poker too much luck? - Page 2

Neil Stevens · #11 09-20-2005, 02:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The best players are the ones with the luckiest card protectors.

[/ QUOTE ]And the ones who get the ace of spades more, since it's the prettiest card in the deck.

Komodo · #12 09-20-2005, 04:31 AM

Partly youre rigth. Every tournament comes down to one hand where it is very often a coinflip with a huge prize difference between first and second place.

Quicksilvre · #13 09-20-2005, 08:55 AM

Over one tournament, winning involves somewhat more luck than skill.

Over a thousand tournaments, winning overall involves 99% skill.

unfrgvn · #14 09-20-2005, 09:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
anybody ever think that there's too much luck in poker for poker to be regarded with importance. I mean, if you pay attention to the TV shows, the players wait until there's a big confrontation, then both go all in with good hands, then luck decides, and the winner feels like he earned it. more and more do i think poker is really very stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know Phil Hellmuth posted here....

sirio11 · #15 09-20-2005, 10:12 AM

why all the hate to the OP. Of course Poker is not stupid, but the points are still valid. The luck factor in tournaments is huge. It's just the nature of poker; don't know why some people feel too offended when somebody says this, poker is no chess or tennis. There is a reason why there are hundreds of "known" players in tournament poker. Of course there is a skill difference, just not as big as some people think. Just enough so some of us can make a living.

pokergripes · #16 09-20-2005, 05:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
anybody ever think that there's too much luck in poker for poker to be regarded with importance. I mean, if you pay attention to the TV shows, the players wait until there's a big confrontation, then both go all in with good hands, then luck decides, and the winner feels like he earned it. more and more do i think poker is really very stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

The luck factor in poker is really no different than the luck factor in trading securities...in other words, the outcome in the short run is heavily impacted by both skill and luck, and over the long term, the luck factor drops away as the averages even out over time, leaving mostly (but not entirely, over any non-infinite sample size) skill as the primary determining factor. In other words, if you make good decisions about hand selection or stock selection, over time the luck element should drop away and you should make money.

If you want almost no luck in a sporting event, watch runners. For a bit more (but still not all that much) luck, try football. Baseball is towards the "luckier" end of the spectrum from football probably (since more low probability events need to come together in sequence to provide most of the offense, i.e., back to back hits rather than solo hits in an inning).

Truth be told, the "OP is stupid" responses are kind of off the mark IMO, at least if you ignore the OP's final sentence and just focus on the point, because there really isn't a sporting event I can think of that has as much of a luck factor as poker, and particularly big bet tourney poker (which is what most new comers to the activity see on tv)...

#17 09-20-2005, 07:26 PM

There is a ton of luck involved in poker. In the televised events they do not even show all of the suckouts that it took for most of the players to even get to the Final Table. There is so many times when you have to put your money in with only a 50% chance of winning. It happens all of the time, especially in tournament play. It is not a game of pure skill no matter what anyone says it is still gambling. Poker involves so much luck. That is why there is no best player in the world. The reason why pro's make more final tables than the average joe is simple, they play in a lot more tournaments. It is a game of luck plain and simple.

#18 09-20-2005, 10:39 PM

This is my card protector and I always win HUGE pots

#19 09-20-2005, 10:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anybody ever think that there's too much luck in poker for poker to be regarded with importance. I mean, if you pay attention to the TV shows, the players wait until there's a big confrontation, then both go all in with good hands, then luck decides, and the winner feels like he earned it. more and more do i think poker is really very stupid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't know Phil Hellmuth posted here....

[/ QUOTE ]

Truer words have never been spoken.

siccjay · #20 09-21-2005, 03:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a ton of luck involved in poker. In the televised events they do not even show all of the suckouts that it took for most of the players to even get to the Final Table. There is so many times when you have to put your money in with only a 50% chance of winning. It happens all of the time, especially in tournament play. It is not a game of pure skill no matter what anyone says it is still gambling. Poker involves so much luck. That is why there is no best player in the world. The reason why pro's make more final tables than the average joe is simple, they play in a lot more tournaments. It is a game of luck plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a moran.