Moneymaker bio on Pokerstars says...

[Rushmore]

"...became inspired to play poker after seeing Rounders."

The question then becomes: Are some folks just BORN No-Limit holdem players (apparently, he made at least two pretty remarkable reads for big pots), or is there just so much luck involved that pretty much ANYONE can win the WSOP (note the line from the above-mentioned Rounders: "What? Are they just the luckiest 5 guys in the world?").

Obviously, it's doubtful anyone could possibly withstand four days of WSOP competition without some pretty strong ability.

But when, exactly, did that movie come out? 5 years ago? How long has the average poster here been playing poker? Is experience worth as much as we long-suffering players believe? Or is it more a question of simple, inexplicable, near-mystical God-given talent? How much is it REALLY worth to know that you are exactly 56% to win a given pot at a given time? What value is there in the knowledge that the odds against making your hand are 6-1, current pot odds are 5-1, but that your implied odds are more like 8-1?

Remember the guy in The Cincinnati Kid, with his pad and pencil? You knew he wasn't going to win. Because that wasn't the point of the movie, wasn't the Thing We Were Supposed To Learn (that mathematics and analytical thought are the cornerstones of poker).

It wouldn't have made for much of a movie.

I congratulate Chris Moneymaker on his win. I hope he'll stay away from the craps tables and off of the golf course. And remember these 4 words:

"I already spent it."

[GOODBEATGUY2001]

No one is "BORN No-limit holdem player". When you play against nearly 500 competitors, there is a lot of luck involved. At many times during a tournament, you'll have to decide to risk all or most of your chips and at many times on border line situations esp. as antes and blinds increase. If the flop hits you, you become a favorite to win the hand. But as we all know, the subsequent turn and river cards can still beat you if you are called. More luck needed! Throughout a 5-day tournament like the WSOP, you may have to survive these close calls as much as a dozen times a day for the duration and then you move on. IMO, in a marathon-like tourney, you need more than anything else mental and psychological stamina as the stress is constant. Having empathy helps you to understand your opponents. Needless to say, previous experience and advanced knowledge through reading the appropriate books are a must.

[Mark Heide]

Rushmore,

"Are some folks just BORN No-Limit holdem players (apparently, he made at least two pretty remarkable reads for big pots), or is there just so much luck involved that pretty much ANYONE can win the WSOP"

There is really a lot of luck involved in an event of this type. Wouldn't you think that David Sklansky could beat most of those guys in a real no-limit hold'em side game?

Due to the structure of the tournament, it's more of a factor of how lucky you are. Especially, if you consider the effect rising blinds have. Let's say you were really lucky the first two hours when the blinds were $50-$25 and you won several $2000 pots. But, when the blinds reached $1000-$500, you couldn't win a pot. Furthermore, consider that the pots the you won the first day may be less than the blinds. Because of this the structure of the tournament requires less poker skills and relys on tournament skills, which David Sklansky has written a exellent book on, and luck.

"Obviously, it's doubtful anyone could possibly withstand four days of WSOP competition without some pretty strong ability."

If you look at the players that have played these tournaments over the years you will find a mixture of newbies to experienced players making the money spots. Some of the newbies just get lucky. In David Sklansky's book he describes a situation where a person didn't know anything about no-limit poker and described a method that you could use to have a chance to win.

Good Luck

Mark

[TAFKAn]

Wouldn't you think that David Sklansky could beat most of those guys in a real no-limit hold'em side game?

No.

[Zeno]

Dear TAFKAn,

Your post is too verbose; Your hair is great but you need to change your shirt; We need you over in the Pot/No-limit Forum. Thanks.

Zeno, The Misanthrope.

[MHoydilla]

Tafkan is dead on. I dont think David would be a favorite againest a field of the top 50% of players (in WSOP) in a live NL HE cash game. While he would probably be a favorite againest the top 5% of players in a limit HE cash game. Different skills involved in NL and Moneymaker has them, I think its a great story and hope it attarcts more people to pokerstars since he qualified there.

[Fmonti]

I think that luck plays a BIG part in winning tournaments. I believe I read where Chris stared down an opponent in a couple of instances (after all ins or big raises) for as long as 2 minutes and than decided to make the call. I don't think he saw anything, he just decided to go with his gut feeling and got lucky. I'm not saying you don't have to be good to win a tournament but I am saying you have to be lucky...

[RiverMel]

I don't think he saw anything, he just decided to go with his gut feeling and got lucky.

What exactly are you basing this opinion on? Do you know Moneymaker at all? Do you have any inside information about him or his decisions? Or is your post just pure speculation?


I thought so.

[Dynasty]

Wouldn't it also be speculation to say that he did have a good read?

There's nothing wrong with speculation.

[RiverMel]

Of course. My point wasn't that the poster was necessarily incorrect. It was only that he had no basis for making the claim.

[rkiray]

here is a basis to make the claim. According to the New York Times, this is the first live tourney he had ever played in. All his experience is on the net. I think it's safe to say that reading people's faces isn't his strongest poker skill.

[John Ho]

Doubtful. He certainly thought the probability of a bluff was high or else there is no way he calls. Give him credit. He played well. The big call he made was with pocket 3s and 3 overcards on the board with his opponent making a big raise with KQ - no pair. He is a huge favorite to win the hand if he is right but almost no chance to suck out if he is wrong.

Great play and give him credit.

[RiverMel]

It was his first live tourney, but not his first time playing in a B&M cardroom. But that is besides the point. I'm not interested in arguing this point, because I never claimed to have a position about whether or not Chris really made a read. I was just saying that the poster I had originally responded to was making a baseless claim. Whether there are possible bases for the claim is another question.

[Fmonti]

Moneymaker may have indeed seen a tell that caused him to make his bet but in trying to prove my point that there is also alot of luck to winning a tournament of this caliber I simply gave my opinion that he may not have seen a tell and decided to go with his gut feeling. My opinion, don't know him, but I don't need to know him to have an opinion. Certainly not taking anything away from his overall play..After all he did win the most prestigous tournament in the country and I congratulate him on doing so..

[Rushmore]

This is a good example of what we've been talking about. You're telling me that a POTENTIAL 3-1 favorite CALLED a huge percentage of his stack at a pivotal point in the tournament. Think about it:

First, he needs to acertain that he is leading. How can he possibly be adequately confident that even if he's right, and this is indeed a bluff at the pot, that he's not trailing to any of the bluff hands that actually beat him (any pocket underpair to the board higher than threes)?

Then, he must factor in any uncertainty to his potential 3-1 edge. Shall we assume the 3-1 is adjusted down to, oh, say 3-2? 2-1? Is this worth a call here?

I'm only asking this question: Based on the situation, can't this be seen as a bad call?

(I recognize the fact that assessing plays as "good" or "bad" is not necessarily a constructive exercise, especially after the play wins, but let's wax academic for a while)

[Mark Heide]

Tournaments require little poker skill. The WSOP $10K event is proof of this by looking at the calibre of players that make the money positions. Note that, the more skilled players with finish in the money over time, but novices have made it to the final tables in these events.

By the way, for those doubting David Sklansky's skill have not watched him play or have played poker with him. At the 2002 WSOP final event he finished in the money. Furthermore, he has been at several final tables. Lastly, he does not play many events, so his calibre of play is much better than most. I would put him and a hand full of others as the top players. Lastly, you can tell how much he understands the game by reading his tournament book.

Mark

[Lee Jones]

Needless to say, previous experience and advanced knowledge through reading the appropriate books are a must.

Er, the guy that won had never (if the press is correct) played a live poker tournament. And I'm willing to bet at near-even money that he doesn't have a shelf full of "the books that you must read."

There's no doubt that Chris Moneymaker got lucky a few times, but that seems to be the one truism left standing after the 2003 WSOP. All this stuff about experience just went down the drain. And I couldn't be more tickled. As much as poker has alwyas been everyman's game (compared to tennis, golf, basketball, etc), it just became an order of magnitude moreso.

Regards, Lee

[J.R.]

Tournaments require little poker skill.

Really, then why do tournament results justify that your hero has skill?

By the way, for those doubting David Sklansky's skill have not watched him play or have played poker with him. At the 2002 WSOP final event he finished in the money.

Get real and off your high horse. Tournament poker is tough, but so is ring limit poker. According to Mason, 5% of ring limit players are winners. Any time you sit down in a ring limit game, whether you are the most skillful or not, you may lose. I sit down all the time and see known fish catch river after river and leave with a big stack. The best players hope to win what, maybe 7 out of 10 times?

Just as in limit poker, there is short run luck in tournament poker. Because of the disparity in the payouts, timely luck is more magnified in a tournament than in a ring limit game. But in reality there is a long run in each game and the cream does rise to the top.

And plase don't cite to your T.J. study, where you proved that his maximum loss in a bad year (he will tell you it was bad given that he made all those final tables and couldn't get to the big money spot but once) was actually a 27K profit, and this is including your ridiculous assumptions that 1) he paid full entry fees for each event (wrong, he plays satellites) and 2) that he played every event except for those where he was in a final table and couldn't play that day.

While there is luck involved in tournament poker, luck is a factor in varying degrees in all forms of poker. The presence of some luck as a factor in tournament poker does not preclude skill from being a significant part of the equation.

[Jimbo]

Wow JR, where to begin with your post? How about with your summsry:

"While there is luck involved in tournament poker, luck is a factor in varying degrees in all forms of poker. The presence of some luck as a factor in tournament poker does not preclude skill from being a significant part of the equation."

The presence of any luck in a tourney prevents skill from being a significant factor. Here is a good example to demonstrate why my statement is more likely correct than yours. Let us assume we have the best (most skilled) poker player in the world at a final table with a novice who must have been lucky just to get to the final table. It is heads up and the tourney pays only first place. Your most skilled player gets black aces in the SB and the lucky player gets pocket red aces and goes all-in. At this moment the chip count is exactly equal and the flop comes 2 /forums/images/icons/heart.gif 6 /forums/images/icons/heart.gif J /forums/images/icons/heart.gif , the turn brings the 2 /forums/images/icons/heart.gif and the river is irrelevant. Your skilled player just got busted by a 45 to 1 shot. How much good did his skill do him? Wouldn't it have been more skillful to laydown his black aces preflop? Is there any chance he would laydown this hand preflop, even for all his chips? If not then all the skill in the world does not matter without either some good luck or at the very least no bad luck.

This is an extreme example used for illustrative purposes. However anytime the players have all their chips in the middle before all the cards are dealt the skill is gone and luck takes over. Luck being the fall of the cards for my purposes in this post. For that matter all the cards can be out and the most skilled player can still lose and not by making a poor decision. Str8 flush over str8 flush or top full being beaten by quads and so on. Noone expects even a very skilled player to laydown a straight flush or top full or quads over quads. So luck must be the overriding factor. To believe otherwise is to fool oneself.

The long run you reference does not come to fruition within a single tournament or session. For that matter it may not equal out over a single lifetime. It would not surprise me to discover that many of the top Pros that are worshipped today are shown to be simply riding a good streak of cards. Someday when they lose their horseshoe you will see them dealing to you in the 4/8 game at the Bellagio.

[J.R.]

However anytime the players have all their chips in the middle before all the cards are dealt the skill is gone and luck takes over.

How is this relevant, my point was that tournament poker, not the fall of the flop, was more than just luck. And the skill arisies, just as it would in a limit ring game, in getting your money in with the best of it.

If not then all the skill in the world does not matter without either some good luck or at the very least no bad luck.

It is very odd that you say this given the excerpt you are commenting on expressly states that luck is an element.

The presence of any luck in a tourney prevents skill from being a significant factor.

This is assinine, and you know better. Does the presence of luck in any endeavor negate skill as a significant factor? How about a baseball game, where a reliever's skill keeps his team in the game until the 9th, when the other team's centerfielder drops a fly ball and that team wins. The last runs they scored were the result of luck, but without the reliever's skill the luck is rendered irrelevant. There is luck involved in limit ring game poker, so does that leave room for skill?

You are attacking a notion that is not in my post. I never said, nor do I profess to say, that the more skilled player always wins. This is not true in athletic compeitions where skill is a more predominate factor- all I said was that skill plays a roll, and it is a greater roll that Mark wished to give credit- unless Sklansky was involved.

Why is it that the fall of the cards in a no-limit hold'em torunement are now suddenly different than the fall of the cards in a limit ring game? Once the money goes in and its time for the dealer to burn and turn, neither the tournament or the ring game player has any control.

For that matter all the cards can be out and the most skilled player can still lose and not by making a poor decision.

Is this any different from a limit ring game? I am not saying skill always wins. I am not even saying that luck is less of a factor in a tournament than a ring game- because it is not. The presence of luck and the effect of skill are not mutually exclusive- they are intertwined and can co-exist.

It would not surprise me to discover that many of the top Pros that are worshipped today are shown to be simply riding a good streak of cards. Someday when they lose their horseshoe you will see them dealing to you in the 4/8 game at the Bellagio

Exactly- because luck only goes so far! I agree that many of the pros who are worshiped do not have the necessary skill- and maybe if I am lucky (or do I need to be skillful) they will be dealing to me in a game higher than 4-8.

I hate all the tourney hype and crap- but my resentment does not preclude me from realizing that skill is a factor.

So luck must be the overriding factor.

I see now- you are attributing to me the notion that skill luck was not the overrifdign factor, but if you re-read my post, you will not see it. My statement was:

The presence of some luck as a factor in tournament poker does not preclude skill from being a significant part of the equation.

And I never said the long run in tournament poker would arise in a tournament, as I used the analogy to a winning ring limit player who may win in the long run, but can't use his or her skill to guarantee a win any particular time they sit down. The long run for a tournament player is long.

The long run you reference does not come to fruition within a single tournament or session. For that matter it may not equal out over a single lifetime

I agree.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I am totally amused by the those who say tournament poker requires little or no skill. The hubris of the grinder, I think. One poster whose opinion I respect immensely said (I paraphrase) "there is no long term in tournaments." That is a mispersception. Yes, a single tournament *is* a short term event, but over the course of many tournaments, the random factor will even out, and the skill of the better players will produce better long-term ROI in tournaments.

I'll also point out that European players, more used to no-limit and pot-limit ring games, echo a similar sentiment; that *limit* poker is all luck. Why? They point out the myriad times they get drawn out on, protesting that in the games they're used to, the skilled player can protect his hand.

The same short term luck that helps less experienced players win the WSOP also lets weaker players beat the tar out of solid pros during a week's vacation in Vegas.

The truth is, both forms require skill, and both are subject to the vagaries of the random generator. The true champion is the player who can excel at both.

Jimbo correctly points out that when you get all-in preflop, it becomes the luck of the draw. But how does that differ from a ring game, where player 1, holding top set cannot do *one single thing* to make player 2's decision to see the river with his flush draw wrong? I hate to say it, Jimbo, but that river card is all luck, too. The skills of either type player can't completely eliminate luck. If they could, the games wouldn't be beatable. And, more important, the WSOP would still be a little boutique event; a curiosity that wouldn't attract nearly as much interest as it does today.

[Jimbo]

I never said skill was no factor, just not as significant as some people believe even over a thousand tourneys. Now play me a thousand games of pool (Kurson or JR) and I will beat you 900 (in reality probably more) of them. Play the best poker player in the world a thousand hands of holdem and you will likely win at least 400 of them (probably many more) and perhaps more than the Pro. The difference between skill and luck. Skill in pool is significant, in poker it is not. Change these numbers to one million if you like and the principle remains the same.

Perhaps our differing definitions of significant is what contributes to our disagreement.

[Mark Heide]

J.R.,

The skills used for tournament poker are limited. Just read David Sklansky's Tournament Poker book.

The statement that you quoted from my post about David was in defense of his knowledge about No-Limit Hold'em Tournaments. You need some skill to make it to the final table, but it does not mean you are a great player. Plus, it's futher proof of how difficult it is to win tournaments because of limited funds, rising blinds, and limited time. These are the factors that limit skill. Furthermore, No-Limit Hold'em tournaments limit the amount of skill involved so an expert player does not have much of an advantage in these types of events. I'm not refering to low limit buy in events where the majority of players do not understand tournament strategy. The majority of players in these large events do understand the limitations presented by this format and adjust to it.

Lastly, my analysis of what T.J Cloutier had spent on entry fees was based on the most facts I could gather. If you talk to T.J. and he claims it is different, then why not have him post this information? The reason why, is no one wants to destroy the myth that you can make a living off of tournaments. None of the tournaments are accurately rated in these point systems used by the magazines, because they do not include what the player has paid in entry fees. Anyway, it's more glamourous to boast about wins.

Mark

[punkass]

Obviously luck plays a big part in tourneys and ring games. It's what brings the "fish". A flush draw has 9 cards, no matter what game you're in. The only difference is, the best no limit tourney player can charge that "fish" as much as he wants, killing pot odds for him, but risking all his, and the best ring player can charge the "fish" a big bet.

The best player, if we can have one, can pick and choose which situations to take his chances. But nevertheless, they are chances. People win the lottery. People get struck by lightning 5 times. People survive million to 1 odds all the time. And "amateur" poker players will win the WSOP more often than "professional" because there are soo many more "amateurs". What would be the odds of the best tourney player in a field of 750 to win? How can you even measure it?

Too bad the WSOP isn't a yearlong accumulation, like nascar. That would bring out the true poker champion. But then again, only "professional" players would qualify. Poker is like no other sport.

Ok -- enough long babbble. Luck plays a factor. Skill manipulates the luck. The shorter the time span, the bigger the luck. Skill remains the same. That's the gist.