in gambling the amount you make is according to your ability. not just playing skill. your ability to think properly as in when to quit, where to play and what times, how to make good money decisions, what players to attack, seats at the table, tilt,etc.

few do it right as they have an excuse for each reason. and not making the best simple decisions leads and points to the likelihood of making poor decisions in pots.

What Ray is saying is that driving from Seattle to either Tulalip or Muck during rush hour is a poor decision, regardless of how good you may play once you get there.

that part is absolutely true. and one good reason to be a poker player is that you dont have to drive anywhere during rush hours.

Anybody off hand know what the buy-in range is for the 5-5 PL(Big)O game at the Muck? Doesn't say on Bravo but it appears to go fairly often.

$500 min no max from what i can tell

I cannot answer your buy-in question, as I don't play the game, but at least when I am there (9pm-3am a few nights a week) I don't see the game running that often.

Two tables of 5/5 PLO were running Saturday night. Both were full until about 1-2am ish. I think the 5/5 has replaced the 15/30.

Buyin is $500, no max.

5/5 PL 5 Card O8 uncapped replacing a 15/30 L O8 sounds like a goldmine.

Until the fish go broke. You can skin a sheep...you know the rest.

Oh ya. Cannot tell you the number of times I have had a good night but decide to play on even though I am dog tired. And then loose lots o chips.

My focus is on fun not making good bankroll decisions. The fun part leaves pretty quickly when I donk away chips late at night.

I know the rest.... you know the rest... I'm not sure the Muckleshoot thinks about this issue as much as they should.

Muck players are some of the best in the region, so I was told.

So I stay away from those games.

Kind of weird that best players like to play with other best players.

Mason Malmuth Was Right

Limit involves sheering the sheep, while no-limit means slaughtering lambs.

There's only so many places you can play 3/5 though.

I would agree the Muck has the strongest group of regs in the region. That being said its all relative so take it w a grain of salt. As far as why people would choose to play there the #1 thing I personally look for in a game is the amount of "action", and the Muck usually has it. So I believe there's your answer.

Well, my thought is that if there are so many strong sharks in a pool, that pool would have to be full of fish in order to feed these sharks.

It would seem to make sense that the game goes from great to bad rather quickly, because great players just keep taking money out of pool rather than keeping it in rotation amongst bad players.

Some may argue that is what happened to the 3/5 game at Tulalip. Strong players came in and removed money from the pool, pool is dried.

When at the Tulalip, I was almost exclusively a 3/5 player for many years running. Some 4 years ago - I switched primarily to 1/3. The competition is less stiff so it is easier for me to muddle along as a recreational player.

My 3/5 hourly rate at Muckleshoot is 2.2 times higher than my 3/5 hourly at Tulalip.
2015 stats - close to 800 hours logged.

IMO, few things would have to be true:

1. Player pool in Muck is so much bigger than Tulalip that it can sustain higher overall WR for extended period of time. Kind of like it's easier to win more in Vegas than Seattle.

2. There aren't that many great players in Muck and that the pool is not really shrinking, just a lot of money being swapped.

3. There are some really bad whales with deep pockets who enjoy losing on regular basis.

Doyle Brunson claims poker is 100% skill and 100% luck. I agree with Doyle.
After a university study of poker outcomes, the German Professor Meyers concluded “poker players overestimate the skill factor in their play”. I also agree with the Herr Doctor Meyers.

Bottom line is earnings over time. This is the only proof point that counts regarding claims of skill. No bluffing here.

To those of you who make bank playing poker - you have my respect.
As someone who loves poker tournaments, even more than cash games, this article is sobering about the difficulty of making a living in Vegas playing tournaments.

Why You'll Never Make A Living Playing Live Poker Tournaments

Although I agree the skill factor is overestimated by players, this article is based on a ridiculous "study" that can't be taken seriously. A 60 hand sample is nothing to draw significant results from and their only classification of player strength is people who were "good" or "bad"

RayZee previous post was insightful and dead-on...

Poker success is dependent "according to your ability. not just playing skill." With ability to include things like self-discipline and decision-making and common sense.

I didn't dig into the methodology, but they're clearly not assessing results after a 60 hand sample, which would be beyond stupid. They're somehow rating people's play according to duplicate poker on certain types of hands.

That said I have a hard time thinking there's statistical power there (even a constructed sample of 60 hands is going to have maybe 25 winners, 25 losers, 10 roughly break-even--are they saying the good players won less on almost every single one of the 25 winners?).

And the conclusion that winning less from your winners and losing less from your losers makes it less skill than was thought--that seems a complete non sequitur. People who play every hand either have a big winning night or a big losing night, relative to people who play well.

But again, I didn't read the paper or even the abstract. Anyone?

Abstract