I dont get what a huge difference there can be between limits

[ChoicestHops]

Compare a 22 to a 55. I dont see how there's a major difference here. People get down to 4-5 handed, and everyone starts stealing blinds and pushing in position. I can safely say they might not play it nearly ICM perfect in a 22, but over a long period of time it is who win's the most 60/40's and coinflips near the bubble which takes a large sample size and luck on you side.

What am I missing here?

[octaveshift]

People make more mistakes at the lower levels.

[ChoicestHops]

Ok, say you push with A5o and you get called by a K7o who was getting 5-1 odds which is clearly a mistake. You're a 60/40 fav with no huge edge.

Please get it out of my head that winning these takes a shitload of luck winning coinflips and 60/40's.

[Freudian]

You know when you have AA in level one and someone raises to 45. You bump it up to 150 and he comes over the top with 88.

I suspect you won't see that as often at the 55s. And doubling up more often in level 1 does help your ROI a bit.

[microbet]

You're not missing anything. Skill is a smaller part of the game than luck, but in the long run skill adds up and luck cancels out.

[ChoicestHops]

Technically the long run, is really that: the long run. When I run a pokerstove it might run the hand 50,000 or 40,000,000 times. That's alot of hands to play so you can profit on a mistake your opponent made that made you a 60/40 favorite.

[ChoicestHops]

The mistake about someone pushing 88 to your AA can and does happen. But, how often? Not readily by all means. In the majority of my 500 games at this level it can be 7 handed down to level 5. This is no different that a 33 or a 55, and then the luck factor comes into play on who wins the 60/40's and coinflips as the blinds rise.

[microbet]

I'm not arguing with you.

I think how many hundreds or thousands of SNGs constitute the 'long run' has been pretty well fleshed out around here.

[microbet]

Remember this? (http://wooleyrhino.net/pi/test)

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
The mistake about someone pushing 88 to your AA can and does happen. But, how often? Not readily by all means.

[/ QUOTE ]

That specific situation doesn't happen every SnG, but being paid off by worse hands happen much more often at the lower limits.

Not a huge expert, but I have my opinion on these SNG's. I think the main difference between the 2 are the looseness of players at the lower limits. At the lower staked SNG's, there seems to be a lot of people who think they are Gus Hansen and play very very loose...mainly because the money means little to nothing to them. Lots of people play these stakes to simply pass time or for fun, whatever. They like 46s and so forth. As the buy ins go up so do the number of people who play poker for some serious money...these players just tend to be tighter (remember that these are all very broad generalizations IMHO).
So what's this translate to in terms of game play? Solid play just tends to get the money more at the lower levels, while at higher levels something more than simple solid play will be needed to make you a winning player (hint here: HOH).
Luck is a huge factor, of course, but if it was the deciding factor in poker, then pros would not exist. Luck is equally met out for all, good and bad, but I believe its what you do with it that makes you either a winning player or a fish.
I'm still trying to tell whether or not I am same said "fish". /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
Luck is a huge factor, of course, but if it was the deciding factor in poker, then pros would not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they would.

Microbet
Who thought your post was generally right on and doesn't think poker is all luck.

[raptor517]

i must have gotten really lucky on my last 10k sngs. holla

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Compare a 22 to a 55. I dont see how there's a major difference here. People get down to 4-5 handed, and everyone starts stealing blinds and pushing in position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling skill, for one. Stack size adjustments, for two. Pot odds adjustments, for three.

eastbay

To the OP:

Your forgetting that when you push with your 60/40 favorite your opponents are folding, removing the said "luck" from that part of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Luck is a huge factor, of course, but if it was the deciding factor in poker, then pros would not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they would.

Microbet
Who thought your post was generally right on and doesn't think poker is all luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean, luck can turn the tide of the events for a single hand, single tournament, or even a session or 20, but if it was a *deciding* factor, how could pros exist? I always saw it as poker being so much a skill and people game, that its the "luck" that draws people to it, but only the skill which allows players to play nothing but poker for a long time (a real pro who plays 40+ hours per week).
I mean, "luck" is just randomness, right? Any arguments over this could get quite heated, but this is my take on it, and even someone who believes in "luck" could still agree with this. This being the case, then luck is "given" to everone at certain moments in their poker career (AA in the BB, set on flop, rivering a 2 outer, etc.) but its the pros who use this "luck" to its utmost potential who really succeed (taking that doubled up stack from the 2 outer and making the final table)...
A game with luck as a deciding factor would be "spin the wheel" type games or something else just as random. How could pros exist within this type of structure? Are you talking about just pro gambling in general? One might say that pro gamblers just have bigger balls than everyone else (by the way, I am NOT a pro at anything)
Very interested in your comments and thoughts on this...

[johnnybeef]

To a novice ABC player, I see how you can say this. But, once you learn how to manipulate opponents, the 33s are a cakewalk compared to the 55s.

[Mr_J]

If everyone was equal in skill and just passing the cash around until the rake eats it up, there'd still be pro's. These 'pro's' are just guys who have lived above the bell curve for long enough that they look like they have skill, but really don't. They ahve just been lucky.

Irie made a post about flipping coins that shows how it works.

[Daliman]

Poker profitability is less about how well you play and more about how bad your opponents play.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember this? (http://wooleyrhino.net/pi/test)

[/ QUOTE ]

That thing is friggin cool!

[microbet]

Mr. J got what I meant.

With as many people playing poker as there are, there would still be a few who have been so damn lucky that they would be winning over the course of a year or two years or whatever, even if there were no skill involved. There very well could be enough "pros" to populate a forum.

I think skill is important and that there are more pros than there would be if it weren't.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Compare a 22 to a 55. I dont see how there's a major difference here. People get down to 4-5 handed, and everyone starts stealing blinds and pushing in position. I can safely say they might not play it nearly ICM perfect in a 22, but over a long period of time it is who win's the most 60/40's and coinflips near the bubble which takes a large sample size and luck on you side.

What am I missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]

a) in a 22 what you describe as the norm is just not what happens. hell, it isn't even what happens with the 55s. the players who beat the 55s are the players that understand kinda how often you should be pushing. the average player at the 22s does not play the bubble NEARLY correctly. this includes both pushing and calling standards. the average player at the 55s does it a bit more correctly.

b) over the long run everyone wins 60% of their 60/40s. in the long run everyone wins 50% of their true coinflips. in the long run these games are not luck.

c) the difference between a player who wins and a player who doesn't starts with understanding a and b above. it then continues with more, perhaps d, below.

d) the good player of certain types will:
1) survive to be 4 and 5 handed more often
2) have more chips 4 and 5 handed more often
3) know when to push and when to call more correctly
4) understand his opponents' pushing and calling standards better
5) be able to identify his opponents' mistakes better
6) be able to capitalize on his opponents' mistakes better

than his inferior opponents.

e) if the games were actually a crapshoot luckboxing competition, intelligent people would not play them.

f) statistics exists.

citanul

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]


What am I missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]
an understanding of how long the long run really is.

[ QUOTE ]
Technically the long run, is really that: the long run. When I run a pokerstove it might run the hand 50,000 or 40,000,000 times. That's alot of hands to play so you can profit on a mistake your opponent made that made you a 60/40 favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to be rude; don't play poker.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
You know when you have AA in level one and someone raises to 45. You bump it up to 150 and he comes over the top with 88.

I suspect you won't see that as often at the 55s. And doubling up more often in level 1 does help your ROI a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not completely true. I think you will see 88 call/push. See they are "trickier" there. But, there's fewer donkeys who call with A9 or any other Ax. So the fewer Ax donkeys is one way that the higher levels have more difficulty. Fewer donkeys who will just giv eyou their chips.

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. J got what I meant.

With as many people playing poker as there are, there would still be a few who have been so damn lucky that they would be winning over the course of a year or two years or whatever, even if there were no skill involved. There very well could be enough "pros" to populate a forum.

I think skill is important and that there are more pros than there would be if it weren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am still not sure what you mean...do you think that luck is the overwhelming factor in poker? Or are you simply saying that even if hold em were a face up card game, and now no deception could be made, and all draws were shown and no implied odds existed that people would still try to be pros at this game? Sure, I guess, but like I alluded to before, there would be no difference between them and those that bet many casino table games (of which, yes, there are many pros at this too). Plus, I don't consider someone who has a good run for a year or two to be a pro at anything.
I have ALWAYS thought of poker as a skill game first with lots of "luck" involved...this is why it attracts MIT students, internet billionaires, and world class chess champions as well as the degenerate gamblers (like myself).
Remember that poker has been around a long ass time, but only until TV made the hole cards visible did it really take off...why? Because people saw that it *wasn't* luck, it was simply "poker logic".
Do you have the thread that shows the coin flip scenario? I would like to read it...
Any other thoughts?

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember this? (http://wooleyrhino.net/pi/test)

[/ QUOTE ]

What a cool little gadget! Once you pass the $5 crazyland, it seems that the starting chip counts make by far the biggest difference: try the charts for $10s vs $30s, $30s vs $50s, and $50s vs $200s.

[Newt_Buggs]

You really should play around with Aleo's confidence calculator before making unsuported claims.

On a side note:
[ QUOTE ]
Or are you simply saying that even if hold em were a face up card game, and now no deception could be made, and all draws were shown and no implied odds existed that people would still try to be pros at this game? Sure, I guess, but like I alluded to before, there would be no difference between them and those that bet many casino table games

[/ QUOTE ]
Although the margin would be much smaller, I could still beat my competition in SNGs if everyone played with their hand face up.

[microbet]

We really aren't arguing. I don't think poker is all luck.

I think there was an entertaining story posted about a guy who had a roulette system, like bet on black? I think Irieguy posted it. The search function isn't that hard to use.

The point is that there is a lot of luck involved and there are a lot of people playing poker. A lot of people have had a lucky week, some people have had a lucky month, and out of the millions of people playing worldwide some people have had a lucky year or more or whatever. It seems pretty clear that some of the "pros" are just lucky. Luck works both ways and certainly some "losers" are very good players.

The players who are doing absolutely the best are most likely very good players who have also been very lucky.

On the whole, better players make more money.

Capiche?

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, I don't consider someone who has a good run for a year or two to be a pro at anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have read your post more carefully. I guess we are just arguing over the definition of the word "pro". I was using the definition that it was someone earning their living by playing poker.