i guess replying to this thread has really cost me :/ Today I'm running $7 below EV at nl2 so far is that even possible 
Notifications
Clear all
General Poker Discussion
131
Posts
60
Users
0
Reactions
20.6 K
Views
Originally posted by tommygecko
i guess replying to this thread has really cost me :/ Today I'm running $7 below EV at nl2 so far is that even possibleVery possible. In a two day downswing at NL5 about a week ago I went $70 below EV. I am sure there are even a few super unlucky people who have at times gone 50+BI below EV.
lol of course it is, but honsestly in terms of comparing this game to the game of like Lotto or any other lottery its a f''''ng game of skill more than any kind of luck in any kind of a game ever
Originally posted by metza
Originally posted by tommygecko
i guess replying to this thread has really cost me :/ Today I'm running $7 below EV at nl2 so far is that even possibleVery possible. In a two day downswing at NL5 about a week ago I went $70 below EV. I am sure there are even a few super unlucky people who have at times gone 50+BI below EV.
glad to know that I've yet to see the worst of downswings. 50BI is sick
Originally posted by mineriva
Originally posted by NatRPheM
Probably what he meant by that is that not everything go as you originally plan but sometimes you may at "random" spot situations that you haven't thought of before. Now regardless how you see it, that is not luck, that is a skill whether you are aware that you have it or not. There is no luck in chess except for the fact people make mistakes... but can hardly be called luck..it's not chance, it's a human error or lack of capability what we in poker call having an edge. The edge might increase/decrease depending on your opponents mental and emotional stability.Poker clearly has a luck factor(randomness/chance) but when it comes down to it, it's a game of who has the most knowledge on the game and the ability of understanding how other people play.
Of course ALL of this depends what YOU put into the word luck, it varies from person to person.
I am sorry but I do not have the ability to read his mind so all I have is his words and he said there is an element of luck so I have to accept that there is. Therefore it is not 100% skill.
Blindly believing someone is one of the key reasons the world looks like it does today. I would rather have a free mind than think that people that has accomplished stuff automatically is correct, but to each his own. Personally I find what you say ignorant, but it makes me understand how things can be the way they are. Start questioning everything and you will find out the people you believe in are not gods, but makes just the same mistakes everybody else does, they are just better to cover it up.
Your statement is not fact.
Originally posted by w34z3l
"You can bluff in chess." Ahahahahahahahahaha! Are you crazy? Chess is 100% skill, there's no bluffing. The better player will win.
If spending too long playing chess means I'm crazy, then yes, I'm crazy.
But I guarantee you can bluff in chess.
It works like this. Player A offers a sacrifice/trade or employs some other tactic which implies something to player B. ---> If player B accepts the trade/sacrifice it will confer a positional advantage or outright victory to player A.
In reality this might not be the case. However player B "believes" player A, trusting in his calculation that the trade/sacrifice/tactic will confer a positional advantage. He then avoids the trade/sacrifice/tactic which would in fact have been good for him. He's just been bluffed.
Grandmaster Mikhail Tal was famous for these type of plays. His relentless attacking style often contained theoretical holes, yet the psychological pressure he exerted on his opponents sometimes caused them to overlook obvious and simple refutations.
Would this work vs a computer? Probably not. But there are types of anti-computer strategy you can use such as capitalizing on the "horizon effect". Kasparov would have been very familiar with this in his matchup vs Deep Blue, mentioned earlier in the thread.
Originally posted by NatRPheM
Blindly believing someone is one of the key reasons the world looks like it does today. I would rather have a free mind than think that people that has accomplished stuff automatically is correct, but to each his own. Personally I find what you say ignorant, but it makes me understand how things can be the way they are. Start questioning everything and you will find out the people you believe in are not gods, but makes just the same mistakes everybody else does, they are just better to cover it up.
Your statement is not fact.
If you are going to imply you understand chess better than Kasparov I don't think there is much anyone here on this forum can do to help you.
Although, to be honest, we don't really need Gary Kasparov to tell us there is luck in chess. Anyone who has studied the game for a period of time can tell you luck plays a role. Is it the predominant factor in the game? No. Does it play a bigger role than in poker? No. But it's there, guaranteed.
my theory is that wherever there is some human factor there is luck involved. 
and now, in my not-so-humble opinion, the fact that there is luck in human chess is out of the question ♦
let's go over some of the things that happen:
- opponent may be tired or moody or whatever
- opponent may walk into some random home analysis which will most likely result in some positional advantage and a ton of extra minutes on the clock for you
- opponent may just miss a critical strong move which he would see most of the time (this happens almost all the time to everyone)
- horrible blunders (like hanging a piece for nothing) are also a product of variance 
of course it's nothing like poker and something like a +300 rating edge can actually win nearly every game, but some human variance is always there
now when computers play, we take these "human things" out of the equation.
still there is a little bit of randomness in opening books and (for some engines) move selection. but i guess that "soon enough" the strongest computers will already manage to never lose so that won't matter
Originally posted by w34z3l
Originally posted by NatRPheM
Blindly believing someone is one of the key reasons the world looks like it does today. I would rather have a free mind than think that people that has accomplished stuff automatically is correct, but to each his own. Personally I find what you say ignorant, but it makes me understand how things can be the way they are. Start questioning everything and you will find out the people you believe in are not gods, but makes just the same mistakes everybody else does, they are just better to cover it up.
Your statement is not fact.
If you are going to imply you understand chess better than Kasparov I don't think there is much anyone here on this forum can do to help you.
Although, to be honest, we don't really need Gary Kasparov to tell us there is luck in chess. Anyone who has studied the game for a period of time can tell you luck plays a role. Is it the predominant factor in the game? No. Does it play a bigger role than in poker? No. But it's there, guaranteed.
+1
Skill is to put your chips in the middle when your ahead, luck is to see it through, keep doing that and over time your a winner, not a gambler
Originally posted by miholc
... if it is a gambler who plays it.
Exactly, poker certainly can be used as a medium for gambling.
Actually poker IS gambling WITHOUT bankroll management.
Everyone else offer good explanations for example ''put your chips in ahead' or '' ability to deal with downswings''.
At the end of the day someone who regularly plays, without 100 buy-ins for their level, is a gambler.
So suck it up, drop down to where you are properly rolled and grind it out.
(I'm only saying this because i blew half my roll moving up stakes yesterday
. Lesson learned until next time ♠_biggrin: )
Originally posted by dogma18
At the end of the day someone who regularly plays, without 100 buy-ins for their level, is a gambler.
It really depends what risk-of-ruin you find acceptable. There will always be a chance of going broke however many buy-ins you have. Different people have different tolerance levels for risk of ruin.
A recreational player who has 10 buyins in their bankroll, expects to have an edge over the field, and can easily replace their bankroll, need not necessarily consider themselves as "gambling".
Someone who cashes in a freeroll and proceeds to take a 1 buy-in shot at the lowest cash-game stakes need not necessarily consider themselves "gambling".
On the other hand someone with 250bi who just shoves all-in every hand....it doesn't matter how well they are rolled, they are gambling.
So long as you can reasonably expect your plays to have a positive expectation, and the overwhelming likelihood is that you will be able to continue your poker career the following day, (without debt or serious financial difficulty) it should be considered investing rather than gambling.
Originally posted by w34z3l
Originally posted by NatRPheM
Blindly believing someone is one of the key reasons the world looks like it does today. I would rather have a free mind than think that people that has accomplished stuff automatically is correct, but to each his own. Personally I find what you say ignorant, but it makes me understand how things can be the way they are. Start questioning everything and you will find out the people you believe in are not gods, but makes just the same mistakes everybody else does, they are just better to cover it up.
Your statement is not fact.
If you are going to imply you understand chess better than Kasparov I don't think there is much anyone here on this forum can do to help you.
Although, to be honest, we don't really need Gary Kasparov to tell us there is luck in chess. Anyone who has studied the game for a period of time can tell you luck plays a role. Is it the predominant factor in the game? No. Does it play a bigger role than in poker? No. But it's there, guaranteed.
lol, k. What I said didn't really have to do with chess at all, glad you got the point.
Originally posted by dogma18
Actually poker IS gambling WITHOUT bankroll management.Everyone else offer good explanations for example ''put your chips in ahead' or '' ability to deal with downswings''.
At the end of the day someone who regularly plays, without 100 buy-ins for their level, is a gambler.
So suck it up, drop down to where you are properly rolled and grind it out.
(I'm only saying this because i blew half my roll moving up stakes yesterday
. Lesson learned until next time ♠_biggrin: )
Roullete wouldn't be gamble too if I had infinity cash... The more cash you have the less chance to have 0. Although, there always will be a chance to lose everything even if youre good at poker
Originally posted by fenelonpoker
Originally posted by Rihard4a
Originally posted by fenelonpoker
chess is a game of skill. just saying that poker is does not prove it.
same of saying if you play a million hands of baccarat you are a gambler,but if you play a million hands of poker you are just putting volume??
I would like to see proof,pleaseMate, Phil Hellmuth has 13 bracelets. Pretty lucky gambler huh...
:facepalm:
he plays virtually every tournament,it is only natural he will win more than you and me(wich is why that argument people use "oh you always see the same people at the final table" is bogus too. they are just the only people playing every single tournament,Hellmuth,Ivey,Matusow,etc are also notorious gamblers as well
That's a rather stupid argument, considering like 600 people play tournaments and not the 20 pros that win a lot...
Getting further and further off topic... But (in relation to chess):
I don't think it follows from the fact that you can "bluff" in chess (which I accept) that this means there is a luck element.
Moreover, just because a player might accidentally chose the winning line (from a choice of equally tempting lines) this doesn't infer the existence of luck.
The better the chess player, the more often he choses the optimal line.
Just because a thing is outside my control, doesn't automatically make it a matter of luck or chance. If my opponent normally plays 1.d4 and I've prepared a nice line in the kings Indian, its not bad 'luck' if he decides to play e4 for a change.
Semantics is key. When I say "I'm so unlucky, it started to rain just as I left the house", I'm not really meaning to say that the commencement of the rain is a matter of chance.
Whether poker is gambling or not depends on who is playing the game.
Poker is not gambling if you play with the intent of winning in the long-term through making correct (EV+ decisions).
However, if you play irrationally and intentionally play it AS A gambling game - then yes it can be considered gambling.