discuss

[Tommy Angelo]

"when someone asks what it is that you do for a living, dont say poker player. say that youre retired, for thats what you are. you have money. you play poker on the side. until that money runs dry you are retired. look at it from that perspective."

I agree. That's exactly how I see it. That why, if someone asks me, "Oh, you're a poker pro? Well what are you going to do about retirement?"

I reply, "Retire from what?"

[Zeno]

Mason Malmuth covers much on this and similar concepts in his book Gambling Theory and Other Topics.

The change in style of play etc for some poker games may vary the numbers a bit since it was published (I have the 5th edition, first printing, May 1999) but all the concepts are rock solid.

-Zeno

[fnord_too]

Do you know mike that in science you never "prove" anything? There is always the chance that you will observe something contrary to the theories you have accepted to date. In statistics, there is always some chance that your observations are an outlier. That is, if you do the statistic and determine that you are 95% sure you are at least a 1BB/100 player, then you will be wrong 5% of the time. If you say run the numbers and determine there is a .000000000001% chance that you are a losing player, you can be pretty sure you are not a losing player, but you can never be positive. That's statistics for you. (In regards to poker, all this glosses over the nasty complications that both your and your opponents', games are dynamic.) Certainly, the house's cut is pre ordained (though they have no gurantee enough people will play to cover their expenses), and the rake shifts everyone "true" win rate to the left.

I guess what I am trying to say is "Welcome to life! There are no guarantees." That applies to everything, not just poker.

[andyfox]

"the only people ever sure to make money are the ones collecting the rake."

With this, I agree. The long run can indeed be quite long and therefore one can run good or bad for a lot longer than people really realized before the more accurate statistical database we have with online play than we had with B&M play.

"im calling bullsh*t on the whole thing."

Here, I'm not so sure. I can go to just about any game at Commerce and tell you who won and who lost last year and who won more and who lost less and I bet I come pretty close. The reason is the better players do better. Period. I'm not sure exactly how long the long run is, but a year is pretty close. And if people are playing only, say, 30 hours/week, that's "only" 50,000 hands.

[mike l.]

'This means that the hugest +EV play in the history of earth is available to us right now, the poker players. If we thought of ourselves as a single organism, and we all quit playing for life, today, it would be a billion-dollar per-year swing."

how about a compromise and only play home games or underground games w/ very low rake, just enough to pay the dealers, etc?

"Add up how much in rake and tips that you, mike, have paid in the last five years. I’m guessing it’s about $100,000."

i wish it were that low. from some quick math in my head it's probably double that.

"What if the house just raked everyone’s money before the first hand was even dealt and said okay, that’s it, everybody go home?"

if somehow we all got the high of playing hold em from that then that would rock.

"The only way I know to keep score, in any game, is by looking at what happened, not by conjecturing about what might happen next."

the game is so so long term that all that matters is the short term. all that matters is how you did today. there is not long term, it's like infinity. ignore it. spend the money, do everything you can to win as much as you can in as short a period of time, avoid feeding the rake as much as possible. get little quick hits throughout the week rather than binging and smoking it all in one grand night.

[fyodor]

[ QUOTE ]
I concede that how I play 77 after 2 limpers on the button with tight blinds is trivial, but I think the mistakes that your opponents make add up faster than you are giving it credit for. We make the vast majority of our money from the latter, not the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is where the money comes from. I think mike is overstating the luck factor. I also think most players underestimate the differences in skill levels at the game. Most know there is a big difference between a true expert and a total fish, but once they've read a cpl. books and logged a year of winning poker, they think they are not that far off expert status themselves, and certainly well above fish level.

I believe the winrates we are seeing online are more to do with the level of competition. I play 5/10 6 max at Party and I no longer use _any_ table selection. I just sit down at the first 4 available tables and win (most days) The competition is simply that bad that I can consistently beat the rake with my mediocre skills.

I am sure that if I sat down with a table of experts online and played about 35k hands per month I would be losing after 2 months minimum. I may run good enough to win 1 month but to win more than that I would have to be on the run of a lifetime or improve quickly.

The only math I have to back this up is the hard evidence at the tables where the bad players consistently chase draws with horrible odds when I would fold. Long term (by anyone's definition) they are making losing plays, and the players not making those losing plays will get the money minus the rake.

I will lose to better players due to subtler levels of errors that I am unaware of. In the end winrate is dependant on relative skill levels - your's vs. your competition.

[mike l.]

"1000BB - (474BB * 2) and 1000BB + (474 * 2) or
52BB and 1948BB."

thanks. this proves my point.

[andyfox]

You're on tilt and making false reads because you're desperate.

[mike l.]

"I think mike is overstating the luck factor."

and how many hands have you played? 2 million? 25 years? otherwise you have no evidence to support it.

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> Well, are there any winning players on here who have logged a losing year (assuming they played a fair amount over that year)? </font>

I do not believe that a live player with a 1bb/hr. edge can have a losing 2000 hour period. 1000 maybe. Again, it's all about edge. If your edge is only .5bb/1hr., then you can go a much longer time without winning.

If Mike is not content with what he's making or how long he can go without winning, then he needs to acknowledge his game can improve. Either that, or he needs to find better games.

What is he trying to accomplish by going on a public forum and stating to a bunch of professional poker players that poker is mostly luck and calling bullsh*t on the whole thing? Other than making a fool of himself, I mean.