College Paper... Poker: Luck or Skill - Page 4

sweetjazz · #31 11-09-2005, 12:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Xavier University, Freshman Composition with a buffoon of a teacher.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH or LA?

[/ QUOTE ]

Xavier U in LA is not operational at the present time.

sweetjazz · #32 11-09-2005, 01:04 AM

Thesis: Poker is all luck.

Supporting evidence:
* Introduce Phil Hellmuth and mention at least twenty times that he is the greatest no limit hold 'em player ever (it'll be hard to cite references other than his own quotes) and be sure to point out that he has nine World Series bracelets.
* Go through all of his bad beats, being sure to include his reactions and his descriptions of his opponents. Point out that you can't beat donkeys because they always suck out when they put their money in with the worst of it.
* List all of the people you've met in your life who you consider to be donkeys. This provides the evidence that you just can't avoid the donkeys who always suck out.

Conclusion: Poker is just luck and you should always raise and reraise with 77 in a limit hold 'em game.

#33 11-09-2005, 01:45 AM

On the flip side I can't remember the last time someone sucked my whole stack out of me in one hand of limit hold'em.

#34 11-09-2005, 07:39 AM

thats why you should play NL, to keep stack loss memory poignant in your head.

pokerrookie · #35 11-09-2005, 10:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Xavier University, Freshman Composition with a buffoon of a teacher.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH or LA?

[/ QUOTE ]

Xavier U in LA is not operational at the present time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I guess I should have known that. So, it's OH then. Anyway, to the OP, a Prof who allows you to write on something you're interested in doesn't sound like much of a buffoon to me. Pretty cool actually.

MikeSmith · #36 11-09-2005, 03:10 PM

be sure to reference twoplustwo in your works cited, that would be hilarious

pokerrookie · #37 11-09-2005, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
be sure to reference twoplustwo in your works cited, that would be hilarious

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, so then his prof could come here, read the forum, get better at poker, AND find out his student called him a buffoon.

runout_mick · #38 11-11-2005, 08:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In poker, you only need to be better/make fewer mistakes than your competition to make money long term. You are playing against other people, not the house percentage. You can get unlucky for a period, but over time if you are still getting "unlucky", that means you're not better than your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you play that's "rake free"? Poker's still a house edged game (one that the house has 0 risk in). Poker is just the easiest game to beat the house edge in.

#39 11-11-2005, 03:32 PM

In a brief run down of this thread I haven't seen my following thoughts---if it has been mentioned, forgive me.

It seems to me that this is a question of not 'how' to beat poker, but WHY poker is beatable.

A comparison to other forms of gambling might help.

Category A) Keno, baccarat, roulette---not beatable.

Category B) Poker, horses, sports betting---beatable.

In category A), the odds are 'set odds' , and no amount of
research or knowledge can help you overcome those odds.

Category B) has 'fluid' or changing odds, influenced by the public or an individual.

A) can never get into +EV territory, while of course, B) can.

edthayer · #40 11-11-2005, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Someone on 2+2 said that poker is like a coin flip for $100 followed by a chess game for $1. In the short term the luckiest will win but over a year the best player will be ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really like this analogy. Realistically, I think the chess game part would be worth more than a dollar, but the hyperbole certainly gets the point across.