Quote:
Originally Posted by captZEEbo
Who the hell thinks they're psychic. I don't really think this describes any winning player tbh. Also, any winning player won't be wrong 9/10 times. This is probably more turn in tv tournament poker where the long-term isn't as visible and people are more eager to celebrate..
you miss the point. A lot of players 'call hands' that only a psychic ability could make them correct, that is how I know they got lucky and skill didn't even come into it. Yet observers are not quick to think ahh, lucky guess?? The truth is quite a lot of occurences in poker happen on a "blind side", meaning a lot of the time you have no idea if you are ahead of behind in a hand. Given this theory, it is easy to see how it exposes a poker players said ability, or the feigning of said ability. Poker players take a little too much credit sometimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by captZEEbo
Most players admit that it is gambling. Find any thread about disagreements b/w the poker player and either parents or girlfriend and I guarantee you won't see many people denying that it is gambling. The amount of money people make being grossly exaggerated is true, but that's the nature of the game. The reason people make money is because everyone in the world is delusional (not just poker players). Everyone thinks they are smart and can do what they put their mind to. I forget the exact results (and I suck at google) but something like 80-85% of people think they're above average intelligence. People just naturally overestimate their abilities.
Most players "at a push" would consider it gambling, but most would always say that their 'skill' will always negate or offset the gambling element, as if they are no longer gambling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by captZEEbo
This is not really true. I (and most others) playing mid to high stakes rarely see people that are completely incompetent at poker. But skill IS the bread and butter of poker. If you think poker is all luck than you're just an idiot imo. Why do you think most all the biggest winners are very smart people?.
I am not going to sit here and argue with you about whether the biggest winnes are smart or not smart. I am not saying poker is ALL luck, I am saying it is about 70% to 80% luck and the skill elemnt of poker is hugely overamplified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by captZEEbo
Can you explain your credentials to be able to definitively say how much there is to learn about poker. Are you saying you don't have to study the game to become a top winner?.
Yes, but nowhere near to the extent that people make out. For example, if Gus Hansen took 15 years away from poker, and came back and played Daniel Negreanu (who had continually played in that time) I do not think Daniel would have a gret edge because Gus has learnt most of what he needs to know to be a pretty good player for life. This goes back to my point about poker being a "finite structure game".
Quote:
Originally Posted by captZEEbo
Also, the games really do change. I know that's not really an argument, but it's painfully obvious to any serious long-term student of poker. If you read threads from the archives you will find that the hands posted are insanely silly and you can't fathom making calls there that today are completely standard. That's because games change. A fold two years ago might be a call or a raise today. I remember looking at my party poker notes about the 10/20 NL players and I literally wrote down as a note "3-bets QQ" b/c I found that so strange that someone would reraise QQ preflop.?.
you are right, it isn't really an argument. Games change, but they only change to an extent. People change, too, from hand to hand, people make different moves for different reasons. Poker is about deception, its about tricking your opponent into doing something that he/she would not do if they knew what all the cards were [skalansky,
the theory of poker]. But I mean there is still only so many options. For example you can choose to bluff or perhaps reverse-psychology, bluff, but your options are limited, by the rules of the system [game].
I think the argument that a "fold last year would be a call today" is utterly unfounded an is quite a sensationalist claim from a person who thinks the poker game has "moved on sooo much". The truth is, it only has commercially. And the longer it stays that way the better [for some].
Quote:
Originally Posted by captZEEbo
Now do you think it's as profitable to just get AK allin 4 years ago as it is today where people can call with hands like AQo etc..
This doesn't make much sense mainly for suubjective/and situational reasons, i.e. it makes claims about general trends in the game that it cannot back up adequately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by captZEEbo
Let's say someone just open pushes every hand for 100bb preflop for 50 hands in a row. We both have the same information. I know that he is a poor poker player. Therefore I (could) berate him if I wanted to, but berating people is generally stupid and not too many people berate others once you move past donk stakes..
Ok capt, we can safely say that a person who goes all in 50 times in a row wants to gamble, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about when a player calls down with second pair on a dangerous board and win and their opponent is like "how could u do that?????" i.e. more sophisticated plays than continual all-ins.