51% Skill/49% Luck-Reply to Andy/Mason(Long)

First to Andy: I understand the differences between blackjack & limit poker. I've probably played more bj than most. I think the two games are similar in the advantage you can get, which is very small and because of that will generate some wild swings. As far as the fish and outplaying your opponents in poker, I feel that only goes so far. In most of my experience you still must show the best hand and unless you have the nuts you have no idea who the winner is until all the cards are turned up. Due to the randomness of the cards anything can & will happen.

To Mason: The point of my post was not to debate how good a poker player I am. I don't consider myself an expert because I simply have not played enough hours. I've played 13months, some 720 hours online/100 hours B&M. Even though I'm a winner in both forms, it is not enough hours to draw any conclusion of my skill. It is just my observations that the game would be hard to beat for any significant amount of money for a long period of time. If the game is so profitbable, and I mean this as no criticism, why give up the hours you could be playing poker to write & produce poker books & produce this message board? I think Roy Cooke answered the question in one of his writings when he said he started his real estate business after he got married and had a child to build a more stable income source and have something to fall back on during the dry poker periods. I think he also said that since he came to Vegas back in the 80's, that their are few of those players still around and even fewer who still beat the game on a regular basis. I can see playing the game for recreation and to supplement your income ,especially in retirement, but I think many people will find it very difficult to beat the game for serious money for an extended period. If I were going to put all the time/effort into mastering something, I would sure look for an area where I had a better chance of success/reward than limit poker or bj.

Pokerbabe had a quote that she knew of 5 players in Vegas that made 50K+/year at limit poker. I can see that over a period of a few years but doubt that can be sustained for 10 to 20+ years. Plus that is no different than running your own business, and if that is your only income and your not retired, then you still need to fund your own retirement, pay your own health/life insurance and pay the full brunt of the social security tax. Even though I consider 50K a good income, on the surface it is not as good as it first appears.

Flame Away !!!!

[Mason Malmuth]

I once wrote an article for Blackjack Forum magazine called "Young Jack Black" that compares poker to blackjack. You may want to look at that. The article also appears in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics.

There are several reasons why I'm involved in the books as opposed to just playing poker:

1. I have an academic background and this fits in with that.

2. I enjoy doing this.

3. I find just playing poker 30 to 50 hours a week less enjoyable than the lessor number of hours that I currently play.

4. Daivd and I saw a potential in writing and publishing the type of books that we do which would produce better results for us than just playig poker.

By the way, #4 doesn't mean that an expert poker player can't do well year after year. This is especially true if you are willing to master other games besides just hold 'em and are willing to travel to where the games are currently the best at that moment.

As for Cooke's comment about the players who were here a long time ago not being around any more I believe our books probably did them in. When you go back 15 or 20 years, if you just played tight, you could have been successful. Today, you must play well. Many of these old time players rejected what we had to offer and paid the price for it. There are a few exceptions, but these are mostly stud players and Cooke doesn't play stud.

[andyfox]

I didn't mean to insinuate that you didn't know the difference between poker and blackjack. Since you mentioned both in your original post, I used them in my response to give my thoughts.

I'm probably not the best person to address this issue anyway. I'm only an occasional player. Many years ago, I used to play every day (draw poker) and I won, but certainly not enough to make a living, even I played in the biggest game in the house (15-30 at that time).

My observation and experience tell me that the great players (and I am not one of them) win consistently because, among other reasons, they win more pots when they don't show down the best hand. Mason pointed this out years ago, so I'm not trying to take credit for the point, but they do steal more than average players.

So I guess our disagreement, if we have one, is that I feel, as far as the fish and outplaying your opponents in poker", it goes a bit farther than you suggest. I've seen it over many years from both sides (that is, when I take advantage of those who play much worse than I, and when those who play much better than I take advantage of me.)

[snakehead]

sorry, I didn't read the original discussion, but I wanted to comment on the number of players making over $50k per year. off the top of my head, I can think of several california players who have easily made a lot more than that for at least 15 years. many lv players get burned out because the play against tough competition most of the year, but in other locations the games are much easier and lots of people have made good livings for a long time.

[MichaelD]

Flipper,

In regards to your comment to Andy - "In most of my experience you still must show the best hand and unless you have the nuts you have no idea who the winner is until all the cards are turned up." - I have found this to be not entirely true. Many times in a hand you can tell exactly what your opponenets have and thus do not need to show anything to take down the pot. I believe that hand reading is definitely an art that needs to be mastered if one is to make any serious money at poker.

In regards to your 50K thoughts, I agree, it is not nearly as much as one first thinks. However, when playing full time, there are many things that can be written off as expenses related to work - assuming that a winning player actually claims all or part of their income.

For me personally, I have to claim income tax returns as I have to justify income for mortgage, car payment, etc. I do know however some players who win who do not claim a penny. Personally, this does not appeal to me for a variety of reasons.

Just some thoughts...

Michael D.

Flipper,

I have played a lot of both BJ and poker over the years, although much more poker recently, since I find it more relaxing and fun, as I am a recreational player.

Based upon my experience, if I had to do this for a living, I would play BJ for as long as possible (until banned).

There are two reasons:

1. Easier: With BJ, you need to learn counting and best-play, against an unvarying dealer, and you are in the game with a slight advantage over time. With poker, you play against possibly tricky always-varying players. It is much much harder to do well.

2. The Rake: BJ played well has a slight advantage. Poker played well may give you a slight (or maybe more than slight against poor players) advantage over the players. Then you need to beat the rake. The rake in a low limit game, where you might find poor players, is generally so high that it is virtually unbeatable by anyone. The rake in the higher stakes game, with lower percentage, is beatable, but then your edge against much better players is likely to be much lower.

Mark