using your chip advantage to bully smaller stacks, but in the end it cones down to decision making. Putting your opponent on a hand and making the right decision based on the information you've gathered. Few amateurs have that instinct.
I'd say luck is less than 10%.
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 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.
