Shark scope Graphs - Page 2 - Poker Players Alliance

Running Uphill · 10-05-2011, 05:51 PM

I know the post got somewhat ramblish towards the end

Running Uphill · 10-06-2011, 05:32 PM

So to sum it up:

Take the luck part of the game out (the actual community) do an analysis of each aspect of the game. Obv there will be trends that to skilled players do that unskilled don't same goes for the opposite.

If there is a direct correlation between player action and results (winning/losing) then that proves that a game, over time, is directly effected by the decisions of the player rather than the game itself dictating who wins and loses aka Lady Luck

Achilles2k · 10-11-2011, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mp2012

Yea but I mean its so easy to prove. Just take any winning poker player. And document as he plays cash poker in a casino, for the same stakes, 40 hours a week for 1 month. Them take a random person, and document his play in exactly the same fashion.

The random player will 95% of the time be big loser and the pro will 95% of the time be big winner. Wouldn't this prove that skill is a clearly dominant factor in the game. Something like 80% skill 20% luck i think sounds fair.

Anyway, some people are just too narrow-minded to believe poker is a game of skill no matter how much proof you throw in their face. Just like some people think they are really good/winning slot machine players.

I am a perfect example. I'm only 24 and I have been playing poker for a living for 2 years now, unlike 95% of my friends of the same age (who still live with their parents and all have minimum wage jobs), and I have my own apartment, a nice one, I always wear nice/new clothes, I always have money, and I drive a Lexus.

Seeing as I don't have a job, you would think that my friends would realize after 2 years that I am making money consistently playing poker, but no, they really all think that I am a degenerate gambler who goes to the casino and loses all his money...

The fact is though, even these winning top poker players go through times where they lose/break even over long stretches.

Unfortunately it shows there is also luck involved and more so than skill at times.

TheJacob · 10-11-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles2k

The fact is though, even these winning top poker players go through times where they lose/break even over long stretches.

Unfortunately it shows there is also luck involved and more so than skill at times.

I don't buy it. If you are trying to make an argument in court say whatever you have to prove poker is a game of skill, but understand those arguments are meaningless and designed around arbitrary antiquated laws.

Skill is proven over exhaustive samples. Do the cards largely predetermine the outcome? Sure. Arguing that even skilled players can be negatively effected by bad luck is like arguing football isn't a game of skill because the patriots quarterback could be struck by lightning moments before every single play of every game.

A zero sum game where skill determines the winner over the long run is a game of skill. The stigma associated with poker is the only reason it is considered a game of "chance".

maulaga58 · 10-26-2011, 04:16 PM

I win 75 percent of the time I play. Yet a few amateurs I play with claim im just really lucky and am a horrible player. The good players I play with know im good. Problem is people who dont play semiregularly dont understand the intricicies and complexities of the game.

OMGitsMILEY · 10-31-2011, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maulaga58

I win 75 percent of the time I play. Yet a few amateurs I play with claim im just really lucky and am a horrible player. The good players I play with know im good. Problem is people who dont play semiregularly dont understand the intricicies and complexities of the game.

75%? ship the mils

fibe9 · 10-31-2011, 02:56 PM

When people tell me: "Poker is gambling. You put the chips in the middle and pray that you win. Dude, the best situation preflop (excluding like AA vs A7o) is pretty much 80/20", I simply reply: "You are right". And they are. When you ship all your chips in preflop that statement holds true. But if I were to offer a person a bet for, say, 1% of their net worth with the stipulations being that they will win 70% of the time, will they take it? Everybody I asked will say yes. And that's essentially what the game of poker is about, isn't it? A skilled player will consistently put himself in a position where he puts all his chips in as a favorite. It's a calculated risk for a small portion of their net worth. There are bad players and of course there are those who risk most, if not all, of their money with varying success. But in my opinion this decision should be solely up to them.

Variance can be expressed mathematically - you can be a losing player over as big of a sample as 5000 tournaments and yet still be a winning player overall. It should be so easy to demonstrate that for sample sizes that exclude the effect of variance, the better player will always come out on top. I just don't understand how anyone can still argue against this.

**ChicagoRy** · 10-31-2011, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fibe9

When people tell me: "Poker is gambling. You put the chips in the middle and pray that you win. Dude, the best situation preflop (excluding like AA vs A7o) is pretty much 80/20", I simply reply: "You are right". And they are. When you ship all your chips in preflop that statement holds true. But if I were to offer a person a bet for, say, 1% of their net worth with the stipulations being that they will win 70% of the time, will they take it? Everybody I asked will say yes. And that's essentially what the game of poker is about, isn't it? A skilled player will consistently put himself in a position where he puts all his chips in as a favorite. It's a calculated risk for a small portion of their net worth. There are bad players and of course there are those who risk most, if not all, of their money with varying success. But in my opinion this decision should be solely up to them.

Variance can be expressed mathematically - you can be a losing player over as big of a sample as 5000 tournaments and yet still be a winning player overall. It should be so easy to demonstrate that for sample sizes that exclude the effect of variance, the better player will always come out on top. I just don't understand how anyone can still argue against this.

Nice post.

TeflonDawg · 10-31-2011, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fibe9

When people tell me: "Poker is gambling. You put the chips in the middle and pray that you win. Dude, the best situation preflop (excluding like AA vs A7o) is pretty much 80/20", I simply reply: "You are right". And they are. When you ship all your chips in preflop that statement holds true. But if I were to offer a person a bet for, say, 1% of their net worth with the stipulations being that they will win 70% of the time, will they take it? Everybody I asked will say yes. And that's essentially what the game of poker is about, isn't it? A skilled player will consistently put himself in a position where he puts all his chips in as a favorite. It's a calculated risk for a small portion of their net worth. There are bad players and of course there are those who risk most, if not all, of their money with varying success. But in my opinion this decision should be solely up to them.

Variance can be expressed mathematically - you can be a losing player over as big of a sample as 5000 tournaments and yet still be a winning player overall. It should be so easy to demonstrate that for sample sizes that exclude the effect of variance, the better player will always come out on top. I just don't understand how anyone can still argue against this.

Because the people who make the rules either don't know poker or don't care?

It also doesn't help that the legal definition of a skill game or a game of chance tends to be an arbitrary one that courts have to rule upon in order to find out that it's not only arbitrary, but nonsensical in its purpose.