Sounds about right Phil, definitely a lot of luck involved though, yes very good players will always make a profit but must be the only game where you can beat a world champion without being a top professional yourself. No one would beat Van Gerwin at darts Federer at tennis or O'sullivan at snooker if they had been playing there games say 6 months but you could beat a top poker player in a heads up game, odds against you but can be done in my opinion
Sounds about right Phil, definitely a lot of luck involved though, yes very good players will always make a profit but must be the only game where you can beat a world champion without being a top professional yourself. No one would beat Van Gerwin at darts Federer at tennis or O'sullivan at snooker if they had been playing there games say 6 months but you could beat a top poker player in a heads up game, odds against you but can be done in my opinion
I am sure there would be plenty of county darts players who could beat Van Gerwin over a leg at darts. Over a longer period they would be in trouble though. Just as a less skilled poker player would be in trouble playing a decent pro over a longer period.
I am sure there would be plenty of county darts players who could beat Van Gerwin over a leg at darts. Over a longer period they would be in trouble though. Just as a less skilled poker player would be in trouble playing a decent pro over a longer period.
Hi Markycash, yes you're right a good county player could and would give Van Gerwin a game over a short distance, i should know i played county darts for twenty years and include many professional players among my scalps both in exhibitions and competitions. Phil Taylor and Eric Bristow just two of them, but it would take longer than the six months i quoted to get to that standard
I am sure there would be plenty of county darts players who could beat Van Gerwin over a leg at darts. Over a longer period they would be in trouble though. Just as a less skilled poker player would be in trouble playing a decent pro over a longer period.
That''s the whole point of why skill is in poker. In the long term a person without the skills and ability of poker won't have acheived anywhere near as much prizes as a skilled poker play just as is the case with the darts players. Even your highly skilled chess players will have the extremely rare defeat against a less well skilled player but long term they would have hundereds of wins compared to just a couple of losses.
Stating short term losses means poker is not a game of skill is like saying roulette itself is a game of skill considering people in the short term can be in profit
Chess is not as skill-based as you might think. It has a lot of similarity with poker. One example is the mindset that allows a player to concentrate for hours, not worried that 1 lapse will undo the hours of work. Chess databases (particularly opening theory), research into specific opponents' favourite openings, even whether you play certain people as white or black are all important.
A significant proportion of successful poker players have played other games successfully, particularly chess, backgammon and certain computer games
Chess is not as skill-based as you might think. It has a lot of similarity with poker. One example is the mindset that allows a player to concentrate for hours, not worried that 1 lapse will undo the hours of work. Chess databases (particularly opening theory), research into specific opponents' favourite openings, even whether you play certain people as white or black are all important.
A significant proportion of successful poker players have played other games successfully, particularly chess, backgammon and certain computer games
Don't think anyone would deny that there is a fairly high proportion of skill in poker, there is however a high portion of luck as well, you could in theory will a poker tournament just by picking up great cards and hitting great flops all the time. I cant think of any other game/sport where that would happen.
Comments
When I'm losing-luck
Simples
I am sure there would be plenty of county darts players who could beat Van Gerwin over a leg at darts. Over a longer period they would be in trouble though. Just as a less skilled poker player would be in trouble playing a decent pro over a longer period.
That''s the whole point of why skill is in poker. In the long term a person without the skills and ability of poker won't have acheived anywhere near as much prizes as a skilled poker play just as is the case with the darts players.
Even your highly skilled chess players will have the extremely rare defeat against a less well skilled player but long term they would have hundereds of wins compared to just a couple of losses.
Stating short term losses means poker is not a game of skill is like saying roulette itself is a game of skill considering people in the short term can be in profit
A significant proportion of successful poker players have played other games successfully, particularly chess, backgammon and certain computer games