If so, go to Sharkscope, then Player Statistics, Sky Poker, and type in;
MattBates
StayOrGo
GSmith13
Do you think those 3 guys just shove every hand & it's pure luck?
1st one of those isn’t the best example tbf Tikay It’s what Bates does
It’s futile anyway I’m yet to see one of these guys change their mind regardless of overwhelming evidence. This would mean that they have to consider the possibility that they’re not very good at poker
I don't care about these guys ... im talking about my own experience of tourney final tables .I've no idea what happens with anyone else and frankly i don't care. It IS like i say it is because it was ME that was there
they don't shove every hand ... just when they get cards so yes there is a skill level involved so not zero , i take that back LIMITED skill
So you now admit that skill is involved - and that's just when considering what hands to shove pre, surely you must now admit that playing down the streets must involve more skill?
' they played 60 hands of Texas Hold’em in which the deals were fixed, so that players could get consistently good, bad or neutral hands. In a nutshell, the researchers found that there wasn’t much difference in the final amounts of money that the experts accrued compared with the non-experts, with the implication that skill level didn’t have much effect on the outcome. In other words, they argued, poker is a game of luck.'
they don't shove every hand ... just when they get cards so yes there is a skill level involved so not zero , i take that back LIMITED skill
So how are you getting on against this limited skill?
couple of 1sts Matty , coupleof seconds ... only because I was dealt/hit good cards.
And there we have it.
You & me need good cards to win. Highly skilled players can win without good cards.
And we ALL, over time, get the same cards.
Some are just more adept at playing poker, & can represent hands or cards they don't have. That's where the skill lies.
At last a sensible answer. I've never said skill wasn't a factor , well I did but I retracted that, but there is some evidence - as in all studies, up for scrutiny and criticism - which supports a suspicion i have been building up the more I play, that poker is not the game of high skill many players make it out to be. To say the study is of no interest is arrogant and wrong.
Is it skill or Luck to decide if your opponent is bluffing or not.
Rail'd, friend playing Tourney over the weekend and never saw any cards for ten minutes, then flop once, back for another six hands no cards showing peppered with all-ins. What's all that about, exciting for the Players but rubbish viewing. Think it's all about decisions we all like to think it's skill, but when it's down to the wire you need the cards. fwiw. gl
Comments
If so, go to Sharkscope, then Player Statistics, Sky Poker, and type in;
MattBates
StayOrGo
GSmith13
Do you think those 3 guys just shove every hand & it's pure luck?
It’s what Bates does
It’s futile anyway
I’m yet to see one of these guys change their mind regardless of overwhelming evidence.
This would mean that they have to consider the possibility that they’re not very good at poker
So you now admit that skill is involved - and that's just when considering what hands to shove pre, surely you must now admit that playing down the streets must involve more skill?
Case closed, time to lock the thread!
' they played 60 hands of Texas Hold’em in which the deals were fixed, so that players could get consistently good, bad or neutral hands. In a nutshell, the researchers found that there wasn’t much difference in the final amounts of money that the experts accrued compared with the non-experts, with the implication that skill level didn’t have much effect on the outcome. In other words, they argued, poker is a game of luck.'
I'd agree that over 60 hands poker is mostly luck.
A correct sample size would be more like 600,000 hands.
Variance is an immensely powerful & much misunderstood thing.
Here's the Wiki explanation;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance
Or, a more reader friendly page;
https://people.richland.edu/james/ictcm/2001/descriptive/helpvariance.html
You & me need good cards to win. Highly skilled players can win without good cards.
And we ALL, over time, get the same cards.
Some are just more adept at playing poker, & can represent hands or cards they don't have. That's where the skill lies.
A sample size of 60 is utterly meaningless, so in my view, it's of no interest. That's neither wrong nor arrogant.
Fair play to you though for the (I assume, intended?) injection of humour - this did provoke a chortle;
I've never said skill wasn't a factor , well I did but I retracted that
That clears that up then.
Rail'd, friend playing Tourney over the weekend and never saw any cards for ten minutes, then flop once, back for another six hands no cards showing peppered with all-ins. What's all that about, exciting for the Players but rubbish viewing. Think it's all about decisions we all like to think it's skill, but when it's down to the wire you need the cards. fwiw. gl
Could your misspelling of Buddhist have resulted in bad korma?