P
playn4fun
Enthusiast
Silver Level
STL FAN
Rock Star
Silver Level
I find it interesting, a topic that appears again to be discussed. Luck is a word that is more opinion than facts to support the topic that would make any comment empirical. Most of what is said is opinion with little real facts to persuade a reader to come away with a clear belief one way or another.
I will however, use examples that I have just went through to cloud this topic further, not to give an empirical answer; just offer more information for thought. I recently posted about what I went through in my tournament about playing 12 hours to reach the final three people in a field that mostly had people that have read little or no poker books, were looking to get their premium hands all in pre or post, one pair, top pair on flop or any street, not observing board texture, not thinking about what an opponent might hold, when they got married to hands the last thing was to think about folding if they thought there was a chance of being beat.
This is just a partial observation of my opponents however; this is what had been done routinely, universally over and over for 12 hours. To understand and know where I stood in each situation I was in pre or post, knowing what my opponent had, did not have, or at the very least 1-3 exact hands. My approach was not to run a race but extract chips or save chips while either ending or seeing the hand until river.
What I observed was differences of skill, a variance of play from very little skill that boarder on almost no skill, but rather my opponents wanting to see all five cards through aggression, the cards they held regardless of the situation, the people involved in the hand. My approach was to limit the times I chose to run a race even if knew I was ahead. The option to fold rather than letting the cards I held dictate the situation. I laid down many strong hands at different times, streets to avoid a situation against the wrong person or persons because of how long I knew it would take to reach the final table.
The difference in skill levels can be attributed more to the end result of a hand than people saying they were lucky or unlucky. Going back to the beginning of the hand or where the money went in is where the difference in skill can be defined, either having more or the lack of skill than your opponents. The variance of skill I believe is a fairer comparison than being lucky or unlucky to explain results of a hand. Looking at the end result is easier to explain if a person can use being lucky or unlucky rather than seeing that a person of lesser skill contributed to the end result that a person of more skill allowed themselves to be in a situation that the end result could actually be a variance of skill?
The cards are the cards and the %’s are the %’s when and where(pre or post) all the money goes in, visual results from this now is explained with luck or the lack of it as the reason? The skillful person does not mind being sucked out on this is part of knowing you are ahead or have the other person crushed, this comes from trusting your reads properly for a long period of time, this is the small skill edge; mentally they just have to accept the consequences of their actions, results good or bad. Surrendering my skill to someone that is less skillful is a mental leak if I allow myself to play their game, repeating this because of what I hold is a fundamental mistake against the less skillful person.
In conclusion, I believe it is a variance of skill that contributes to people attaching luck to results of a hand, cash session, and tournaments. This could also could be a reason to stop learning, not improving, and just accept the results; then explain that luck is the reason why they won or lost. This is why the more skillful person will adjust to the competition and skew the strategy just a little, or even simplify what they do in any one tournament for example. This will help to play in any tournament regardless of skill level of their opponents. I enjoy talking and giving my opinion about different topics, hope all is going well and enjoy the rest of your day.
I will however, use examples that I have just went through to cloud this topic further, not to give an empirical answer; just offer more information for thought. I recently posted about what I went through in my tournament about playing 12 hours to reach the final three people in a field that mostly had people that have read little or no poker books, were looking to get their premium hands all in pre or post, one pair, top pair on flop or any street, not observing board texture, not thinking about what an opponent might hold, when they got married to hands the last thing was to think about folding if they thought there was a chance of being beat.
This is just a partial observation of my opponents however; this is what had been done routinely, universally over and over for 12 hours. To understand and know where I stood in each situation I was in pre or post, knowing what my opponent had, did not have, or at the very least 1-3 exact hands. My approach was not to run a race but extract chips or save chips while either ending or seeing the hand until river.
What I observed was differences of skill, a variance of play from very little skill that boarder on almost no skill, but rather my opponents wanting to see all five cards through aggression, the cards they held regardless of the situation, the people involved in the hand. My approach was to limit the times I chose to run a race even if knew I was ahead. The option to fold rather than letting the cards I held dictate the situation. I laid down many strong hands at different times, streets to avoid a situation against the wrong person or persons because of how long I knew it would take to reach the final table.
The difference in skill levels can be attributed more to the end result of a hand than people saying they were lucky or unlucky. Going back to the beginning of the hand or where the money went in is where the difference in skill can be defined, either having more or the lack of skill than your opponents. The variance of skill I believe is a fairer comparison than being lucky or unlucky to explain results of a hand. Looking at the end result is easier to explain if a person can use being lucky or unlucky rather than seeing that a person of lesser skill contributed to the end result that a person of more skill allowed themselves to be in a situation that the end result could actually be a variance of skill?
The cards are the cards and the %’s are the %’s when and where(pre or post) all the money goes in, visual results from this now is explained with luck or the lack of it as the reason? The skillful person does not mind being sucked out on this is part of knowing you are ahead or have the other person crushed, this comes from trusting your reads properly for a long period of time, this is the small skill edge; mentally they just have to accept the consequences of their actions, results good or bad. Surrendering my skill to someone that is less skillful is a mental leak if I allow myself to play their game, repeating this because of what I hold is a fundamental mistake against the less skillful person.
In conclusion, I believe it is a variance of skill that contributes to people attaching luck to results of a hand, cash session, and tournaments. This could also could be a reason to stop learning, not improving, and just accept the results; then explain that luck is the reason why they won or lost. This is why the more skillful person will adjust to the competition and skew the strategy just a little, or even simplify what they do in any one tournament for example. This will help to play in any tournament regardless of skill level of their opponents. I enjoy talking and giving my opinion about different topics, hope all is going well and enjoy the rest of your day.
Last edited:
westside1950
Rock Star
Silver Level
Well of course it is a skill game, if not - how could so many people make a standard profit by playing it and do it for living?
A luck is just a small factor whose influence can be reduced by large game sample and constant playing.
PS. It's not even luck, it's statistics.
AA doesnt win 100% of times, only 80% - so your aces must get cracked over time
A luck is just a small factor whose influence can be reduced by large game sample and constant playing.
PS. It's not even luck, it's statistics.
AA doesnt win 100% of times, only 80% - so your aces must get cracked over time
alfiyka
Legend
Silver Level
B
braveboat
Rock Star
Silver Level
Poker is a game of chance (random cards dealt to players) which is played and won through the particular skill of the individual players.
It's gambling (risking your money to win their money), but it's not all chance like the lottery is. The player has significant influence over the end result.
It's gambling (risking your money to win their money), but it's not all chance like the lottery is. The player has significant influence over the end result.
STL FAN
Rock Star
Silver Level
Your topic is poker-game of chance, but your post started off with poker-is a gamble? The cards are dealt randomly so, this is part of the game of chance as your original topic, but the gamble has many variables. People play a game of chance and gamble that mirrors each other as an example, why? Opponents I play against believe they will take a chance with the two cards they are holding pre flop and gamble with all the money in the middle, with other opponents, with all five cards guaranteed to be seen.
The variance of skill between each opponent is negated because of how they are putting their money in the middle in pre flop. The difference of skill that could be used as an advantage if they were to play their hands differently is now gone. Now it comes down the % that is attached to the hands, to hold up in this hand if ahead, and the % to come from behind. The true odds of the two cards they see, that they hold, and the 50 unseen cards before the flop, then flop, turn, and river.
I prefer not to take this gamble but unfortunately no limit is what I play and this is part of the game. Acceptance of this, acceptance of the results keeps the emotion from winning and losing in check. However, I enjoy playing post flop as much as possible. This is where the evaluation of each opponent and how to approach them in a hand. This is where the difference of skill is evaluated. Then when deciding to play pre-flop with all the money in the middle, now I have a better definition of my opponent, and where their skill level is at, then I can adjust to what I put them on pre-flop, this helps with a better edge of gambling from my original two paragraphs because of the extra information. This helps with gathering as much proper information before attempting to gamble pre-flop.
Now post flop comes down how to tell a story, how to read a story, and what level is my opponents play? How do I tell them the right story? Will my story make sense to them? Will their level of play allow them to believe my story? Can I read their story? Does their story make sense? Does my level of play allow me to believe their story? Now a person can now gain an edge that decreases the gamble to the person who has more skill in how they play, understand, and know about their opponents. Now, does my opponent know I know this about them? Does my opponent think about me in the same way or do they have the ability to think above my level of play? Because of the variance of the game itself, the skill, the short term results, it is hard to give an empirical right or wrong, skill vs. skill in a clear answer?
The best explanation of this, if I know fourth grade math and my opponent knows only first grade math. I have to communicate with them using first grade math. Anything above this would only confuse my opponent. It comes down too, can I speak the language of my opponent properly, consistently, to convince them to do what I am relaying through my play, bets, folding, raising etc… in a random hand or for future play?
In conclusion, empirical information for your post will be hard to define or suggest information based on what we know. Because this is an opinion topic of discussion more than an empirical study. Just like my opinion about your questions from your post, each person can only relay what they know based on their own individual abilities, understanding, and knowing. Then to be analyzed by the author of the post or members reading any post; people then will be influenced by their own variance of skill, understanding, knowing; this will influence their reaction to each person who submits a response or the post they submit themselves, this will only allow for an opinion not true right or wrong? However, I am glad to meet you and I believe discussing, giving back, and people’s opinions will be interesting because of your choice of topic of discussion. Hope all is going well and have a great day.
alfiyka
Legend
Silver Level
the question was raised--gambling? another issue is the poker as a game of professionals. In this case, a combination of wits, strategy, ability to seize opportunities allow some people consider poker a profession.
G
grilo bull
Rising Star
Bronze Level
the bet is mandatory in the blinds, but the player can make the game not only gambling, but a psychological method that makes the opponent fear your moves, so it is not a "bet", but rather a strategy to make money in the long run
_xrolex_90
Visionary
Silver Level
10 minutes ago my pocket kings were beaten by A5o and I lost the tournament before bubble,so once again I convinced that luck plays a big role.Much also depends on the fish that made the call with trash and interrupt you
bossbran
Rock Star
Silver Level
Its a game of skills... sometimes we get lucky in times of we only have very lowstacks in early stage because of badbeat and all your opponents have 20x or 30x bigger chips then we have no choice but to all in and we win.. thats the time to think again of better strategy to win again or to gather more chips..
We have to take more careful because mostly in tournaments even we have pair of acesnin early stage and you have 6 players who will call your all in and your chances of winning is 50 50..
We have to take more careful because mostly in tournaments even we have pair of acesnin early stage and you have 6 players who will call your all in and your chances of winning is 50 50..
rawbad
Legend
Platinum Level
I have tested this theory in freerolls playing extremely loose and going by gut did allrightnbut didn't last to long. Playing with skill I seemed to last longer but did bust when someone called on stupid hand which was a lucky call a hand you would never call and he won so I say 50% luck if you call hands on gut or luck.
S
sup3rh0t
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Skill is the thing that makes you a winning poker player. More experience = better skills. But you absolutely need luck too, especially in tournaments - Sometimes there's no matter how good player you are or that you played your hand the right way, you just got beaten by a donkey lucky fish
alfiyka
Legend
Silver Level
poker is played by many. Most of them wins by luck--for this part of the poker players replaces the lottery. Only a smaller part of people will benefit at the expense of skill--they are professionals. Who are the professionals in poker? I think that this category of people has the following advantages-- the mind with logical thinking,with a large reserve of patience,consistency and even cunning. And cunning can be only a smart person.