....And you wonder why they now play poker?
- Thread starter Handsumm
- Start date
fanthom said:
lol, have you ever played poker? As I said before, tournaments are entirely different than cash games. If you take a bad beat in a tournament then you are out, where as in a cash game you can reload. The true elements are more like 80% skill, 20% luck. All of the idiots that think its the reverse are the ones that lose, or the ones that win one tournament and then go bust thinking they can actually play.
In poker, it's a lot easier to hide your speed. In fact, you don't really need to hide it. By nature of the game, the untrained spectator can always say that the winner got lucky.
That's probably a big factor in why some intermediate poker players think they have a shot at beating the experts. Perhaps they can in the short run if they get lucky, but the pros are in it for the long run.
In pool, it's completely different, IMO. At some point you're going to have to show some skills, unless you're going to great lengths to hustle and make your wins look lucky.
Poker, by nature, attracts fish a lot better than pool does, IMO.
That's probably a big factor in why some intermediate poker players think they have a shot at beating the experts. Perhaps they can in the short run if they get lucky, but the pros are in it for the long run.
In pool, it's completely different, IMO. At some point you're going to have to show some skills, unless you're going to great lengths to hustle and make your wins look lucky.
Poker, by nature, attracts fish a lot better than pool does, IMO.
poker is a game of luck with some skill involved and pool is a game of skill with a little bit of luck involved.
you take 100 top poker players and any one of them can beat any other player in a heads up tournament. Take 100 of the top pool players and there is a definitive line of who can beat who on a regular basis in a long race.
i know lots of card players who perceive themselves to be as good as most of the pros you see on TV. Weather that's true or not, you don't see any shortstops going around saying they are at the same level as Efren or Busta or Archer. Poker is a game that lends itself to the concept that anyone can win. Take the WSOP. How many pros do you see place in the final tables? Not that many at all. What other real sport is there where you take the biggest tourney and only 2 pros are at the final tables?
That would be like at the WPC there are only 2 pros in the semi finals while the rest are made up of B players.
What tennis tourney is there where the only pros that are in the masters is Aggasi and Sepmras?
You can use that logic on any professional sport game. Poker is a game of change. Plain and simple. You can be the master of reads, know what cards the other guy has and put your money in when you're over 90% favorite to win and still get your nuts chopped off because your opponent catches a lucky river card. That is NOT a game of skill.
The reason poker is so big is that there is a perceived notion that anyone can win, and for the most part it's true. If poker was an actual game of skill then the poker "pros" like negranu, ivey, harrington, helmuth and chan and their likes would always be in the final tables because they are the best at cards.
you take 100 top poker players and any one of them can beat any other player in a heads up tournament. Take 100 of the top pool players and there is a definitive line of who can beat who on a regular basis in a long race.
i know lots of card players who perceive themselves to be as good as most of the pros you see on TV. Weather that's true or not, you don't see any shortstops going around saying they are at the same level as Efren or Busta or Archer. Poker is a game that lends itself to the concept that anyone can win. Take the WSOP. How many pros do you see place in the final tables? Not that many at all. What other real sport is there where you take the biggest tourney and only 2 pros are at the final tables?
That would be like at the WPC there are only 2 pros in the semi finals while the rest are made up of B players.
What tennis tourney is there where the only pros that are in the masters is Aggasi and Sepmras?
You can use that logic on any professional sport game. Poker is a game of change. Plain and simple. You can be the master of reads, know what cards the other guy has and put your money in when you're over 90% favorite to win and still get your nuts chopped off because your opponent catches a lucky river card. That is NOT a game of skill.
The reason poker is so big is that there is a perceived notion that anyone can win, and for the most part it's true. If poker was an actual game of skill then the poker "pros" like negranu, ivey, harrington, helmuth and chan and their likes would always be in the final tables because they are the best at cards.
fanthom said:
This is exactly the misconception I was trying to get at in my post. I'm not saying that you're a fish, but this misconception is what probably creates the fish.
I wouldn't venture to place a percentage on luck vs. skill, as I'm not even a poker player. I think of it more this way... in a given hand, the luck factor is significant but in the long run that luck factor gets reduced lower and lower.
Cuebacca said:
good post. The poker boom has been fueled by people thinking that they can play as good as the pros. It is true that poker can be learned easier than pool, but its just like any other skill game in that the better player will win in the long run and a sucker will be a sucker. I hear it all the time from people in my live games that say stuff like "any cards are good before the flop", "I just had a feeling", or "this game is all luck". The same people will play for a few weeks or if they are well financed then maybe several months. The outcome is always the same, they either go bust or eventually learn that they can't win.
A solid player who quit and began playing poker put it perfectly, "Don't nobody sit down at a poker table and ask me for a spot."
Essentially, especially with the success of no name players on the WSOP, a pro/semi-pro poker player has the chance to sit down with 7 other guys that have never won a serious poker game in their life and the pro/semi-pro has a chance to win $1000s day in and day out. If anyone here can show me where a pro/semi-pro pool player can win this money everyday against guys that aren't even in his class, and more fish keep coming back... well, whoever shows me can get 40% of the first year.
Essentially, especially with the success of no name players on the WSOP, a pro/semi-pro poker player has the chance to sit down with 7 other guys that have never won a serious poker game in their life and the pro/semi-pro has a chance to win $1000s day in and day out. If anyone here can show me where a pro/semi-pro pool player can win this money everyday against guys that aren't even in his class, and more fish keep coming back... well, whoever shows me can get 40% of the first year.
ioCross said:
You just aren't getting it. ONE tournament does not a poker player make. If you get your money in with the best of it 90% of the time then the percentages will catch up in the long run. Its like if you spend $1000 a day on scratch off tickets. You might win $25,000 the first day, but play for 10 years and see how you are. It's the same with all the goddamn morons that think poker is all luck. They will win sometimes by shitting out, but I love when that happens because they now have the perception that they can win and just like a true fish they will keep trying until they are completely bust.
corvette1340 said:
Yep. Could take 50K hands before the cards break even. Variance is the fishie's best friend.
Before the advent of internet poker, there was a wider gulf between the world class player and a competent player. What separated the two was the willingness to endure a 6 month or more losing/break even streak. Now you can multitable, which is great, you can analyze your game with Pokertracker, post hand histories and discuss strategy with other good players, and get over those humps 10 times quicker.
Sbrugby is arguably the best heads up no-limit player in the world, claiming this title only after playing for two years. This kind of accelerated evolution is what attracts people to the game. With some hard work, you can become an expert. In pool, you can work you bridge hand to the bone and only become a B player.
That said, I think all poker players over-estimate their ability. I think it's a lot more skill than luck, but a majority of that skill is how good you table select. I think Mason Malmuth once said, "It's not how good I play, it's how bad my opponent plays."
Jude Rosenstock said:
What do you mean that's why? What does that have to do with the stake issue? If anything that's a counter argument to why people are willing to gamble so much more on poker than pool.
In general, more skill means less gamble means (higher/lower) stakes. Pool is virtually all skill and therefore is a relatively small gamble in a straight match against an honest opponent and stays at very low stakes.
Poker is a % skill (let's call it 65%) and is a significant gamble and plays at very high stakes.
Blackjack is 35% skill and a much bigger gamble and plays at much lower stakes than poker.
I'd say your reason is more like an observation. I'd say pool players play at lower stakes for some other reasons including but not limited to this high skill aspect which makes it virtually impossible for good players to build up bankrolls by rolling over lesser players (because they just won't play them) and the lack of another venue to bring in outside money (i.e. the casino in the blackjack example or the lesser player in the poker example or the tv money in a football example)
Or maybe I just agreed with you, I dunno, I'm tired.
skiflyer said:
Yes, you are agreeing with me but more to my point - To attain X skill in pool takes YEARS. To attain X skill in poker takes months. Simply put, it's more attainable to the masses.
corvette1340 said:
Hehehe. That was a miscomm. Yes, I do play poker and also play pool and yes I still do stick to my original post. Frankly, before poker went mainstream, I have seen many lives and families destroyed by poker. People who got sucked in too deep in the hopes of instant reaches only to fail in the end. Also, my post refers purely to poker tournaments, not high-stakes 'off-screen' poker. That's a different ballgame on its own. Besides, if high stakes poker is done in action pool, it would be the penultimate sucker with deep pockets. It's like saying a D player with $500,000 goes into a ring game with SVB. AP, Efren, Rodney and Busta. What are the sucker's chances of taking the cheese? Next to none.
Now lets say you put a regular poker player with deep pockets in a multi-million dollar tourney with the pros, the guy has a better chance at the cheese compared to putting a regular pool player in a big pro pool tournament. Again, in a tournament setting, hands down, pool demands more skill.
fanthom said:
Just an added note, I work with numbers for a living. If the odds of winning in poker is such that it is worth an almost guaranteed investment, the Poker Hall of Fame will be filled with actuaries and statisticians who had quit their jobs and played poker full time. But since this group understands probabilities and have NOT rushed to the poker tables in droves, says alot about the chances of success.
corvette1340 said:
I would relate it more like 70% knowledge 20% luck 10% skill.
Putting a pair of sunglasses on and sitting still with both hands over your mouth takes no skill. Seeing the guy rock back in his chair when he realizes your grabbing chips and picking up the realization that he is on the bluff takes a little skill yes...not much different than the road player on the hustle......you get burnt a time or two and you will pick up on it the next time...
The rest is just plain and simple knowledge of proper position and betting stratagy.....
Getting the pocket Aces in late position and having a joker go all in in front of you is just good timing...(pure luck)
As far as the 1 bad beat in a tournamnet....Good tournament players will try not to play themselevs into a bad beat situation until they are well into the money...not always possible, but with proper play you can avoid them...(That is not skill, that is just knowledge of the game and a well controled ego)
On the other hand 1 bad beat in a money game can kill your profit for the day....In the money game its all about "when" the bad beat happens.....If it doesn't....you guessed it...your lucky.
Now pool...(even 9-ball)
70% skill 20% knowledge 10% luck.
fanthom said:Just an added note, I work with numbers for a living. If the odds of winning in poker is such that it is worth an almost guaranteed investment, the Poker Hall of Fame will be filled with actuaries and statisticians who had quit their jobs and played poker full time. But since this group understands probabilities and have NOT rushed to the poker tables in droves, says alot about the chances of success.
Well, I know it's not the exact same area of study you mention, but I thought Barry Greenstein had a PhD in math. It turns out that I was wrong... he left before completing it. I can't say I blame him. LOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Greenstein