I still find it hard to believe... - Page 4

dogmeat · #31 08-24-2004, 01:15 PM

There is an ebb and flow to gambling, and this of course includes poker. Look at Lav Vegas as an example. In the 1920's it was a dusty, tiny, train stop. When Boulder dam was built, the town grew in size during the 1930's. In the mid 1940's, when so many young men were coming back from WWII there was a large increase in visitors. In the 1950's there were several new casinos built. 1960's there was a downturn, but poker was getting more popular. The WSOP started in the early 1970's and although Vegas was still hurting, poker got more popular. In the 1980's Vegas did some building, and poker became more popular as more and more "young players" got into the game. Entries to the WSOP increased every year. In the 1990's Vegas had a terrific boom, and poker (especially in California, which leaglized more than just "race-horse draw" in the mid 1980's) was really popular.

Now it is the new century. Vegas, AC, MS, etc. have grown, the internet has spread the availability of poker all over the world, California is getting full-scale "Indian" casinos and poker is more popular than ever. Wow, was this long winded. Sorry. Point is, there is never enough gambling for this great country of ours. Check out the lotteries, bingo, poker etc. it will never end.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

jtr · #32 08-24-2004, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think that this can be a streak. Its impossible to lose 300$ at party 0.50/1 with good game selection and semi-ok poker skills. I play 4 tables all the time, and I have never lost more than 90BB, but seen more bad beats than ever in my poker career.
I think it's rather ideas like always capping JJ preflop in multiway pots, than an ominous "bad streak" that makes you lose...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi, Atropos.

I'm new here, so I may be pointing you to something you've seen already. But there's an excellent post by Clarkmeister that critiques the sort of thinking you're employing here. Not looking for an argument, as I agree that anyone who lost 300BB at Party 0.5/1 certainly should take a careful look at their game, just in case. But I think Clarkmeister makes some excellent points about how this sort of thing really can happen to good players (FWIW my own worst streak so far was -180BB at Party 3/6; I've only played about 55000 hands over the last 6 months).

Here's the post I'm talking about.

Pokergod · #33 08-24-2004, 01:27 PM

Here's my 2 cents worth....

I believe that poker is still becoming more popular, and people just absolutely love to gamble. The younger generation is no different, and poker is now acceptable. There will be no shortage of new players entering the game unless something unforseen takes place.

Now some of those players who now lose regularly, and some of the new players will learn to play better and will become winners, and that will be about 5-10% of them. Some will drop out after getting crushed. Most of them will lose some and win some, always losing a bit more than winning, over their entire poker playing life.

It's amazing how many otherwise intelligent people think they already know all there is to know about the game, and they will never improve, unless it's by accident. I was at a live game recently and I mentioned I had read a book about Omaha hi-lo, because I thought my game was a bit weaker than it needed to be. Well, the person I was talking to actually laughed a bit, and a couple of other more seasoned players started making fun of me. The rest of the night, whenever I lost a hand, somebody was sure to ask me if I learned that play in the book I had read.

They do not want to improve, they are content to lose forever, without really knowing it. It's F'ing beautiful.

-PG

BigBaitsim (milo) · #34 08-24-2004, 02:01 PM

The Moose I play with believe I am a fool for having read all that Ska-lansky stuff and all them other books. They have been around the block and know how to play from years of experience. What they seem baffled by is how I get so "lucky" and win as often as I do. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Rudbaeck · #35 08-24-2004, 02:09 PM

Yes, but short-term numbers for tens of thousands of randomly selected players are invariably going to converge on the true ratio. Everyone can't be on a winning streak every time we observe them.

We can make predictions about the entire population from watching a big enough sample.

Off course 95% of all players who sit down at a table with Brunson, Baldwin and Lederer are going to lose money. That doesn't make 95% of all poker players losers.

Monty Cantsin · #36 08-24-2004, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
...short-term numbers for tens of thousands of randomly selected players are invariably going to converge on the true ratio.

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked a similar question once in the probability forum.

/mc

Boopotts · #37 08-24-2004, 06:15 PM

I actually wonder about that. I've never done a study on it, but I 'think' I make around 3-5 cents for every dollar I put in a pot. If this is right, or even close, then you'd think the average losing player would be much, much better off banging the pass line at the local dice pit (once you figure in the rake).

But I have to agree that people just love to gamble. At our local casino, the drop in the 3-6 game is 5 at 50; and there's a bad beat toke on top or that, and an (optional) dealer tip to boot. This means is costs around 7 bucks to drag a decent sized pot. I don't know whether a game like that is beatable, but I doubt I could beat it for more than a couple bucks an hour-- which means the average player has just got to be losing his ass in this game. Yet, the lists always seem to be full.

juanez · #38 08-24-2004, 06:32 PM

I find it hard to believe that people can sit there and play slots for hours on end. If there are people that are that foolish with their money, there will always be fish playing poker as well.

gamboolman · #39 08-24-2004, 08:09 PM

People like to gamble. Always have, and always will. With the internet and poker booming, its a big ocean full of all kinds of fish.

..............My problem is that I play in the freshwater rivers that are full of Piranhas. They are mighty good "Fish" to catch and eat, but when I fall out of the pirogue into a school of hungry Piranhas, well that there is no fold'em hold'em.

LondonBroil · #40 08-25-2004, 01:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My PT database has a 40/60 split of winners/losers, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about what everyone reports here, but unless you've been playing with the same players for a lot of the time, these only represent short term numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't everyone reporting the same thing make it a large sample?