People's extreme misconceptions about professional poker playing

[judgesmails]

I think where some educated stats and math guys, like the poster's father, go wrong - is they assume complete and equal information among all contestants in poker.

They don't, or can't, account for the fact that some players know when it is correct to chase a weak draw or raise a strong draw and some don't. They don't account for some players adjusting to their opponents play and others not. Or for the times when good players are not playing their best, for whatever reason. There are so many seemingly intangible elements that can lead to an edge for a poker player that it is impossible for a statistician or mathemetician to quantify it. Therefore some may dismiss the possibility of anyone beating the game.

[tubalkain]

[ QUOTE ]
I think where some educated stats and math guys, like the poster's father, go wrong - is they assume complete and equal information among all contestants in poker.

They don't, or can't, account for the fact that some players know when it is correct to chase a weak draw or raise a strong draw and some don't. They don't account for some players adjusting to their opponents play and others not. Or for the times when good players are not playing their best, for whatever reason. There are so many seemingly intangible elements that can lead to an edge for a poker player that it is impossible for a statistician or mathemetician to quantify it. Therefore some may dismiss the possibility of anyone beating the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

But... but... it's impossible to beat the rake long-term! [/bullshit]

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My father has a Phd and works as a statistician, and he doesn't believe me when I tell him that I am a winning poker player

[/ QUOTE ]



I think this is pretty damn interesting.
Not sure how he would not be able to see this.



My Dad took a couple of stats or probabilities courses in college and has done extremely well long-term in the stock-market (he retired at 50).
He knows nothing about poker really...but understands that it's kinda/sorta similar to the market.
He basically is aware that if you hasve a 0.5% advantage you can turn that into a HUGE long-term advantage IF you are given the opportunity to hit that teeny advantage over and over and over.
Thus, he understands there will be variance and fluctuations, but if one plays just better enough than their opponents (and the effect of the rake) then one will still be able to obtain a profit (as long as they have the bankroll to withstand the fluctuations).


I mean, some of this stuff can get pretty complicated sometimes...especially for those who don't know diddly about poker.
But the basics of just hitting that smallish advantage over and over really shouldn't be that tough to figure out for someone in statistics with a PhD.

[/ QUOTE ]

his phd isnt in statistics, its in a humanities field but he did a lot of fieldwork and has a high level knowledge of statistics. i think its because he just knows nothing about poker. literally, nothing. if i explained everything to him and showed him how everything worked i have zero doubt that he would see "ahhh, you can be a long term winner etc". i would also be skeptical if my teenage son came up to me and said "but dad i could make 100K a year doing this!"

My point was that someone who is highly educated and who is in the academic field can have these misconceptions. In my father's case it is because he knows nothing about poker.

[Voltron87]

I think in my father's case it is ignorance of poker. He doesn't subscribe to the "well you can't beat the rake" theory because he doesn't know what rake is. In the context I was discussing it with him I very much understand why he was skeptical, his teenage son was saying "but dad i could make tens and tens of thousands of dollars doing this" so he naturally said "wtf no".

[Brock Landers]

[ QUOTE ]
pool hustlers dont cheat people, they allow other people to hang themselves with their own greed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well put.