discuss

[mike l.]

i posted privately to a friend but i might as well put it out here.

what online is teaching us, where seemingly good winning players can "run bad" for 100k hands, and not know anything with confidence until they reach a million hands, is that the long term is so very long term in limit hold em because luck is a much bigger factor than previously thought (or than "experts" have let on or even realised).

in fact, once you get beyond some very simple concepts like degrees of tightness and the logic of basic postflop play, the game is primarly luck. how you play 55 on the button after two limpers, what you do w/ KQ utg (or KJ for that matter), and so on and so forth are meaningless. all that matters is how you ran that night for a couple hours and whether youre smart enough to go spend your winnings on something worthwhile or chump enough to squander it away through another period of "running bad".

im calling bullsh*t on the whole thing. the only people ever sure to make money are the ones collecting the rake. and ive won every year ive played, more and more each year, for the past 5 years. and that's meaningless.

[Zeno]

Below is a slightly modifidied version of a 'Theory' that I posted in the Poker Theory Forum in early December, 2004.

************************************************** ******

Zeno’s Theory of Poker

The only people (or institutions) that make money at poker are those that make a living from other poker players that think they can make a living off of playing poker. The rest is superfluous.

Perhaps another way of stating the above is:

Poker is a continual self-perpetuating hoax, and most that engage in it never realize it.

This is a working hypothesis, which means, in the parlance of science, that it is in a state of flux. What is also paramount to any working hypothesis is what it does not say, either by deliberate exclusion or implicitly.


The above ‘Working Hypothesis’ is a copyright of Zeno World Domination Enterprises Inc. - The first and last in Nuclear Arsenals and other useful toys. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.


-Zeno: Zen Pokermaster

[Michael Davis]

I find this line entirely inconsistent with your exhortation that I take on a mortgage.

-Michael

[mike l.]

ok but what i say expands on what you did considerably and it sounds like what youre saying is that some players make money off of other players who dont realise they cant beat the game. your definition is open to enough interpretation to continue the hegemony of current mainstream poker bullcrapp: namely the idea that there is enough skill inherent in limit hold em to make it less than random short term luck that lasts for years on end.

my theory makes room for:

a: donkeys weve all seen who play almost randomly and terribly who undoubtedly win month after month, sometimes for years.

b: seemingly good disciplined winning players who run poorly, break even, or even lose for months on end at a time.

it's all because of the new evidence given us from online play, online swings, online results, etc. evidence that all points to the long term being so long that the game is meaningless in terms of earning money, and evidence that proves the game is more luck based than previously thought.

[mike l.]

"I find this line entirely inconsistent with your exhortation that I take on a mortgage."

no it's not. the idea is you take the money youve made and

SPEND IT!

dont give yourself the chance to run bad for 5 figures or whatever.

and then get a regular job. it doesnt have to be something you hate, in fact it doesnt have to be regular. but there is more to life than letting what you do depend on the primarily luck based world of limit hold em.

[Lestat]

You're right and you're wrong.

It's all about edge. What you've been hearing or possibly even experiencing for yourself online is due to a significant reduction in edge. 1bb/100 is a respectable win rate online, yet this would be considered puny by most live game standards among professionals.

Reduced edge greatly increases fluctuation. Increased fluctuation means you have to sift through more luck before it trues up. It would be almost impossible for a good player to go a 100k hands in a live game and not know anything. It's not the "live" that makes it any different, it's the difference in edge.

[Chaostracize]

Wow. This is really depressing.

PS Hooray for NL.

[mike l.]

1bb/100 is acceptable. waiting to log 3 million hands before you really know youre a 1bb/100 player is not. well wait make that 2.5 million at least that's what they told me youd need over at the probability forum to be withing +/-.1bb/100 confidence level. but i think that guy may have fudged the SD too low so it's actually more like 5 million.

"It would be almost impossible for a good player to go a 100k hands in a live game and not know anything. It's not the "live" that makes it any different, it's the difference in edge."

and the idea that live games are better or have less fluctuation or online games have reduced edge does not bear out. the live games ive played in are incredible by standards previously thought to matter like looseness, passiveness, fishiness, but these online games are even more incredible. so live players need at least 2 million hands themselves. let's see... 35 hands per hour time 2000 hours is 70,000 hands per year...so hmm that's like 25-30 years.. seems reasonable.... NOT!

random meaningless ultra-long term luck based GAMBLING hoax.

[Zeno]

Two words - Working hypothesis. So continual refinment is anticipated.

Note also that many people or institutions make money off poker in a secondary fashion or manner and not by directly playing themselves. There are a few other things to note in my initial post also.

Anyway, it's late and I must retire. Carry on.

By the way, all of life may be a hoax or some cosmic joke. So poker is only one small splinter of the LUDICROUS whole. Next hand.

-Zeno

[Lestat]

If your edge is .5bb/100, I hazard to guess you'd need about 400k hands to be assured a win. You could hit rock bottom at about 100k hands. You'd need about a 633 big bet bankroll. And yes. You would need a LOT of hands for your edge to true up. 5 mil to get within .1/100 seems a little high though. Maybe 5 mil for .01/100.

<font color="red"> by standards previously thought to matter like looseness, passiveness, fishiness, </font>

Previously thought to matter? Please don't be changing poker theory without telling me. just kidding [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]



<font color="red">so live players need at least 2 million hands themselves.</font>

You don't need 2 million hands. I'm sure you would be well within 10% of a big bet of your true expectation within a couple of years. It certinaly wouldn't take anywhere near 25-30. After a point what does it matter? If you are a 20-40 player, is it going to make or break you if you're making $35/hr. instead of $37/hr.? All that matters is you are winning somewhere near 1bb/hr. and it shouldn't take more than 4000-6000 hours to know that. In fact, you'll likely be able to suspect this sometime between year 1 and year 2.

<font color="red"> random meaningless ultra-long term luck based GAMBLING hoax. </font>

This sound like someone who's been running bad. Everything Ok?