why i gamble poker not pool
- Thread starter mark tadd
- Start date
)
RichardCranium said:Are you all kidding me?
Believe me... If I can win at POKER ....It can't take any skill...(I have none) I know all about "early position" , "late position" "check raise" "fake tells" "real tells"...."The Table Captn".. I have seen guys who buy in for $500.00 in a $3/$6 game just so they can look like a "table bully" I also know that it is pretty rare to see the river rats lay down bottom pair or even an Ace High "runner runner" flush draw in a $3/$6 $4/$8 and even The $6/$12 and $10/$20 have the "fishermen" in the pots...Believe me...you want those players in the game....(There is an saying around the Casinos..."Asians...very good customer" no offense) ...They play to the river every time...The odds in the long run are in your favor...But don't sit there and tell me your going to "bluff" them out of a pot...I've seen many a "sucker" that watched the WPT on TV and thought they were going to sit down in a $4/$8 game and "bluff" the pot...Those idiots are going to throw in $8 for a river card every time to try and "catch" whatever it is they are going to catch...If you have not been "sucked out" on either online or in a live game that has cost you a loser night or "break even" night...You have not played enough...and I will say it again...There is no skill in that...Knowing what cards to play and in what position and what your "odds" are of catching your "outs" is not "skill" its obvious knowledge....(multiplying a # less than 20 X 4 is not skill..its 5th grade math)....
There is NO camparison between "low limit" (and yes $20/$40 is low limit)....with Pot Limit (with big blinds) or No Limit....Its not the same game....
I have played enough low limit poker to know that the swings can be incredible...(forget the 1 big pot per hour crap)...How about just 1 pot the whole night....
Actually I love to see you guys that come in and "press" the table...It creates bigger pots for me when I've got the "nuts".....and when I have the "nuts" I will put the check raise on and hold my breath that I don't get sucked out on the river....Because I am sure you know...In low limit...The bigger the pot...The more they are going to call....Man....have you ever seen the "splash pot"....You better have the "nuts" on that hand...
Now that I think about it....Limit poker does have a major "skill" involved...It's called "patience"....I guess you were all right....sorry...
Right, so you're saying poker is all luck then? Hmm, isn't it strange why all of the top professional poker players usually always make it to the final table in the poker tournaments?
I don't care what you say, you are dead wrong. Anyone can win on any given night. Poker is about winning in the long run- how you do at the end of the year. Go talk to any professional poker player and they will tell you how much skill is involved.
ROFL I just want to let you know that people like you are the guys that good poker players dream about. I'm gonna call you "fish" from now on.
By the way, I don't play agressive because of stuff I see on TV. My manager at my job (at the poolhall) also plays poker for a living. He plays very good, and he has taught me quite a bit.
When I arrive at the casino, I will not just sit down at any 3/6 or 4/8 table. I wait around for a while until I can find a weak/tight table. I will not play on an agressive table. If I am on a table, and suddenly people start going nuts, like capping pre-flop with 10-6 offsuit, then I will get up and leave. Why? Most people would think that something like that is a gold mine, but it does not suit my style of play. I don't like paying 2x the big blind to see a flop where I don't hit anything.
When it comes to chasing, I only chase for the nuts. That is, the absoloute, stone cold, nuts. If I chase a flush, I'm chasing the nut flush. If I chase a straight, I'm chasing an open-ended nut straight. If I have a pocket pair and flop a set, I'll usually slow play it and let people go nuts on betting, and I'll raise on the river if I still think I have the best hand.
I am also the type of person that is not afraid to throw a hand away. If I have pocket kings, and an ace hits on the flop, and people bet and raise before me, I will muck automatically. It's not like there is one system to the game. There are so many variations, on what someone should do in certain situations, because everything depends on what kind of players are at the table.
Recognizing and adjusting to those settings is definately a skill.
When I arrive at the casino, I will not just sit down at any 3/6 or 4/8 table. I wait around for a while until I can find a weak/tight table. I will not play on an agressive table. If I am on a table, and suddenly people start going nuts, like capping pre-flop with 10-6 offsuit, then I will get up and leave. Why? Most people would think that something like that is a gold mine, but it does not suit my style of play. I don't like paying 2x the big blind to see a flop where I don't hit anything.
When it comes to chasing, I only chase for the nuts. That is, the absoloute, stone cold, nuts. If I chase a flush, I'm chasing the nut flush. If I chase a straight, I'm chasing an open-ended nut straight. If I have a pocket pair and flop a set, I'll usually slow play it and let people go nuts on betting, and I'll raise on the river if I still think I have the best hand.
I am also the type of person that is not afraid to throw a hand away. If I have pocket kings, and an ace hits on the flop, and people bet and raise before me, I will muck automatically. It's not like there is one system to the game. There are so many variations, on what someone should do in certain situations, because everything depends on what kind of players are at the table.
Recognizing and adjusting to those settings is definately a skill.
RichardCranium said:
An amatuer won the year before that as well, but he caught a run of cards that people dream of.
Last year Moneymaker got lucky he wasn't called on that bluff, otherwise Farha would have had him about 3 to 1 in chip counts, and would have busted him.
Raymer made (in my opinion) a number of terrible calls, but had enough chips the entire time to boss people around. When he played in that 10 person Tournament of Champions, he got schooled.
After saying all of that, all of those guys play better than I do, I'm sure of that. Just because they're amatuers, that doesn't automatically mean they can't play. I know (as do we all) a number of "amatuer" pool players that could play on the pro tour, but don't want to.
While a lucky player may beat the skilled player in a pot every now and then, who do you think is getting the cash at the end of the session?
RichardCranium said:
Moneymaker was a first time amateur. Raymer is an experienced and skilled player, although he had a day job. Sure other guys have more experience, but Raymer had done well at the WSOP before, had won a lot of no limit tournaments at FW, and had success in live games. And not just HE, he did well at the 75-150 mix games, and I think played some 150-300 mix games. In that respect he is better than Hellmuth I think, because I don't think Hellmuth can beat a 150-300 HORSE or SHOE game over time. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. You can't read Hellmuth's book and think he can consistently beat any limit holdem game 40-80 or higher. He has very little chance of beating the bellagio 80-160 if he actually follows the advice in his book. Er, I mean no chance if he actually follows the advice in his book.
But the main reason a first time amateur won last year is that tournament no limit holdem - Hellmuth's specialty - doesn't require as much skill as other forms of poker and has a huge standard deviation.
FWIW a couple of years ago I asked tournament poker players on an internet forum what the expectation of a great tournament player was. Before he was champ, Raymer posted a well thought out and I believe correct answer. He said a great tournament player could expect to win the buy in. IOW, in a 10000 buy in tournamnet a GREAT player could expect to win 10000. Not bad for 5 days work. The problem is that you don't always just win 20,000 to come out 10000 ahead. You win 200,000 one time and then lose 15 in a row or whatever. The standard deviation is huge. Maybe why the big tournamnet players try to get backed. Or are broke. Lotta cash game players take home the money steadily. The best players aren't tournament specialists like Hellmuth. The very best can play both.
Raymer is no amateur, he can adjust his play and understands the game. He isn't the very best, but I bet he is a better all around player than Hellmuth and he is a whole lot better than Moneymaker.
tonyk said:
Raymer's play wasn't all that bad in that one TOC. I disagreed with one thing, but he didn't get totally schooled. And the more I thought about what he did the better it seemed. He has posted about some of the hands on the internet BTW.
The guy who got schooled was Hellmuth. He completely embarrassed himself. Annie Duke worked him over bad.
RichardCranium said:Sure.... ask Doyle Brunson how much "SKILL" is involved in "LOW LIMIT" poker...He probably will say something like.. "Not Much"...after he picks himself up after falling down from laughing so hard...
So is your nick "Last Two" for pool because your "giving up"....or is it REALLY a POKER nick because your "down too your" ...(JK)
1) Why did a 1st time ameature win the WSOP this year???? add to that why did a 1st time ameature win last year as well???? Add to that...I already told you that LIMIT POKER and NO LIMIT touranments are two different games...That includes LIMIT TOURNAMENTS..(the antes go WAY up in the end)....Also the ONLY "pro or non pro" to make it back to the final table was Danny Harrington...Obvously you have watched Rounders too much...
2)"Anyone can win on any given night"....You are absolutly right...I think that is pretty much what I have been saying all along...."skill" is not going to beat "luck" in a "LOW LIMIT" game....HOWEVER.....The KNOWLEDGE to play the right cards...in the right positions....at the right time...limit your losses....maximize your gains....over time the ODDS are in your favor....
The "KNOWLEDGE" is NOT a "SKILL" its just obvious "KNOWLEDGE" that most "social" players never take the time to pick up on....There is no skill to show your cards at the river and rake the pot because you have the best hand...That is just a "knowledgable" poker player...But in 5,6,7 way action...some idiot is going to call you to the river...I don't care how much "SKILL" you think you have...
Let me try and put it in better terms...knowing "how" to put draw on a cueball is not a skill...it is "KNOWLEDGE".....actually "doing it" is the "SKILL"
Now lets relate that to "POKER" all you need is the knowledge of knowing when to hold them or fold them...The only skill (IN LOW LIMIT) is "patience" and or "self control".......and I admitted that in an earlier post...
3) I can see you have NO patience...(otherwise you would have paid more attention to what my post said)....If you really think I am a "FISH"...You have obviously made a "mis-judgment" in the way I play poker...That would give me an advantage right off the bat...(perhaps you need another lesson from your poker coach)...Oh mabey you think I am that guy on Barnabee Jones..(or whatever the hell that sitcom was) wasn't he asian???....I am not asian...
BTW...I did not go Friday night but I went Sat...quit up $220.00 in a $4/$8 game...Does that mean I have great poker "SKILLS" ...HECK NO...it just means I got a good run of cards that night....
If you really want to call it SKILL.......fine...call it whatever you want...I call it "knowledge" ....I reserve the word "SKILL" for when you "draw" the ball two rails out for a shot on the 9...
I would also call it "bad" position on the 8.....
Why are you all of a sudden shifting your discussion to low-limit poker? I would say that low-limit poker requires much less skill than high-limit, that's a given.
The reason why so many people play poker is because 'anyone can win at any given time'.- And that's true. Moneymaker won a tournament, he had a streak of good luck. Good luck can win for you in the short term, but skill prevails in the long run. No, I am not talking about the low-limit games that I play, because their are mainly idiots in the game. I am talking about people who play the game for a living, playing high limit poker.
RichardCranium said:
I was in a 6-day winning streak playing the $3/6 and $4/8 games, netting about $700 total. I took a break for a few days and got in a $4/8 game. It was one of those nights where no matter what I had, I was always beat. On one hand I am the button with 10c-Jc, so I raise (just because I am the button with a decent hand). Nearly the whole table calls. The flop comes 9c, Qc, 8d- I flop the nut straight with a flush draw, and a straight flush draw. I had the best hand on the flop, and quite a few outs to make an even better hand. Small blind checks, so does big blind, then someone in middle position bets, the guy in front of him raises, I reraise, most people call, and the middle guy caps it, everyone calls. Turn comes 2d. Same thing again, but two people fold, and it's capped again. River comes 4d, a couple people fold, and it gets capped again. I turn over my straight, and the middle position guy had Ad-Kd. He rivered the nut flush, ouch. About 10 minutes later, I have pocket 7's, and it is once again capped before the flop. Usually I will throw this hand away, but I wanted to play it because I was in late position, and I was prepared to throw it away if I don't catch anything on the flop and people bet and raise. The flop comes 7-8-8, rainbow. Turn is a blank, river is a blank, and it's a huge pot by now. I turn over my full house, and another guy turns over 8-7 offsuit. It was just one of those nights. The table had turned from weak tight to loose agressive in a matter of minutes, so that time I had decided to try my luck at catching a hand because I had a good chance to make alot of money if I was patient. Oh well.
RichardCranium said:
You are dead wrong on the complexity of holdem. Stud and holdem are approximately as complex. They require different skills and have some differences, but they are both complex games. Omaha is not nearly as complex as holdem or stud. Limit omaha high is a stupid, simple game. Omaha hi/lo split is a much better game, but very simple compared to holdem or stud. It is amazing people play it as badly as they do. Often it is profitable, but it isn't very complex. PLO is a differnet story. That is a tough game. I've only played once at a side game at binions and found it way too challenging. LOL. Anyway, comparing limit HE, Stud and O/8, holdem and stud are far and away more complicated. And if you think holdem is much simpler than stud, you need to study up I am sorry to say. It is true that high limit stud is very complex and allows great players to make some great plays. At the high levels stud has a very high ante structure, where in limit holdem the blinds stay proportionally the same up the ladder.
RichardCranium said:
I don't think holdem is harder to play. I know it.
Seriously. Plenty of people way ahead of me on poker theory know this to be true. The fact that omaha has 4 cards really doesn't make it more complex. If anything it makes it simpler. At first you may have more trouble reading your hand and the board, but once you do it is much more of a rotegame than stud or holdem. Again, I am talking of limit omaha. Limit omaha hi is really a no-skill game. Pot limit makes it much better. Limit HE is much much more complex. O/8 is also a simpler game than HE, but much better than limit omaha high. If you don't agree with this, you are one of the players fooled by the 4 card thing in omaha. I can guarantee you need to improve. And I don't mean this in an insulting way or anything. You aren't alone. But you are not correct. Read the best book on Omaha hi-lo. Written by an author who plays all the games at a world class level. Omaha isn't as complex as holdem unless you are talking PLO. I started playing some O/8 because the players were so bad. They were fooled into thinking the game was hard when it really was simpler. And I like it because it conceals some of my flaws as a player. I could sit back and profit from abject ignorace and play a very simple style. Although I admit I haven't been playing much of anything recently, and if I did it would probably be HE because of all the bad players playing it after watching TV. So the numbers of bad players favor HE probably.
Also, the calculation of outs isn't all that much more challenging in omaha, and that is a basic skill, not one that really defines how complex the game is overall.