There is not a single part of the game of chess that is left to luck. No cards, no dice, and everyone gets the same number of pieces, in the same places, to start. Except for who gets to make the first move, everything else is equal, optional and skill based. I dont disagree with how you campare thinking ahead and knowing how certain plays will end up several moves later, but other than that I dont think it compares to Poker. Especially not in the luck vs skill argument.

Why bother? :S

i hope u get hit by a 60 buy in downswing. ur just a lucky ***** ***** ** ****

Winner here imho.

This exert is absolute gold.

"In reality, as we all know, the least profitable starting hand is 72, and the most profitable hand is pocket aces. In reciprocality, the least profitable hand is also 72, but not because 72 is the worst hand. 72 is the least profitable hand because it is the most similarly played hand.

So what is the most profitable hand, reciprocally speaking? Is it pocket aces? Nope. The hand that has the highest reciprocal potential must be a hand that gets played lots of different ways. It's going to be somewhere between the hands that are rarely folded, and the hands that are rarely played. Aces are almost never folded before the flop, so we know they cannot be the most profitable hand. It seems most improbable that the most profitable hand would be exactly the same hand for everyone through all time and space, which means the answer will vary from player to player. And that means that any answer we produce is just an educated guess anyway. So what the heck. I'll go first.

The hold'em hand I think I've made the most reciprocal profit on over the years is queen-ten. That's the hand I think I have played most differently from my opponents most often"

Very nice post, I have 1 person in mind so far, Also could someone list Some of the things that are involved in poker. 1-10 or however many you can think of example: postion, betting, odds, ect.

Poker is: "a game of expectation, which is the sum of the probabilities of all possible outcomes multiplied by the amount of money won/lost on each of the outcomes. In poker players can control the amount of money that goes into the pot and hence with accurate estimation of the probabilities the expectation can be controlled to be positive"

I thought this was pretty succinct so I stole it from a previous poster...

you don't have to teach them how to play poker...you just have to convince them that everyones luck is the same and its your choices that matter. i feel like thats much simpler conceptually than a bunch of poker jargon and math that people dont understand.

Poker in the simplest form is a game of luck, dont believe me? lay out 9 different starting hands and try to determine which one will win, then deal out the flop turn a river, i almost guarantee you'll have picked the wrong one a moajority of the time. However this is not how the game is played and this is why luck is actually such a small factor in the overall outcome. In better terms, poker is a random series of probabilities, but it is also an art form. And as goes for art, those who are more experienced and precise in there actions will be better than the rest. Have you noticed if you sit down in a live seat the person next to you might comment, "Thats been the hot seat, or good luck that seat has been getting beat all day". However this is un true because each player plays differently and depending on the skill of the player and that players actions the outcome of every hand will be different. The so called hot seat, was most likely a highly skilled player who seemed hot because at showdowns he had the best hand (as most good players will) and therefor was assumed to be "lucky". There is even a website that disproves the whole luck factor, on this site multiple tables are in play and every coresponding seat at each table is dealth the same exact hands. It becomes very clear that some players can capitalize more off there good hands and lose less off the bad ones, it all depends on the style of play and the skill level of the player. It incorporates the ability to read players, make wise investments for each hand, and of course bluffing when you know your opponent is weak. Those players who cannot make observations regaurding the play of others will do significantly worse than someone who can and vice versa. So is the guy who hits the 2 outter on the river deep in a tourny just luckier than you, simply put no. unfortunantly for you he capitalized by catching a card with an extrmely low probability of appearing, will this happen every time? No. Will this happen a majority of the time? No. Why not? its because of probability, and this is one thing that is a constant throughout poker, and for those of us who chase draws we know that we have to be getting the correct odds in order to be successful in the long run, even if short term the probability is not in our favor. Simply put, pros are pros because they have elevated themselves above all other players time and time again, and whether by instict or other abilities those who are good win over and over again.

Over dinner one night my parents continued to bitch at me for "not having a job." An older member at the table looked at them puzzled and commented "Why have a job when you can run your own business." my parents had know idea what he was talking about so he related it to the stock market. "Those who are in tune with their surroundings and make wise investments will always make more than those who don't." and as the average player deals out as many bad beats as he takes, its only a matter of time before probability works for the more experienced and better player. Poker is a business and those who run their business smartly and efficiently will dominate the market.

Wow, very nice post Soccrmn7, whats Is your FT Account, I would like to send you some money For the time and effort you put into that.

*

*

Edit/MH: pokermastero = soccrmn7

hmmmmmm so is that how logic works

my full tilt account is: GrindinTilOnTop

Edited:
Thanks for the 50$, i hope you can relay what i said to your friends. Also just tell em there jelous because they suck
and maybe if they play 8 hours a day for a couple years they might make a few bucks.

TY for the help And YourWelcome Welll said post

Luck does not exist. It is a fallacy like magic or illusion.

The deck of 52 cards is a constrained set. There can be no other outcomes than what is built into randomization of the cards.

What we deem lucky or unlucky in our daily lives is nothing more than the randomized outcome of an equation with infinite variables. Humans operate on the illusion that we control our lives, decisions, or environment. Yet, unlike poker, there is a very large factor of things that we cannot control. We make important decisions in our lives every day based on incomplete information. Relationships, employment, education; nothing is ever what it seems once we have the benefit of hindsight.

What this means is that the outcomes in poker are limited and much easier to predict than the outcomes in our daily lives. Yet we still take risks and play the "game" of life daily.



"If it weren't for luck I would win all the time" - ha!


(p.s. Anyone feeling generous can send me tokens of appreciation to RandG on Pokerstars or FullTilt. Thanks.

nice. there you go. Winner

poop I might have been winnning before that .. my FT acct is kinda sucky lately. GJ anyway and GL explaining poker skill to your friends

Alli

Most everyone knows that playing blackjack is a losing proposition. So are any of the table games the Taj Mahal offers: craps, roulette, let it ride, etc. And most everyone who looks at the Taj, it's flashing lights, glittering chandeliers, lasers etc knows where it got the money for such opulence: it's gaming rooms. And that is why any educated reasonable citizen can see why you shouldn't gamble at blackjack, because eventually your money will go to purchasing and maintaining those glittery lights. The house always wins they say with good reason.

So then how come no one says Donald Trump is such a gambler when he opens the doors to the Taj Mahal in the morning? (Ok, it never closes... besides the point.) In theory Mr. Karas can show up at the black jack table, go on a heater and walk away after Donald Trump and the Taj Mahal are broke right? Right. So why hasn't this happened in all the history of modern casinos? And why is Mr. Trump a business man and Mr. Karas a gambler?

Donald Trump is not considered to be gambling because 1) he has a slight edge in the table games, 2) there are many many hands of black jack played, and 3) he has an unlimited bank vault to withstand the occasional hot streak of Mr. Karas and co. So over the long run Donald Trump will certainly prosper while Mr. Karas will go broke.

And so, as a poker player with proper discipline I can 1) get my money in ahead, 2) play a lot of hands, and 3) with proper bankroll management make sure I don't go broke. Together this equals sustained profits.

FTP handle is same as my 2+2 usr name.

Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker EVERY YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?

/FAIL

People can still get a bit baffled by comparing poker to casino games, they say things like 'It might not be against the house, but it's still gambling...gambling is for mugs...you will always lose eventually...'

Most non-gamblers understand casinos always win in the long run, but not really how. They think it's cos the games are rigged, cos gamblers don't know when to quit, because casinos don't have clocks or windows and give you free drinks, etc...

But if you explain exactly how the house has an edge, and how the player actually gains that edge in poker, those who lump poker in with 'all gambling', can really start to see the difference. And you can explain it all pretty simply -

The house 'has an edge' (will always win over the long run), because they do not pay you the true odds of you hitting your bet. There are 36 numbers on a roulette wheel plus a zero. So to hit a single number bet straight up is 37-1. But the casino only pays you 35-1. They keep the losing bets of course, but they also 'skim a little bit off' before paying out on the winning bets. This is how casinos always win in the end.

In poker you become the house. You are playing other players and can decide what odds they get. You can offer them bets at unfavourable odds that do not reflect the true odds of them winning. A skilled poker player is like the house, or a bookie...and bookies never lose in the end, right?

A skilled poker player uses maths, reasoning, logic, probability, experience, feel, observation, memory - a whole load of skills - to estimate what an opponent is holding. They can then work out the probability of the opponent winning the hand and make a bet that offers unfavourable odds. So if you estimate your opponent is 3-1 to make the winning hand by the last card, then you make a bet that offers 2-1. If your opponent takes that bet he has made a mistake and you make money. Similarly, when facing a bet, good players use the same skills and calculations to decide if the bet is worth taking or not. So if you estimate you are 3 to 1 to make the winning hand by the last card, and your opponent makes a bet that offers you 4 to 1, then that is a good bet and if you take it you make money.

Of course poor players are either not aware or don't care about any of this and so are constantly taking or making unfavourable bets, which is why they lose in the long run.

It's all just like roulette. Basically, in poker, skilled players are 'the house', and poor players are 'the mug punters'.

Also, there is the element of bluffing and deception, which makes poker even less about luck. You don't always need the best cards to win the hand.

That usually does the trick when I have to explain to family/work colleagues.

what the ****

dont speak to me like that you ******ed little bitch

who the **** are you?

srsly can someone ban this worthless waste of space?

(only read op, dunno if this is still relevant)

A dutch scientist haas prove it's a game of skill.
I don't know much more and no time to make a lot of this post really, but here's a link were it's announced someone has proof.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/..._geen_kansspel

The proof isn't really explained in the article, but maybe you can google on the guy.
His name is Ben van der Genugten

Tell them it's the same as stock trading, nothing's 100% but it's a calculated risk.

If that doesn't work just lie and tell them you inherited some money...Who are you explaining this to again?

+1 don't **** with rounders

When you invest money in the nuts, there is no luck needed.