The luck vs skill argument

[xdmanx007]

OK Lets see if I can bring ya round to my way of thinkin... Raymer doesn't "draw" as much as you think. He has chosen to play hands where he is either 50/50 or a slight favorite. MOST experienced gamblers don't take a 50/50 proposition because they believe it to be a waste of time not a BAD bet just not worth their time. It appears Raymer has chosen to play those hands because when he wins those bets he will be way ahead in the number bullets he has and bulling your way to headsup is the EASIEST way to get there. There is a very common stratey out there for internet tournament players that basically says if I am not in a dominant chip position by the first or second break I will sit out and move on to the next tournament. These players make money because they understand that the object of a MTT is to WIN grinding out a minimal payout is a waste of time. Raymer figured out that in order to WIN a HUGE tournament you either need a late rush or a HUGE chip stack, in order to get that stack you will HAVE to win a few races or coin flips along the way unless of course you are playing against maniacs.

 

[poettic1]

ok i get it mostly it just. seems like a washy way to play hand by hand but in the long run you need chips, so instead of picking spots and explioting advantages he plays high risk high reward for the long haul because its whats right to do when you have a big stack, so why not make it the tactic from jump. the problem i really have with this is you have to win probably twenty times your bye-in to start being a contestant, so that is 50% over twenty hands, ok maybe not quite that. but lets say you have 4X the chip stack of most people after the fifth or sixth double up so lets say you only need 5 or 6 more. i have fliped a coin for an hour and the most heads i can get in a row is four. the odds of his style working are 50% at a factor of 10 or just under 0.26% then you add in the mass amounts of people. it is very hard to calculate.

i will how ever take some of the disses to his game away, it makes i little more sense now. i just dont personally have the grapes to put myself in those situations.i'm a short hand player first and i pride mysef on making the odds on plays as best i can. but i retrospect maybe that is why i have a hard time winning big tourneys. cashing isn't hard but victories are.

i have a little bank saved up and will set aside some money for a rainy day when i have 8 hours to play, ill give this strategy a try and give my opinion then.

 

[diabloblanco]

I give up.

Like I said, Raymer had the chips to make some of those calls and almost all those instances. The edge may have been very small, but statistically he was right on the money to make those calls being 55/45 or 51/49 in a lot of cases. Take 20$ and go to Wal-Mart and buy the 2004 wsop on DVD. Watch the final table with the commentary by Raymer. I gaurantee you as a player you will have a brand new respect for his game.

Also, to add to one of my other points, ramer was a high-limit player (at Foxwoods I believe) long before the 2004 ME. However, months leading up to the ME were bad for his bankroll as there were some serious medical issues with his wife, I believe, and he used a large portion of it to build a new home. He wasn't at a loss for stakes though and remained at those levels after a brief run at 30/60 (if I remember corectly). Anyway, my point is, Raymer is a very solid player who is well suited to tournaments like the ME. I would lay odds that he does well in more tournaments before you're through hearing about him. And even if you don't, he will continue playing high-limit poker and winning.

 

[StackThemUp]

Hi,
As we've digressed to talking about Raymer,i thought i'd ask something. Wasn't Raymer staked to play in the ME? I heard that he was staked and only got something like $1mill for his work instead of the $5mill. But i was also under the assumption he won his seat on stars? You invariably need to win a lot of coin flips to win such events,its part and parcel of the game,i'd like to someone to show me a winner of ME who didn't win a lot of coin flips throughout the tournament,i think it only appears he won a lot because most were on TV but he had to get that stack somehow and obviously it was through excellent play and strategy when the cameras weren't on him all the time. I respect him but i wouldn't class him as one of the best winners of all time although its only a yr and bit since he won.

 

[diabloblanco]

I am pretty sure investors in his cash game play had pieces of his action in all his games and the ME happened to fall under that umbrella. He did bank considerably more than $1M though. I can look it up, but off the top of my head, he had to pay 3/4 of a Million to someone, and another million to another, then taxes. All said and done, I believe he brought home well over $2M, close to 3. I may be slightly off on those numbers and I'm looking for the exacts (or as close as is published) right now.

 

[StackThemUp]

I was looking into all this staking business and realised its a massive side action for top professionals. Most pros from what i've read stake new and exciting talent and then take a good % of their winnings,i believe hellmuth's house is bought from staking a friend in the 98? WSOP,i'll have a look in my book where he mentions it.

I'm looking at touring the states starting in Feb/Mar and staying there until the WSOP and playing a few events. I'm currently trying to win my seat to foxwoods in November.

 

[xdmanx007]

I have been wondering about Raymer's split as well cause I thought he got his seat last year through pokerstars and have been wondering for quite sometime if they get a cut of your winnings.

 

[diabloblanco]

They don't get a cut, but Raymer had backers and had to pay out a percentage of himself to interested parties after his win. He was staked to play 400/800 mixed games shortly after he bought his house and paid medical bills for his wife. He was down to like 20 grand for a working bankroll and it wasn't sufficient to play at a level he could consistantly beat so he got backers and had a roll to work with then and reentered the 400/800 mixed. I will look all this shit up and link to it here if you want.

 

[dc7214]

the never ending Luck versus Skill debate

"Luck" ... "Skill" ... how can you truely determine? Who's fault is it when you play Aces to perfection and someone hits a set? Can't do anything about it but just move on. I find one of the most important attributes to be patience.

Let me know what y'all think.

-Daniel

 

[diabloblanco]

You're right about patience. But the luck vs. skill discussion is still a valid one. True enough luck is a part of the game, however, skill is what keeps you from going broke when your Aces don't hold up. It is a skill set that allows a good player to maximize their profit when they have the best or better hand or when bluffing and skill that also minimizes losses when you get outdrawn. In the short term luck can play quite a large role, but the larger your sample becomes, the rule of large numbers begins to take over and the cards begin to break even. When a player can be profitable over this long term sample is the skill side of poker being observed.

 

[poettic1]

i actually own the wsop 2004 and have never questioned his hsort game skill. i like the style in short game you have to play simular to win, i just dont think that style is apropriate for the long haul. that said i can't fathem playing that aggresive that long.

from what i know taxes on all 100k and over winnnings comes to 38% so five became three his percent to the twom guye was 1 mill and 750k so raymer prolly took home 1.2 but thats great money when you know what to do with it and he did.

again he isn't a bad short game player i just dont see the consistancy of playing that way over the coarse of a tourney. maybe thats why i can't beat the larger tourneys but thats me. i'd play those hands from the big stack the exact same way, id get there a little more reliably. im more dan harrington,ill expliot angles raymer style is what i eat up early and what keeps me in the game late.

 

[TheBigBoss]

What can I say. In the last 5 days, from my side I will put me money on the 90%luck - 10%skill, the reason is very simple. I will explain.
Even if I have a wining hand from the flop, in the river the situation change. I have been eliminate with such rivers for past 20 on-line turnaments and 1 LIVE tournament.

So what help me the skill that I have after 4 years of playing, nothing.

But we must not forget poker is a luck game.

The skill helps a lot if you are dealing with begginers, but for advance and pro players only the luck may help you

 

[poettic1]

nah you got it all wrong, hand by hand luck is significant but over a haul skill reins. if it was only luck then it would be impossible to make money in. it's how you play the situations at hand, learn to fold when you have the best hand but get priced out. learn what to do in situations where your behind but are commited. all ins are 5 cards not three so the river doesn't even matter.