Do people 'get' Poker?

Peter Collins

ntlbell wrote:

Poker has paid for an extension on my house, sent me on holidays, it's just about to buy me a brand new car

AHHAAAA That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Dear oh deary me

Cianos

Peter Collins wrote:

AHHAAAA That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Dear oh deary me

Whats the joke?

Lazare

Peter Collins wrote:

AHHAAAA That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

A ha, that's it! Eureka!

I was wondering why you were so boring.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Chucky the tree

homah_7ft wrote:

Would I be wrong in assuming all the people who pay for holidays etc from their winnings are matched by the losses of others who strangely enough are not posting on here?

They are posting here.

TheFlaps wrote:

I've played poker before a good bit so I know what its about. Its 50% skill, 50% luck. Thats why the same guys never win or dominate tournaments like in sport. I actually like the game but discussing old hands on the internet is as boring as it gets for me.

patrickolee wrote:

Poker is predominantly a game of luck. In the longer term over many many hands an advantage will be shown, which indicates that there is a modicum of skill, but it still a predominantly luck based game. If you are a regular player and think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

Pighead

Peter Collins wrote:

AHHAAAA That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Dear oh deary me

Whats this, a positive post from Pessimistic Peter full of happiness and smileys? Oh no hang on a minute, its actually yet another cynical miserable fcuker of a post from boards very own sadsack. Pighead makes that 262/263 miserable posts from Pessimistic Cnut.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Peter Collins

Pighead wrote:

Whats this, a positive post from Pessimistic Peter full of happiness and smileys? Oh no hang on a minute, its actually yet another cynical miserable fcuker of a post from boards very own sadsack. Pighead makes that 262/263 miserable posts from Pessimistic Cnut.

"fcuker"
"cnut"

Nice language...just because I criticised him posting in the third person.

Poor oul piggy - I seemed to have hit a nerve.

Ah well.

Pighead

Peter Collins wrote:

"fcuker"
"cnut"

Nice language...just because I criticised him posting in the third person.

Poor oul piggy - I seemed to have hit a nerve.

Ah well.

Not at all buddy, Pighead uses that nasty language all the time. Doesn't matter if I'm happy, sad angry or placid. Its one of my few faults.

Was round in Mamas house last week and she cooked me a splendid Sunday Roast complete with stuffing, rich gravy and carrot and parsnip mix. After dinner I went "That was fcuking lovely ya wonderful oul cnut" Did this exclamation mean Pighead was angry and hurt? Did it fcuk, quite the opposite in fact.

Like the way you conveniently ignored every other fcuker calling you a miserable old cnut in the thread as well. Did they touch a nerve?

5starpool

Peter Collins wrote:

"fcuker"
"cnut"

Nice language...just because I criticised him posting in the third person.

Poor oul piggy - I seemed to have hit a nerve.

Ah well.

Look, there is your rock over there, go crawl under it.

Peter Collins

nice moderating - can see why you got the job :rolleyes:

5starpool

Peter Collins wrote:

nice moderating - can see why you got the job :rolleyes:

That's the good thing about moderating, you only moderate specific forums. If I was an After Hours moderator I would not have made that comment, but thankfully I am not. Your apparent knowledge of boards is astounding.

jhegarty

Lots of luck in what hands you get... but the difference between a good and bad play is...

a good player loses the least from a bad hand and wins the most from a good hand....

a bad player looses all his chips on a bad hand and only win a few on a good one....

bug

I think poker is all about the player.

Anyone with a quick respondent mind can play it, and be good at it.
The rest is as they say, luck.

My problem lies with those that don't, or can't see, that like everything else, its just a pastime.
And also the fact that it has become so widely internet based, and in that case would seem acceptable to addictive personalities to think that its fine. It can lead certain people into ruination and financial trouble.
Natural selection of course one might say in the case of poker,general gambling, drugs, alcohol etc.... if you're a gob****e enough, then you'll hit rock bottom.
The thing is drugs are illegal, being an alcoholic is acknowledged but socially unacceptable, so what about gambling? Doesn't really get as much of a high profile paddling really does it? No! it gets a forum!

I preferred it when it was socially unacceptable and when people saw poker as a vice. For those who don't know when to stop for one reason or another it was a good deterrent.

It was a clever old man's retirement game a few years ago, now its a way to loose everything in your youth if you don't have any sort of head on your shoulders, and way too many people delude themselves into thinking that they have a good head on their shoulders.

PeakOutput

people will find a way to **** themselves up if they really want to online poker sites may be another way to do it but them not being there is not going to stop it happening imo

Chucky the tree

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

lol, i know. I was applying that most people who lose in poker dont admit they lsoe because they arent good enough, they usually come out with the "pokers mainly luck" as an excuse for their failings in the game.

The same with betfair, look at the cricket or tennis forums during a big event, the amount posters claiming the sport is rigged always grows when a big event is on because people who know nothing about the sport bet on it then complain when they do their dough.

Mr.Plough

bug wrote:

It was a clever old man's retirement game a few years ago, now its a way to loose everything in your youth if you don't have any sort of head on your shoulders, and way too many people delude themselves into thinking that they have a good head on their shoulders.

Maybe people should think about having a read up about something before they put jonnys college fund on green joker.


http://www.pokersrbija.com/books/The%20Theory%20of%20Poker%20(David%20Sklansky).pdf

Lump

Poker's grand, I think it's a lot more skill then 50-50 I'd say 70% skill, 30% luck..... also you need to have big balls to bluff etc.

zuutroy

Lump wrote:

Poker's grand, I think it's a lot more skill then 50-50 I'd say 70% skill, 30% luck..... also you need to have big balls to bluff etc.

It's been said already in the thread and I think its the key point...over 100s and 1000s of hands, luck gets filtered out almost entirely and you're left with people having the best knowledge of the game in profit and those who dont in loss.

ROCKMAN

Originally Posted by TheFlaps
The poker forum for one. The fact that it has so many posts about pointless random hands. Why not just have a lotto forum and we could all discuss our numbers from the night before.

The reasons behind this pointless posting as you call it , Is that boards is lucky enough to have some of the best players in Ireland posting, and I for one am very happy to read and hopeful learn from them .OK there are some/alot of muppets also here. who have a false believe in their own ability (put thats a whole new thread )
Only a fool turns down free advice or lessons,
As for the Luck v Skill debate,
The higher you're skill level the less you have to use or rely on luck

skywalker

johnp wrote:

Here's a Youtube on Texas Holdem from Howard Lederer. Part 1 of 10. The 1st should give you an idea of how to get started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-A7TueRwcg&mode=related&search=

Cheers, will take a look later on today.

Iago

As has been mentioned, like any other discipline the more you play and educate yourself the better your results get.

luck plays a miniscule part in the greater scheme of things, the problem is that the uneducated, playing for a laugh 80% of poker players don't play enough for that to become obvious. Instead when they have the best hand and bet and then lose they blame luck rather than simple variance.

Poker requires patience, mathematical ability, the ability to read other players, the ability and wherewithal to notice patterns and a constant study of your own play to win money in the long term...

The lotto requires you to ask for a quick pick ticket and hand over some money...

I can see where people draw the comparisons

imeatingchips

Peter Collins wrote:

AHHAAAA That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

Dear oh deary me

Collins, you truly are a miserable, charmless, pessimistic and, above all, silly cnut.

I'd hate to be you.

Now, for my contribution to the thread: there's a whole load of people who think they have the inside track on poker who, in fact, now fukc all. e.g. it's 50% skill 50% luck etc etc.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect (take special note Collins). Now, I'm by no means an expert, but at least I know enough to know that I'm not.

Also, AmarilloFats:

AmarilloFats wrote:

the hilarious ignorance and derived prejudices regarding poker are absolutely essential for the poker hierarchy to exist as it does...

It's all luck..Come play.

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

Peter Collins

imeatingchips wrote:

Collins, you truly are a miserable, charmless, pessimistic and, above all, silly cnut.

Zzzz...

Wacker

jhegarty wrote:

Lots of luck in what hands you get... but the difference between a good and bad play is...

a good player loses the least from a bad hand and wins the most from a good hand....

a bad player looses all his chips on a bad hand and only win a few on a good one....

Yeah, that about sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.

Man, reading this thread makes me want to play sooooo badly! I'm going through a good run at the moment; I think I've won six out of my last ten tournaments.

BMcG05

TheFlaps wrote:

I've played poker before a good bit so I know what its about. Its 50% skill, 50% luck. Thats why the same guys never win or dominate tournaments like in sport. I actually like the game but discussing old hands on the internet is as boring as it gets for me.

Quite possibly the most uninformed post I've ever seen.

There are a small yet known bunch of players that continually do well in poker tournaments...just look at Phil Hellmuth. You can't surpass a field of a couple thousand players winning 11 times, and consider it luck.

Please do a little research before posting otherwise your comments may continue to be irrelevant

Peter Collins

I'd agree with you there - there's much more to it than luck and there are many people who play for a living.

The thing is to me, the minute any sport/game/activity becomes partly/wholly about winning money, it becomes terribly dull to talk about.

Take horse racing - I know lads who would talk for days about this horse and that horse, but if there was no gambling involved, just watching the racing, they'd have no interest in it at all.

If people played poker for the thrill of winning the hand and nothing else, would they play in such numbers and would there be so much interest in it here on boards?

Doubtful.

Likewise, if you've no interest in gambling, and many don't, reading about different hands and combinations is boring.

That doesn't take away from the game of poker, but I think it's more a case of people not getting the gambling aspect and taking risks, than understanding the game itself.

David Michael

bug wrote:

I think poker is all about the player.

Anyone with a quick respondent mind can play it, and be good at it.
The rest is as they say, luck.

My problem lies with those that don't, or can't see, that like everything else, its just a pastime.
And also the fact that it has become so widely internet based, and in that case would seem acceptable to addictive personalities to think that its fine. It can lead certain people into ruination and financial trouble.
Natural selection of course one might say in the case of poker,general gambling, drugs, alcohol etc.... if you're a gob****e enough, then you'll hit rock bottom.
The thing is drugs are illegal, being an alcoholic is acknowledged but socially unacceptable, so what about gambling? Doesn't really get as much of a high profile paddling really does it? No! it gets a forum!

I preferred it when it was socially unacceptable and when people saw poker as a vice. For those who don't know when to stop for one reason or another it was a good deterrent.

It was a clever old man's retirement game a few years ago, now its a way to loose everything in your youth if you don't have any sort of head on your shoulders, and way too many people delude themselves into thinking that they have a good head on their shoulders.

I am sensing issues! Don't hate the game...hate the Player!

Regardless, I play a bit of poker now and then. Dappergent is to blame followed by laff...
The other half is not into it though. Keeps going on about it being gambling and addictive etc etc/

Perhaps you two could hook up. Start a Group. www.wehatepoker.com is available?

5starpool

David Michael wrote:

Dappergent is to blame followed by laff...

You must be a real degenerate if these two are your poker introducers. You have my sympathy.

5starpool

Peter Collins wrote:

I'd agree with you there - there's much more to it than luck and there are many people who play for a living.

The thing is to me, the minute any sport/game/activity becomes partly/wholly about winning money, it becomes terribly dull to talk about.

Take horse racing - I know lads who would talk for days about this horse and that horse, but if there was no gambling involved, just watching the racing, they'd have no interest in it at all.

If people played poker for the thrill of winning the hand and nothing else, would they play in such numbers and would there be so much interest in it here on boards?

Doubtful.

Likewise, if you've no interest in gambling, and many don't, reading about different hands and combinations is boring.

That doesn't take away from the game of poker, but I think it's more a case of people not getting the gambling aspect and taking risks, than understanding the game itself.

It surprises me to says this, but that is a very reasonable post.

However, it is like poeple who like football can sit down and watch Soccer Saturday where essentially you are watching people watching football. People who don't like football don't get it, and the same applies to all things poker. If you don't like it then you won't find it interesting.

Spitfire666

the way i would describe poker would be (seems as we are using %'s)
the cards you are delt is luck and the way you play the other players USING those cards is skill.
IMO 80% of the game is playing the player and 20% is playing the cards.

I played poker 2 or 3 nights a week for a long time and wasnt too concerned about winning or loosing, it was always a group of about 6 to 10 of us in a pub having a laugh at €10 a head with no buy-ins to eliminate people who are playing to win and can afford to buy others out of the game.

I fell in love with the game and would play almost anytime a game was going.
It was never realy about the money but more the fun and satisfaction of winning a hand when you have dirt such as 2,7 off suit or similir.
of coarse the money was nice at the end but it mostly went on a round of drinks anyway so wasnt that big a deal.

have been under alot of pressure in work now that i've finished in college and dont get to play that often but the other night we had a game in work with about 8 of us and we used buy-ins, was only a tenner a head but with buy-ins the winnings were in the region of 300euro.

I played really aggresivly at first and within an hour had forced one player (the one who plays most) to buy in 3times and another to buy in twice. i got a good hand and went for a big pot and lost on the river card but thought nothing of it because i was just playing for a laugh. didnt win in the end and after the game i understood why, with buy ins, there was no point trying to bust everyone as they could keep buying in up untill a certain time and once i had my large chip lead i should have waited out untill that time. the great thing is i learned from it and will know the next time.
we talked about online poker and reading people and all that but ultimately we all had a great laugh and winning wasnt really the idea of the night.

Cianos

Peter Collins wrote:

I'd agree with you there - there's much more to it than luck and there are many people who play for a living.

The thing is to me, the minute any sport/game/activity becomes partly/wholly about winning money, it becomes terribly dull to talk about.

Take horse racing - I know lads who would talk for days about this horse and that horse, but if there was no gambling involved, just watching the racing, they'd have no interest in it at all.

If people played poker for the thrill of winning the hand and nothing else, would they play in such numbers and would there be so much interest in it here on boards?

Doubtful.

Likewise, if you've no interest in gambling, and many don't, reading about different hands and combinations is boring.

That doesn't take away from the game of poker, but I think it's more a case of people not getting the gambling aspect and taking risks, than understanding the game itself.

Poker is essentially a game based on risk and reward. It just so happens that money is the most accurate way of keeping score!

David Michael

Cianos wrote:

Poker is essentially a game based on risk and reward. It just so happens that money is the most accurate way of keeping score!

True I play for fun though. A few MTT FT's mean nothing! Bloody donkeys ) I was meant to be the bloody donkey!