Interesting

zenbudhist

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22892961

aussie09

from that extract, "However, expert players were better able to minimize losses when confronted with disadvantageous conditions (i.e., worse-than-average cards)."

Duesenberg

Conclusions taken from a sample size of 60 hands = meaningless conclusions.

It certainly suits me though if poker continues to be regarded purely as a game of chance - that way all my winnings will remain tax fee .

Enut

You've got to hope that the authors weren't qualified in any way in maths or statistics otherwise their peers surely had a great laugh at their expense. Sample size of 60 hands, really what was the point?

markycash

Still reading this but see some major flaws (apart from the sample size).



The selection methodology is pretty awful.

* It is reliant on self-reports. People generally overestimate their own ability - this is a widely known phenomenon.

* Part of determining if the player is an 'expert' is solely based upon if they have played much. They could have played for 10 years and be awful but this would help them be defined as an 'expert'.

* There is no objective analysis of past results. Again, all down to self reports.

* They way the experiment is designed, even if everyone who applied thoroughly sucks at poker, a chunk will be classified as 'experts' as this is defined relative to the rest of the group.

I could read on but I am losing the inclination to do so after reading the selection process which determines who the 'experts' are.

I have access to these so if anyone cannot access the full study and wants to read it send me a PM.

Tikay10

Yes, "interesting".

The way the study has been constructed, & the assumptions made, are what is most "interesting".

markycash

Enut said:

You've got to hope that the authors weren't qualified in any way in maths or statistics otherwise their peers surely had a great laugh at their expense. Sample size of 60 hands, really what was the point?

If they knew how to use the latest/any version of SPSS they would probably let loose.

Still cannot get over that selection process. Using that process you would be lucky to have 5 or 10 people in the 'expert' group who could properly describe the use of position on a poker table. Yet they would all be classed as experts...

zenbudhist

Why would a study investigating the skill/chance factors not be interesting to people reading a forum on a poker site, regardless of the methodology problems, Tikay?

Enut

zenbudhist said:

Why would a study investigating the skill/chance factors not be interesting to people reading a forum on a poker site, regardless of the methodology problems, Tikay?

Because the study is fundamentally flawed. Run the study with 100 pro cash game players v 100 beginners over 10,000 hands (minimum) and it might carry some weight.

Tikay10

zenbudhist said:

Why would a study investigating the skill/chance factors not be interesting to people reading a forum on a poker site, regardless of the methodology problems, Tikay?

It's only interest is in how bad it is, and how the media fall for this sensationalist guff. With all due respect, of course.



Clearly those who conducted the study had never been near a poker table in their life, or done an iota of research.

Did you see the sample size?

EvilPingu

zenbudhist said:

Why would a study investigating the skill/chance factors not be interesting to people reading a forum on a poker site, regardless of the methodology problems, Tikay?

It's uninteresting because of the methodology problems. Like Tikay, it's flaws are more interesting to me because they show how how little the general population really understand about Poker, and a larger sample would support already-known phenomena.

It has no validity. Without validity, the findings of a study mean nothing. Wanna know who else often publishes findings with poor validity? Newspapers.

zenbudhist

Why don't all you scoffers find a study that refutes the conclusions of the study it was published in a periodical concerned with the awful consequences that gambling can cause.
And can the usual suspects please explain to me how this can happen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/22/amateur-poker-playing-granddad-never-staked-10-wins-2m-world/

I bet his knowledge of GTO and equity equations is about as expansive as mine

markycash

zenbudhist said:

it was published in a periodical concerned with the awful consequences that gambling can cause.

There is the bias.

zenbudhist said:

And can the usual suspects please explain to me how this can happen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/22/amateur-poker-playing-granddad-never-staked-10-wins-2m-world/

I bet his knowledge of GTO and equity equations is about as expansive as mine

That would be variance.

No offence to Mr Hesp, he seems a thoroughly nice bloke and it would be also down to variance if I had the same result in the main event.

zenbudhist

bias hoho this is it

https://link.springer.com/journal/10899

doesn't look like a sensationalist, biased forum to me ... but maybe i'm just being blinded by bias

Variance ....over all them tables against all those professionals hoho dont make me laugh, you're clutching at straws pal.

markycash

zenbudhist said:

bias hoho this is it

https://link.springer.com/journal/10899

doesn't look like a sensationalist, biased forum to me ... but maybe i'm just being blinded by bias

Variance ....over all them tables against all those professionals hoho dont make me laugh, you're clutching at straws pal.

"Coverage extends to the wide range of attendant and resultant problems, including alcoholism, suicide, crime, and a number of other mental health concerns"

Do you feel they would be interested in publishing studies which did not fit this narrative?

"Variance ....over all them tables against all those professionals hoho dont make me laugh, you're clutching at straws pal".

Ah yeah, my bad, I forgot that variance completely evens out over 1 big tourney with lots of tables and stuff. My bad.

*off to find some straws to clutch at*

EvilPingu

zenbudhist said:

Why don't all you scoffers find a study that refutes the conclusions of the study it was published in a periodical concerned with the awful consequences that gambling can cause.

Therefore, publication bias. If the study showed the opposite, do you think that same periodical would have published it? I doubt it very much.

You don't think that both The Guardian and The Daily Mail are both completely reliable sources of information 100% of the time, do you? They pick and choose what they publish to support their message and make the most money. This just happens to be a (poor) study that supports the point this publication is trying to make. Being published doesn't prove its findings.

zenbudhist said:

And can the usual suspects please explain to me how this can happen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/22/amateur-poker-playing-granddad-never-staked-10-wins-2m-world/

I bet his knowledge of GTO and equity equations is about as expansive as mine

The worst player in the world can win a one-off tournament, and the best player in the world can be the first person knocked out. That's why people choose to gamble on poker rather than chess - Because the winner isn't the best person in the tournament almost every single time.

zenbudhist

I'm sure that mr hesp is mightily relieved that a expert poster on sky forum bears him no ill-will. Who do you people think you are?

Ok lets forget publications lets talk about this site. i've been on quite a few final tables now and everybody on that table adopts the exact same strategy ... get cards, shove hope for the best... and if you don't go along with it you just get blinded out ZERO SKILL,

Jac35

zenbudhist said:

I'm sure that mr hesp is mightily relieved that a expert poster on sky forum bears him no ill-will. Who do you people think you are?

Ok lets forget publications lets talk about this site. i've been on quite a few final tables now and everybody on that table adopts the exact same strategy ... get cards, shove hope for the best... and if you don't go along with it you just get blinded out ZERO SKILL,

Well if you hate the site and the people on the forum so much then there’s a really good option for you...

zenbudhist

I don't hate anybody pal no matter how far up their own erse they are and i LIKE playing on this site for the same reasons mr hesp seems to enjoy his game. So is it ok with you if I stay?

EvilPingu

zenbudhist said:

Why don't all you scoffers find a study that refutes the conclusions of the study it was published in a periodical concerned with the awful consequences that gambling can cause.
And can the usual suspects please explain to me how this can happen

zenbudhist said:

I'm sure that mr hesp is mightily relieved that a expert poster on sky forum bears him no ill-will. Who do you people think you are?

zenbudhist said:

I'm still fuming .. just been in a tourney i've got K 10, the board trundles along i make broadway by the turn, hold back checking the board then makes broadway, this MORON goes all in, i check for flush possibility, none, call ... and the lines gets shorter ... shorter .. shorter still ...surely not ...aaaargh timed out. So i lose out on a split pot, which is annoying BUT what kind of CLOWN does that? i mean if you were playing in the real world he'd either been laughed out the game or ...lynched

zenbudhist said:

THink you better up the standard of your table pal .. never learn anything playing with the mentally challenged

Are you here for debate, or to troll?

You have made sixteen posts on this forum. One is just abusing people for their Poker ability, and three of them have been looking for confrontation including your vile "Mentally Challenged" comment.

Enut

I'm sure that mr hesp is mightily relieved that a expert poster on sky forum bears him no ill-will. Who do you people think you are?

I think you'll find that some of those that have commented have met and interviewed Mr Hesp.

Ok lets forget publications lets talk about this site. i've been on quite a few final tables now and everybody on that table adopts the exact same strategy ... get cards, shove hope for the best... and if you don't go along with it you just get blinded out ZERO SKILL,

IF ALL the players shove every hand then it is a game of luck, that is true. Please post hand histories to back up your claim that on final tables that is all that happens. If players don't shove every hand (almost all don't) then surely you must concede that there is an element of skill in knowing when to shove, thus proving that skill is a factor (even on that basic level).