Poker: Just a method for the smart to take money from the stupid

[UATrewqaz]

This was originally a reply to a thread but it went off on a tangent so I decided to make it its own thread. This stuff has all been said before but still it's a good thing to keep in mind.

Poker IS gambling, by definition.

My own laymen's defintion of gambling:

"Putting money on an event where the outcome is not definite."

So going to your job say, is not a gamble. You work, you get paid, it's a definite outcome.

That having been said you can break down gambling further into three categories.

Neutral gambles, good gambles, and bad gambles. Bad gambles are one where the odds are not in your favor. If you made that wager over and over (law of large numbers) you will finish behind.

Neutral gambles are essentially pointless, as neither side has an edge over the other side. If you and a friend sat at a roullette table and oen of you took black the other red, and each gave a dollar to the other when their color came up (neither gave anything when green) this would be an example of a neutral gamble.

Good and bad gambles are where things get interesting. Classic example, there is 30% chance of rain, if it rains I will give you a dollar, if it doesn't rain you will give me a dollar. Should you take this bet? I think you should, seriously, come on where's your sense of adventure? If you're smart you don't. This is a bad gamble.

The flipside of this is that for every bad gamble there is conversely a GOOD gamble. Everything must add to 0, so if someone is willing to take - EV then someone MUST have +EV.

The thought then has to come up...

"What type of freaking moron would voluntarily take a 'bad' gamble? (IE -EV)"

Not that many, just every single person in history who has ever played a spin of roullette, a toss at craps, or a pull on a slot machine. What's that, maybe a few hundred million?

People for the most part are unwise and foolish. Thankfully we have games like poker to take advantage of this. When you play proper poker you are consistently putting yourself in + EV situations. The outcome is not guaranteed so it is technically gambling.

However the more you play, the law of large numbers will put you into the positive.

If EVERYONE played "pefect" poker (if such a thing exists) then it would be a useless game, as everyone would slide money around the table and nobody would finish up or down (in the long run). Factor in a rake and everyone would lose every cent.

Money in poker comes from people's willingness to take - EV positions (therefor giving you + EV situations). Embrace every moron willing to play their pocket 33 against your AK which has flopped ace's. It's hard to embrace this idiot when a 3 falls on the river (they don't call it a 2 outer for nothing!) but it's because of idiots like this poker is a profitable game.

In my opion the NUMBER ONE FACTOR in playing profitable poker should be table selection. It's better to be a mediocre player who consistently makes a healthy profit by playing with complete idiots rather than a very good player who squeaks out a small profit by playing with other experts.

This does not mean one should not seek to become a better player for this reason.

If you become a great player almost ALL games become profitable to you. You will also be able to exploit +EV to the maximum.

That's all that was on my mind... it's raining in Atlanta, I owe you a dollar. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
If EVERYONE played "pefect" poker (if such a thing exists) then it would be a useless game, as everyone would slide money around the table and nobody would finish up or down (in the long run). Factor in a rake and everyone would lose every cent.

[/ QUOTE ]

95% of players would still play.

[og5]

I agree with what you say but I don't think the "fish" and the casino gamblers are the same crowd. Ya there's some of them are, but generally I think fish know they have a better chance of winning at poker than they do at slots or roulette. Unfortunately they don't know how to play so they still lose, but they still think they can playing a winning game. This is not true for casino gamblers.

[ds914]

Great post. Lots of good info.

[ QUOTE ]
The flipside of this is that for every bad gamble there is conversely a GOOD gamble. Everything must add to 0, so if someone is willing to take - EV then someone MUST have +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but under circumstances, I think rake can affect this conclusion. Say you have a table of 10 fairly equal players. A couple players aren't as strong as the others, but they're not horrible by any stretch of the imagination. It's quite possible that the expected value you take from those poorer players -- from "good" bets -- simply couldn't overcome the hefty rake at the lower limits. Just a thought.

[ QUOTE ]
"What type of freaking moron would voluntarily take a 'bad' gamble? (IE -EV)"

Not that many, just every single person in history who has ever played a spin of roullette, a toss at craps, or a pull on a slot machine.

[/ QUOTE ]
And don't forget the lottery. What a scam.

[ QUOTE ]
In my opion the NUMBER ONE FACTOR in playing profitable poker should be table selection. It's better to be a mediocre player who consistently makes a healthy profit by playing with complete idiots rather than a very good player who squeaks out a small profit by playing with other experts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't agree more. Wasn't it Mike Caro that said good table selection is the No. 1 thing beginning players can do to improve their results?

[Tony Corbett]

[ QUOTE ]

Poker IS gambling, by definition.


[/ QUOTE ]

I won't comment on this on but if you want to know my views on this check my previous posts.

[ QUOTE ]

Neutral gambles are essentially pointless, as neither side has an edge over the other side. If you and a friend sat at a roullette table and oen of you took black the other red, and each gave a dollar to the other when their color came up (neither gave anything when green) this would be an example of a neutral gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

A smart guy would have used a coin flip as an example.

[ QUOTE ]

The thought then has to come up...


[/ QUOTE ]

You have thoughts?

[ QUOTE ]

"What type of freaking moron would voluntarily take a 'bad' gamble? (IE -EV)"

Not that many, just every single person in history who has ever played a spin of roullette, a toss at craps, or a pull on a slot machine. What's that, maybe a few hundred million?


[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming that everyones sole reason for gambling is for financial gain.

I personally bet sports which is -EV financially but I still do it because it allows me to watch an otherwise nuetral sporting event and have a real interest in the outcome. Note I never bet on teams I really like because the interest is already there without the bet.
Essentailly I'm paying whatever the vigorish the bookmaker is taking as a kind of entertainment fee, much like buying a movie ticket. For me the entertainment value excedes the vigorish and is therefore good value.

I think all the smart people are make -EV bets for entertainment value.

[ QUOTE ]

In my opion the NUMBER ONE FACTOR in playing profitable poker should be table selection. It's better to be a mediocre player who consistently makes a healthy profit by playing with complete idiots rather than a very good player who squeaks out a small profit by playing with other experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more a case of limit selection. Why mess about trying to find a beatable table when you pick pretty much any table at a limit one below your current skill level and win.

[lehighguy]

Some do think they can win in the casino. I've heard arguements to this effect.

[MicroBob]

Correction:
MANY do think they can win in the casino.


I dealt BJ for 8 months (and used to play quite a bit too of the card-counting, advantage-player variety) and the ideas of 'hot-shoes' and 'how to best beat the game' are truly frightening.


I didn't learn how to deal roulette and don't play that game...but if someone new at our casino is dealing roulette and it's really getting slammed they will bring an extra dealer over to 'muck' (organize and collect) all the different colors of chips so I was over there on occasion.

I would over-hear the most bizarre conversations of placing bets in various patterns around the board to cover more of the numbers so that you could 'win' more.
That you have no chance to win if you just bet 'one number' and that you're pretty stupid if you're not betting at least 'five different numbers' to 'give yourself a better chance to win'.

I had a boss in NY who was a pretty smart guy generally who talked of playing roulette online and placing his bets in some pretty, little pattern because some book or online-particle told him it was the best way and that you needed to cover a certain percentage of the board and that would actually give the player the advantage because now you have a better chance of winning than losing.

Huh??


Same for slots players who believe the most ridiculous things too obviously.


These aren't just drunk, low-income and low-educated people.
I've talked with college-graduates, doctors, lawyers, etc who all believe this stuff.


Many people with above-average IQ's fail to grasp the VERY basic math behind the fact that what they are spewing is nothing more than some weird variety and combination of karma and superstition and has ZERO BASIS in fact (and is actually the OPPOSITE of fact).


Most people (the educated among them) fail to see why the double-up 'martingale' strategy doesn't work.


I was dealt BJ to a couple of ER doctors (betting fairly high for our place) who INSISTED that when a dealer gets a blackjack that the chances of him getting a blackjack on the NEXT hand are INCREASED because 'the cards are running that way'.
so they would put out a bet on an 'extra' hand to try to 'steal' that blackjack from me and 'change the flow of the cards'.


The basic concepts that we are dealing with here are REALLY REALLY basic.
But most people just can't grasp the very simple concepts involved.


Don't even get me started on the number of people on the PPM cruise who insisted that the deal is so OBVIOUSLY rigged and that they ALWAYS get bad-beats after they cash-out, etc etc.
I was truly amazed at how many people were talking about this trend non-stop.