posted
Sadly, doesn't the Gumbel analysis make it near impossible to actually use this for $$ purposes?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article seemed to imply (toward the end) that the winner of a Texas Hold'em tourney is a matter of chance. Now when someone like Jamie Gold wins, that seems to be the only explanation. But the fact that you see the same people making the final table at the highest levels of play, well, that's all you need to establish that poker is a game of skill.
By the by, I'm probably the best poker player on this forum. There is no way that I could know that, but confidence -be it warranted, or merely imagined- is a major factor in winning. It has to do with one's "tendency to bet the farm," as that article puts it, being close to q. In other words, If x is a better player than y, but y has more confidence than x, y is more likely to win than chance -and skill level- would predict. Therefore, because I am the best poker player that I know, and because I believe that I am the best player that I know, I am more likely to win. And in poker, winning is the only standard.
posted
I generally like to play against people who think they are the best poker player they know. The confidence axe swings both ways, as overconfidence can be just as big a killer as lack of it.
As an aside, too, tournament poker (re: Jamie Gold) is entirely different than cash game poker. In a tournament, you have to beat everyone, which requires quite a bit of luck - since one truly bad stroke of luck can end your night.
In a cash game, you don't have to beat everyone - you can just beat the bad players, and still make a pretty decent profit. Also, if you have a truly bad stroke of luck, you can buy back in.
A novice in a tournament is more dangerous to a pro than a novice in a cash game, for instance. A novice in a tournament may make a terribly bad decision early and win out over a pro because of a highly improbable turn of the cards. In a cash game, even if this scenario played out, the pro could buy back in and the novice would likely lose those winnings back over time.
Can you tell I'm more of a fan of cash games? Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I generally like to play against people who think they are the best poker player they know. The confidence axe swings both ways, as overconfidence can be just as big a killer as lack of it.
Me too. I've won the biggest pots off of people that thought they were too cool for school and underestimated the other players.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, absoultely, I agree. I'm probably gonna go pro after I graduate next fall. Cash games are where it's at, but Limit Hold'm specifically. Dead money in the water, and the pro's just stay out of the way. [edit] of each other, I mean.
I'm not overconfident. I exude confidence, but I know how much is an act. This is important, because when you see someone at your table that you recognize quickly as being a top-notch player, you need to have that confidence, or you will get run right over. But I know my weaknesses, and I know when I'm not playing my best game.
I know, Strider. It keeps me awake at night, the idea of how best it is.
posted
One of the biggest skills of cash game poker is knowing when to get up and when not to.
Personally, I can't stand Limit Hold'em (aside from perhaps pot limit), because you can't bet enough of a percentage of the pot to significantly influence pot odds.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but the flip side of that is you can gauge your pot odds much more accurately.
If you want to make poker a career, limit hold'em is the most surefire and consitent way to guarantee you get paid.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
