Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOw8aC78LoU

The reason I put 1 in 10,000 is because a random shot can go in once in a while, but if you make it a race to 3 (or more) points (each basket = 1 point,), a random person will never beat an NBA player.

Also, you have no idea about tennis professionals either. There is a reason the #200 male tennis player can/do beat the #1 woman's tennis player. Tennis pros are just that good. You will not score a point on them.


Again, you're nothing more than a useless troll and example #1 why 2p2 went down the spiral it did. Trolls like you continue to exist.

In a 3 point game (each basket = 1 point) the NBA player would lose sometimes, and far more often than 1 in a 10,000. There are NBA players who shoot sub-40% in free throws, and some that can't make lay-ups regularly. Dennis Rodman couldn't make lay-ups very often with the Bulls during their championship runs. Ben Wallace when with Detroit and Cleveland comes to mind. And those two were GREAT pro players. Now consider the 3rd string Centers who can hardly dribble or catch a pass, let alone shoot, in Euro or Asian pro leagues, but had 10 day stints in the NBA, or even were there a year or two.

Being tall (generally) gives them (pro players) a larger margin of error due to rebounding and defensive posturing, but in the end they actually have to come out and play defense against a jump shooter...which most of the taller guys won't or can't do (too slow/clumsy). Their defensive skills at that point are in rim protection more than slapping down jump shots from 15-18 feet in a one on one game.

Plus, what are the rules to this game? Is it half court or full? "No blood, no foul" street rules, or is an NBA ref there (which of course means traveling is allowed de facto, lol)? If it is "make it, take it", then you have a way better shot at being right here...especially when the pro gets the ball first, via jump ball or just coin flip. But if it is a game where the player who makes the shot must then change possessions, in just a 3 shot game an average person of the same sex (which is the only fair comparison) would win more than 1 in 10,000 in a game to 3 points (3 made baskets).

In a game to 30 or 300, it would be a different story. The larger the sample size the less "luck" would effect the outcome. Conversely, if you further reduced your game to 2 points, or 1 point, the chances the average person wins becomes even larger.

Even in a "make it, take it" game (which isn't to the regular guy's advantage over a large sample size), where the regular Joe wins a coin flip for first possession, and the regular Joe has only a 5% chance to make a shot (a very low estimate), the regular Joe would win 1.25 times in 10,000 games on average (the chances 3 shots at 5% accuracy go in, in a row).

Now obviously, if you're talking jump shooters in the NBA, the dynamic changes as well. But you didn't specify, so I tend to agree with the other poster. Three shots is too small a sample size to say a pro would lose only 1(or less) in 10,000 games, especially when you didn't get more specific on the rules of the game or the particular pro's skill set.

I've seen pro basketball players lose to non-pro street ballers, and even average people in HORSE games. I went to high school with a guy who plays pro, two several-year stints in the NBA (currently overseas), and several 10 day contracts, and he's under 6 foot tall. I'm not a great basketball player at all on offense (I'm below average for regular people on offense, let alone compared to a pro), but I've beat him 1 on 1 a lot. Why? My defense is good/sometimes great, I'm taller than him, and 1 in say 100 games I catch fire and sink 11 baskets before he, being ice-cold that day, sinks 10 (play to eleven, win by 2, "make it, take it" rules). He's trying hard, he just isn't "on" that day (or at least that game).

But NBA basketball isn't played 1 on 1, so you're taking them out of their skill set to play them 1 on 1...so it isn't a fair representation of their advantage. I wouldn't stand a chance against him and the 4 worst ever NBA busts vs me with 4 other random guys on my team. They'd pick us apart, and he'd pick me apart individually, running off picks and whatnot. A better game to prove your point would be play to 11, win by two, "make it, take it" rules or not, 5 on 5...5 pros vs 5 average people of the same sex. Then 1 in 10,000 might be a correct estimation of their expectation. But 1 on 1? Random pro vs random guy on the street? I don't buy it.

Holy cow. TLDR. Thanks for missing the entire point.

Again. Back to the main point. If you're playing 1500 hands in 1 hour, you're killing online poker.

yep, if we're playing 1500 ore more hands in 1 hour, we're killing online poker

I'm actually a little impressed at those who can pull off 1500 hands per hour.

Well done you guys.

"tldr"...the war-cry of the wrong. I didn't miss the point...I showed you your point was wrong. And if someone plays 1500 hands and hour and loses regularly, are they destroying poker? Or just if they win? You know what's destroying online poker?

Governments and their corporate cronies who keep passing legislation to limit competition between entrenched interests and new innovators/competitors.

Don't look at the mad volume grinder with as much disdain as Sheldon Adelson. It's stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.

Why not both?

Do you honestly believe that people who grind 24 tables cash, 20-100 table SNG/MTTs, people who use HuDs and scripting programs are good for the overall health and growth of the game?

Now mind you, Government corruption, corporate cronies and red tape are cancerous to the game but as the saying goes, "You can shear a sheep many times but you can skin him only once."

Whereas this is more likely correct than not in the majority of cases, I think it is a false statement. The precise eco-system of a site (as well as other factors such as the comparative skill/edge of the particular player, take etc.) all need to be taken into account.

A current SNE player could well cost Stars and harm the health of the game at some level, but that doesn't mean it does/or always has apply(ied.) Many people take the opposing view and overvalue the worth of a high-volume grinder I feel. It's easy to think of extreme examples/models which contradict what you're claiming.

However, I think the point you were ultimately tying to make is valid.