
Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky - andrewljohnson
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-19/good-poker-players-aren-t-lucky
======
sharkweek
This is a really interesting read -

I played a lot in college, but never really got "good" per se. We had a group
of about 20 or so of us who played semi-regularly. There were two players who
were both far superior to everyone else, but they didn't always win. Just like
everyone else, they naturally suffered the turmoil of a bad beat here and
there. But aggregate their winnings over the course of the two years we all
played together, they came out far ahead of everyone else.

And I think that's probably the main point here. These two knew how to grind
out the bad beats and come out on top over a long enough time frame.

I also have a good friend who crabs in Alaska (his dad and him are on the
Deadliest catch together) - each season is a "gamble" with how long it will
take to catch enough crab to meet quota, but it's not like they're putting
money into a slot machine and hoping for the best. There's a system that leads
to success. Sometimes they get "lucky" and their season ends quick, others
it's more of a lengthened grind.

They seem awfully similar.

~~~
pitnips
And those both seem awfully similar to the stock market. If you're good at
poker over the long-term, then you may be better off "gambling" than
"investing." And hey, at least when you lose at poker, you may have still
enjoyed it -- no one enjoys a stock market crash.

Oh, and don't get me started on naked futures/forward positions...

~~~
throwaway283719
Okay, I'll bite. Why is having a naked futures contract in the S&P500 (which
costs around $100,000 for the e-mini) any more risky than owning $100,000 of
stocks?

[0] [http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-
index/e-mini...](http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/e-mini-
sandp500_contract_specifications.html)

~~~
stygiansonic
I'm not an expert (this is not my industry, so please correct me if I'm wrong)
but I imagine it has to do something with the initial cost of entering the
position.

With a futures position you may end up losing more than you put in (your
initial margin) but assuming you went long a stock without using margin, the
most you could lose would be your initial investment.

But perhaps it's not a fair comparison. I would say that buying 100K of stocks
on margin is similar in risk to having a futures contract with a similar
value, all other things equal.

Also, with forwards (not exchange traded) there would be counterparty risk if
no clearing house was involved.

~~~
yiransheng
Also, if you are comfortable taking that amount of risk, you'd be better off
to participate in the future market than buying large chunks of stocks on
margin, at least you have extra liquidity.

------
candybar
As a casual poker player, I find this line of reasoning specious. Sports
betting, blackjack and even roulette with a biased wheel are all games of
skill by this definition. Poker games are designed specifically to appeal to
our gambling instinct so that better players can play the house while worse
players gamble away their chips. It's true that from the perspective of the
best players, it's not truly gambling, but they are not the ones gambling laws
are written to protect. This isn't too different from a casino owner saying -
I'm not gambling, I make money every day. You may not be gambling but your
customers are. The same is true of poker - even if you're not gambling, your
opponents are.

Edit: Will downvoters explain their reasoning? Btw, someone else said
something about how poker is a game of luck at low skill level and game of
chance at high skill level but that's not really how it works. Poker is a game
of skill if you're playing against bad players because the game is
consistently beatable with sufficient skills. The better and more sound your
opponents become, not just relative to you but on an absolute basis, the more
important the role of luck becomes.

~~~
Sambdala
There's a pretty fundamental difference between house-banked games where no
player has a long term positive expecation and peer to peer skill games where
better players will be able to gain an advantage by outplaying their
opponents.

Roulette is a particularly bad example as there is no decision (well, there's
one decision on American Roulette tables that is worse than every other) that
changes your expectation on the amount wagered.

~~~
dnautics
That's exactly the top commenter's point. The law doesn't hinge on the
distinction between a house-banked game (like blackjack) and a house-hosted,
peer-to-peer game (like poker). The distinction between skill/no-skill is less
meaningful than the fact that you point out.

Nontheless, the law (and thus the article) is about the former distinction.

------
KVFinn
Is this skill-based rule is why every game in a casino is so bad? The article
is about how poker is starting to be considered a game of skill and so not
under the restrictions of gambling, and thus legal generally. Is there a
similar law that is the inverse of this that restricts casinos to games of
non-skill instead of actually good games?

I mean, you'd never sit down with friends and play roulette or blackjack or
any casino game just for fun, right? It's be incredibly boring because you
have zero choices and without the thrill of money being on the line there is
no reason to play them. I wouldn't even put them in the 'game' category. You
may as well flip a coin over and over. Even card counting BlackJack is just
game of not getting kicked out by the casino -- counting cards itself is
simply memorizing a table and has no choices either.

I've always been mystified people can spend hours in a casino playing the
least interesting games I could imagine.

Poker is the lone exception. Poker with friends for trivial stakes still good.
I can think of _plenty_ of games with similar variance so beginners would
always do reasonably well against experts and they'd still be be a million
times more interesting than everything else in the casino.

You'd think with all the money in the gambling industry that some effort would
be put towards making the games themselves intrinsically better.

Could you open up a 'casino' anywhere that instead used games that were
obviously skill based because it woudn't be considered gambling? Poker is one
of the most popular casino games and it's also the only game of skill Why not
more?

tldr: Why are Casino games so bad?

~~~
chilldream
Gambling games are bad for the exact same reasons that grind-based are bad:
people play them for the addictive reward mechanisms. If you're not affected
by those mechanisms, you're usually left with garbage.

Variable rewards are also the reason why poker is one of the few games with a
heavy skill component that can move large amounts of money directly between
players; few people are willing to be a sucker. So losing players have to
either get something else from the experience, or be convinced that they
aren't losing players.

I said elsewhere in this thread that skill-based vs. luck based is a
continuum. The most popular poker games tend to land on the sweet spot where
"enough luck that bad players can think they're good" and "enough skill that
you can actually be good" meet.

~~~
KVFinn
>Gambling games are bad for the exact same reasons that grind-based are bad:
people play them for the addictive reward mechanisms. If you're not affected
by those mechanisms, you're usually left with garbage.

Wouldn't these games be even more appealing if had the same reward mechanisms
but were also intrinsically interesting?

>The most popular poker games tend to land on the sweet spot where "enough
luck that bad players can think they're good" and "enough skill that you can
actually be good" meet.

You'd think you'd see games along this continuum but poker is alone in the
sweet spot. The other casino games aren't even worth considering.

------
sejje
Any game where you can play badly on purpose has skill involved.

Some games still involve more luck than skill--blackjack, for instance.

Other games involve more skill than luck, and poker certainly falls into that
category.

Poker is a game of skill with an element of luck. It is not a game of chance.

~~~
dcsommer
> Poker is a game of skill with an element of luck. It is not a game of
> chance.

It depends on the level of the players. For beginners and casual players with
less strategy, the game is much more about luck.

~~~
sejje
By that reasoning, basketball is a game of chance, depending on the level of
the players. They're going to lob it up there and hope it goes in.

But their lob was a skill--one they don't control very well, but a skill
nevertheless.

Betting in poker is the same thing, and is the only thing the player controls.

The way the cards come out is _always_ chance, and the level of skill can't
influence it.

~~~
ollysb
>> By that reasoning, basketball is a game of chance, depending on the level
of the players. They're going to lob it up there and hope it goes in.

I think that would be a fair point to make

~~~
sejje
I don't.

The idea that some players' skill is so low that their ability is
indistinguishable from pure luck does not diminish the idea that basketball is
very much a skill-based game.

~~~
ollysb
That seems to apply equally to poker...

------
mef
_His study of more than a billion hands of online Texas Hold’em found that
85.2 percent of the hands were decided without a show of cards. In other
words, players’ betting decisions were of overwhelming importance in
determining the outcome. Of the remaining 14.8 percent, almost half were won
by a player who didn 't hold the best hand but instead had induced the player
with the best hand to fold before the showdown._

Isn't inducing the player with the best hand to fold before showdown the same
as a hand decided without a show of cards? Or do they mean that 85.2% of hands
were decided without seeing the flop? Both don't sound right.

~~~
pimlottc
Just because the player with the band hand folds before showdown doesn't
preclude other players from staying in, forcing a show of hands.

~~~
thetrb
Yes, but only a show of hands of those still in, not of the player who folded.
So how would they be able to analyze that he had the better hand?

~~~
GeneralMayhem
It's online poker; there's almost certainly a record of every card dealt.

------
ngokevin
WSOP Main Event final tables are often used as an prominent exhibit that poker
is not "tru gambools". It is the final 9-10 players of a tournament.

Dan Harrington made the final table in 1987 (152 entrants), won the final
table in 1995 (273 entrants), and made back-to-back final tables in 2003-2004
(839 and 2576 entrants). Or in a lesser example, Johnny Chan won back-to-back
in 87-88 (152 and 167 entrants).

The Cavs winning the #1 pick three times in the last five years, however. That
is rigged.

------
fragsworth
There is a lot of nebulous, vague law in the U.S. about games when you have
the chance to win real money. Each state has its own self-inconsistent set of
laws, usually made to preserve the monopolies of neighboring casinos. There is
very little actual reasoning behind the laws - it's corruption, plain and
simple.

This stifles innovation in real-money games. No company will risk spending any
money on the design/development of a new real-money game when there is a
tangible chance of going to jail and losing everything. This frustrates me a
lot, because I enjoy real-money games (poker included), and I'd love to play
new kinds of real-money games, but these freedoms don't exist.

------
ronaldx
>His study of more than a billion hands of online Texas Hold’em found that
85.2 percent of the hands were decided without a show of cards. In other
words, players’ betting decisions were of overwhelming importance in
determining the outcome.

It is worth noting that the other 14.8% of hands, where a showdown is reached,
are typically the ones where (much) larger amounts of money are exchanged.

So, betting decisions might decide the outcome of a majority of hands, but
it's unlikely this corresponds to a majority of the money flow.

~~~
Sambdala
This is a very complicated question, and while I understand why they would use
that percentage figure, I think it confuses the issue if you look into it more
deeply for exactly the reason you stated.

It is true that most of the money changes in hands where you get farther in
the hand because pots grow geometrically as you continue on in the hand.

However, the importance of decisions becomes more important as well, and most
of the edge a skilled player will have over a weaker player comes about from
those larger pots based on decisions made later in the hand.

------
flud43
I don't even know how people can even argue it isn't a game of skill anymore.
Profitable poker players are just little, mini-casinos. That's it. It's not
that complex of an idea.

I play heads-up hyper-turbos, as well as other games, on PokerStars. I've been
studying poker, reviewing my play, and grinding for years. I'm a mediocre reg
and I can grind out consistent profits. Here's my graph of 18,106 $15 heads-up
hyper-turbos on PokerStars.

[http://i.imgur.com/AQ26oVQ.png](http://i.imgur.com/AQ26oVQ.png)

It really, truly, is not that hard to make money at poker if you're willing to
invest even a small amount of time doing quality study and review.

~~~
ronaldx
IMHO, and with respect, poker results have a very high variance which may yet
overwhelm your good results.

According to back of an envelope calculation, if there was no skill in poker,
and you were just coin flipping, approximately 1 player for every 28 would
come out with similar results.

This is a statistically significant result, I suppose, but not very. There are
presumably many thousands of players who can present similar results, whether
or not they have any skill. The jury's still out over whether you can continue
this streak and claim +EV in the long term.

You should have some serious concern about this, since you are subject to
self-selection bias in posting these results.

All-in-all, your results don't yet convince me that poker is a skill game, or
at least not (yet) that you are skilled. Get back to me after the next 18,000
games, if you feel like it.

I confess to some dubious assumptions but I tend to believe that those
assumptions averaged in your favour. This perhaps illustrates why poker is so
good at hooking people.

~~~
splonk
Without double checking your math, I'm pretty sure the significant error in
your conclusion here is modeling the games he's playing as coin flipping with
even payouts. The specific game he's playing is actually dropping a percentage
each time and is more accurately modeled as "heads I win .98, tails I lose 1".
(Technically he's betting $15 for a chance to win $14.69). With that in mind,
many fewer than 1 in 28 players would end up with his results.

~~~
ronaldx
Typically in poker, you win quickly and lose slowly. This is especially true
of tournaments - finishing in the money suddenly does wonders for your
balance.

So, I would guess that _more than_ 1 in 28 players would show these results,
having experienced a random "win quickly" phase that has yet to dissipate.

(This might not apply if parent is talking only about 2 player tournaments,
but applies to poker generally)

~~~
splonk
Parent is talking only about 2 player tournaments - that's what the "heads up"
part of the description means.

~~~
ronaldx
OK, I getcha, thanks.

Heads Up specifically means that there are match-ups between 2 players. This
doesn't mean it's necessarily a 2 player tournament, e.g.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Heads-
Up_Poker_Champi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Heads-
Up_Poker_Championship#Brackets)

I already checked this case and you are right, indeed.

------
programminggeek
There is one reason to consider making poker illegal - it is addictive and has
destroyed the lives and financial situations of many people who play it.

I've seen friends and family throw away thousands of dollars because of their
addiction to poker. I'm not sure that poker is a net gain for society or not,
but to say that poker is simply a game of skill that is no more harmful or
beneficial than basketball or bowling or fishing or chess is disingenuous.

I admit that poker and other forms of gambling are not equally addictive or
destructive to all people, just like WoW isn't equally addictive/destructive
to all people who play. However, there are far more cases of gambling,
specifically games of luck/skill like poker/blackjack, that result in broken
lives and broken families due to a gambling addiction than in a traditional
"game of skill".

Perhaps society as a whole is willing to believe the positives of poker
outweighs the negatives, like it does with drinking alcohol or I guess now
maybe smoking marajuana in some states.

We just shouldn't pretend that poker is all positives because it is
statistically a game of skill. There is a lot more to the behavior around the
game than that and only a fool would believe otherwise.

~~~
dllthomas
People ruin themselves betting on basketball, too. Though I am not sure the
degree to which it's legal...

One difference, of course, is that most of the people ruining themselves
betting on other sports are spectators not participants.

Your principle point - that "game of skill" doesn't mean "useful" or
"productive" or "worthwhile" \- certainly very much stands.

------
skizm
I love poker. I'm not great at it but it is fun. Also it is a great metaphor
for life. If you poke your head in on any given hand you might conclude that
the game is all about luck. However if you play long enough good players
emerge on top and bad players lose their money. Sometimes terrible players win
big and sometimes good players lose everything.

Just like life: the harder you work, the luckier you get.

------
stygiansonic
I suppose, like the article mentions, it depends on the circumstances.

It does appear that serious poker players do better in the long run as they
not only consider pot-odds when playing but also management of their bankroll
to ensure long-term survival. Is there an element of chance? Of course, but
it's not the only factor - few things are black and white.

But if someone choose to go all-in blind pre-flop then they are choosing to
play the game as pure gambling and their version of the game would be pure
chance.

But again, it's all about the circumstances. Poker is often compared to day
trading in the markets and though it's not a perfect comparison, there are
some analogies. For examples, options can and often are used in complex
strategies to either reduce risk or enhance returns. But that doesn't mean
they can't be used to speculate wildly - in these situations, the potential
payoff profile begins to look something like a straight up bet.

~~~
chilldream
> But if someone choose to go all-in blind pre-flop then they are choosing to
> play the game as pure gambling and their version of the game would be pure
> chance.

This isn't making the game pure chance; it's just cutting off that player from
future decisions. The opponents still get to call or fold, which means the
opponent is manipulating the odds that the all-in player will win a contested
pot.

------
tom_jones
The latest statistical analysis suggests that baseball involves more matters
of chance than anyone would like to admit. Beyond home runs and strikeouts,
it's mostly random. Luck and skill are all around us to varying unmeasurable
degrees, including in a game of poker.

------
vannevar
"His study of more than a billion hands of online Texas Hold’em found that
85.2 percent of the hands were decided without a show of cards. _In other
words, players’ betting decisions were of overwhelming importance in
determining the outcome._ " (emphasis added)

This is a tautology; the real question is whether there is significant
discretion in making those decisions. The 85% statistic is meaningless without
knowing how many of the winners within that segment simply folded weak hands
and kept strong ones, in which case it would be clear that luck _is_ the
dominant factor. The 7% where the poorer hand won might merely represent the
occasional exception to the rule.

~~~
dragonwriter
Also, share of _hands_ isn't share of _stake_. Sure, lots of hands of Hold'em
are folded out -- often before the flop. But what share of the amount
_wagered_ is decided that way may be pretty different than what share of the
_hands_ are decided that way.

------
yodsanklai
I wonder how well computers can play poker and also, how different it is to
play online rather than with actual people around a table.

I'm asking this because I once met a guy that was making a living playing
online and it made me think. Would a computer program do better than a human
in that context? It seems not to be the case, otherwise everybody would be
using a program to replace them and humans player couldn't make profit
anymore.

~~~
727374
People are working on it (of course, since it could be extremely lucrative).
However, the problem is 'hard' because No Limit Hold 'Em is really a game of
bluffing and not math. The best human players alive have mastered the skill of
determining the cards their opponents hold based on their moves in the current
hand, the current game, and previous games.

Online poker lacks the physical 'tells' that occur in a live game, like making
an obvious fake reaction to some event. But, there are also some online
'tells' such as reaction speed.

I used to play a lot of online poker.

~~~
panorama
This is largely incorrect. NLHE can be more about "bluffing" because there's
greater variability between ones chance of winning a hand and the potential
bet size. But it still comes down to a mathematical decision, just that it's
more difficult to accurately calculate the best play given the wide range of
variables: your opponent's likely holdings, the bet size, the pot size, your
hand.

In Fixed Limit, the bet size and pot size are all controlled and can be pre-
determined, leaving fewer permutations to solve. It's easy to calculate that
if a bet is a constant, then you can profitably call with holdings from XY and
"higher" in a given situation, but it obviously gets harder when the bet size
can vary greatly.

To answer OP, Fixed Limit is considered solved (or close to it? Haven't been
following the news on this) from a mathematical and game theory perspective,
and so AIs have been built to play game theory optimally. NLHE is still far,
far from being solved, but there are bots that have been created to churn out
small, albeit automatic, wages short-stacking (to mitigate bet-size
variability) smaller stakes games where its tendencies aren't as openly
exploited.

Poker is very much a mathematical game. And physical tells, reaction-time
tells online are pretty insignificant in the longrun.

~~~
727374
Sorry, but you can't just casually mention 'your opponents likely holdings'
like it's trivial to determine. Putting an opponent on a hand is The Skill
that top pros have mastered and if anything probably comes from great pattern
matching and a strong memory, . But I don't know nor do you because nobody has
built a computer that can do it well.

~~~
panorama
You speak of these 'top pros' and their hand-reading abilities as if they're
an enigma. Hand-reading is mostly a mathematical exercise. It's also
infrequently about placing a person on a specific hand but rather a range of
hands, with different weights assigned to different potential holdings based
on sure, 'pattern matching', understanding player psychology, etc. But it
still goes back to basic combinatorial math. Surely a computer can do this
better than a human.

Source: Was a 'top pro' for many years online

------
prestonbriggs
I wonder when they'll go after people for gambling in the the stock market?
How would you defend them?

~~~
snorkel
Good point. Instead of calling the game poker it should be dressed in Wall St
jargon, and it'd be legitimate investing. The players can be called brokers,
the cards are securities, a hand would be called a compound derivative, the
ante is an investment, and the pot is just a leveraged mutual fund. The only
problem is good poker players get a higher return than good brokers do.

~~~
mcphage
Actually... building a stock market game around a poker re-theme sounds really
freakin' cool.

------
jqm
Roulette is often held up as an example of "random chance" but this is not
entirely true.

There are on occasions patterns in Roulette, especially with certain dealers.
In addition, there is a little trick casinos sometimes employ. They loosen the
legs on the table to the point it wobbles slightly. The dealer will then lean
against the table and watch as the ball is about to drop. They can then pop
the ball out of an undesired slot by a well placed shove of the hip. Just
something to watch out for if you are gambler.

I firmly believe just like in computing, the entire concept of "random"
depends mostly on ones frame of reference.

~~~
TylerE
That's a load of rubbish submitted completely without any sort of proof. That
might have gone on in a back-alley speakeasy in the Prohibition era, but in
any sort of reputable casino - not a chance. The casino has _no need_ to cheat
at roulette. They have a built in edge.

~~~
jqm
It absolutely is not a load of rubbish. I have personally observed it many
times. And I have spent a LOT of time observing. I don't claim to have "proof"
however I know what I have seen. I also didn't say "reputable" (a strange word
in this context). Also, every/most Casino does not engage in this but some do.

Your claim "they wouldn't do this because they already have an edge" is just
silly. Why wouldn't they take a chance to make more money? Especially since,
as you say, "proof" is a bit hard. An accidental bump. That's all. No
intentional cheating here.

I would like to re-iterate my main point. This is something to watch for if
you are a roulette player. If the table wobbles when you push against it...
walk away.

~~~
jqm
As evidence for what I say I will tell you I have won thousands of dollars at
Roulette. Far beyond what one should win "by chance" which should be a
negative number for the amount I have played.

Things have changed a bit since then and I don't play anymore. If you start
winning more than you should you become known. I will tell you that. And this
changes things.

For example, one technique I used was taking advantage of dealers who had
skill placing the ball...yes, these do exist. At one Nevada casino in a
smaller town I stayed for a few days and played very small amounts of money
while watching the dealers. One Asian lady was very adept at placing the ball
on the green zeros when she wanted to. So I went to her table and played $40
which I lost. Then I left and watched her while playing small amounts at the
craps table. I saw her practice placing the ball on the green zeros 4 times in
a row (not sure why she would have done this in public). I walked back to her
table and placed some reasonable bets all over the board. As soon as she
released the ball I put maximum bets on the green zeros. What do you know? I
must have got lucky! I then collected my winnings and checked out. That bet
more than paid for my trip.

Roulette is not always as random as it is held up to be. No, I can't "prove
it".

~~~
TylerE
Frankly, I expect a certain level of proof that you have won long-term at
Roulette.

A session win/loss log would be sufficient.

The house edge in roulette is huge. Anyone claiming to be a winner at roulette
in the long term is either lying or delusional.

An equivalent claim would be someone claiming to double their money in the
stock market every year for years on end.

~~~
dred_blue
Would you like the actual log or the script that makes the log? See the point?

"Anyone claiming to be a winner at roulette in the long term is either lying
or delusional." Possibly but you don't know this. Besides he doesn't claim
"over the long term" and states WHY he quit playing.

"The house edge in roulette is huge." Yes. IF the game is random. Read the
post above.

~~~
TylerE
It would still be more substantial than anything he has offered so far.

To make an assertion that a game of roulette in a licensed casino is not
random is in the realm of moon landing conspiracy.

PS: I also think it's rather sad and transparent that you created a new shill
account to reply to me.

~~~
jqm
Look, as I stated twice before, I don't claim to prove anything. If you chose
to believe I am misrepresenting my experiences (motive?) that's fine. I
understand. I'm just relating the results of a lot... and I do mean a lot (as
in hundreds if not thousands of hours) of observation in hope it saves someone
some money from the table bumping scam. I have seen drunks cleaned out with it
more than a few times. But you can be "right" if it makes you feel good.

You simply don't have my experience. Sorry.

~~~
grkvlt
I don't think thousands of hours playing roulette places you in the 'rational
and detached follower of the scientific method' camp, somehow

~~~
jqm
Thanks for your opinion.

Observation is observation and it makes one a bit of an expert.

Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place
the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took
advantage of that and won a bunch of money? I have a lot of stories like this.

You weren't there. You don't know. You don't have to believe me. If you want
to take the time... go observe for yourself.

~~~
grkvlt
> Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer
> place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when
> I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money?

Absolutely. That is a classic case of observational or confirmation bias, with
a sample size of one, it shows absolutely nothing. At odds of 36-1 there will
be, randomly, one time in 36 when you make an incorrect hypothesis about the
way a roulette ball is going to land, and yet by chance it happens the way you
'predicted'. To confirm your hypothesis with any degree of certainty, one
would need to have multiple situations of this kind happen repeatedly. You
aren't doing that.

~~~
jqm
I have seen dealers with this skill many times. And I took advantage of it
many times. Read my posts before talking about "sample size". I simply mention
__this__ event because it is one of the more skilled dealers I ever
encountered.

So... a one in 36 chance. Actually, I'll give you one in 18 as there are two
sets of green zeros... 0 and 00.

So what is the chance of this happening 4 times in a row?

1/18 cubed = .000000952 chance of occurring. Probably not confirmation bias.
Probably not something one is likely to EVER encounter. (Never mind that I
encountered similar many times). If you read the post, I watched her practice
doing this. No one was playing at the moment. Then she did it again and I
burned her for a lot of money. Read my posts if you care. Or, believe whatever
you wish. Roulette is not always random. And if you spent the time I have you
would know this.

------
lazyant
This is easy: there are professional poker players, there are no (long-term or
non-cheating) professional roulette/slot machine/blackjack etc player.

------
omilu
in boise you can bet on horse racing. Picking a winning horse out of a field
of 12 uniformly looking horses and jocks, involves very little skill and boat
load of luck. You can gamble money on power ball and scratch offs which is all
luck. The ban on gambling has more to do with the inability to collect state
taxes on home games etc...

------
whbk
Well, now that we (nearly) have that strawman out of the way..I guess now we
can shift gears and focus on Sheldon Adelson's 'online poker is so much more
dangerous for compulsive gamblers and minors' doozy. Oh, and can't forget
about Terrorist Hold 'Em!

[http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/what-do-terrorism-and-
on...](http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/what-do-terrorism-and-online-poker-
have-in-common-20140210)

------
erikb
Is the poker boom of ten years ago already forgotten? This fact shouldn't be
surprising after tv, radio and internet telling everybody exactly this for
years. What about the movie Rounders? Is it not watched in the US any more? I
still got the DVD and watch it 4-5 times a year.

------
darasen
There is a reason that the top players happen to very good at math.

~~~
sejje
This is not a rule. A lot of the players don't use much math--basic pot odds.
They develop a feel for when they're making the right play, and openly admit
to being "feel" players.

I do believe they would be very good at doing on-the-spot calculations in
their head, they're often just not very trained in math.

Anyhow, surprisingly little in poker is math-dependent, particularly in normal
ten-handed games. The cognitive load is mostly about factoring in thousands of
variables, past hands, and potential hand combinations of your opponents.

~~~
sejje
@zep

Of course feel players are doing EV analysis, but that's 99% about estimating
hand ranges properly. The math is certainly the most simplistic part of the
analysis.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
EV = "Earned Value"?

Could you outline the process or point to a place to read up on it WRT poker?

~~~
zeppelinnn
@General is right. Here's a great link about what this process generally
involves and why you would do it:
[http://www.pokerology.com/lessons/calculating-expected-
value...](http://www.pokerology.com/lessons/calculating-expected-value/)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Thanks, I know expected values, thoughts this was a game-theoretic analysis
adding in potential winnings as a weighting or some such.

------
webreac
I have seen a world champion of backgammon giving demonstration games with
childs. He has won each time, but if the child had made a double at its last
move, he would win. There is no random.

------
elwell
Should startups be considered illegal gambling too?

------
eddywebs
In my experience luck does not exist.

------
lasermike026
I have to disagree. Moneymaker, a complete nobody, winning the World Series of
Poker.

~~~
sejje
Being a complete nobody is not reflective of one's skill.

That said, luck is the primary influence of outcome given a small enough time
frame.

It's also possible to have your mistakes "fixed" by luck. Moneymaker was not
better than Farha, I'll give you that.

~~~
lasermike026
Watching Moneymaker win and then a series of others unknowns win convinced me
that poker is a game of luck.

Why are real rounders not winning?

~~~
panorama
They are. Overwhelmingly, in fact. You are almost certainly looking at a
ridiculously small sample (probably just WSOP Main Events, of which the past
several have had legitimately skilled winners).

