shug

Anyone sweatin on bets they have made ?
I think it is exciting - & I don't understand the rules !!!

c'mon Helen !!!!!!!!!!!!!

LG John

If its holdem each player is dealt two cards that only they see. There is a round of betting based on the strength of those cards. Then the flop is dealt which comprises 3 community cards that everyone can use and there is another round of betting. Next comes the turn, a further community card, and a round of betting before the river community card and a round of betting. Assuming there are people still left betting away you have to make the best 5 card hand from the 7 available to you. Hands are range from high cards (ace is high), pair, two-pair, trips, straights, flushes, full-houses, four of a kind and finally straight-flushes. Simple really

shug

Eh !!!!!!!!!
anyway - Helen just won a crucial hand - oH THAT SMILE

shug

Hells Bells now leading

What a gal

shug

I think Helens doing well

shug

down to the last 2

P1Fanatic

Vendt must be gutted. 3 aces on the flop to be beaten by a flush on the river.

Simon.

shug

Jones - good on yer mate

P1Fanatic

Glad he won as Helen must already be worth a few bob. At least she can still afford an Aston

Good on them that they didnt drag it out. Thought Helen was gonna steal on the river again but it wasnt to be.

Anyway time for bed.

Simon.

P1Fanatic

Most of the hands dont even get to the turn in no limits holdem at that level. A lot of it is instict in knowing when to fold/pass. The fact a factory worker and a celebrity who didnt play holdem until 6 months ago can get 1st and 2nd in a big tournament against pros doesnt say much for skill IMHO.

The big players got knocked out by lucky hands (vendt especially) but thats what can happen.

Anyway time to move on to my favourite sport - UFC

Simon,

LG John

That is the great common misconception about poker. I'm a very skilled poker player yet if I played a novice/intermediate in one game or even two or three I coud feasibly lose them all. Poker is a long term game and if you want to determine who is best you have to play many many times so that the maths has enough of a sample to even out and all you are left with is skill.

imlach

The most correct defintion is that poker is a game of chance, pure & simple. 100% gambling by definition. In order to be a “game of skill” the elements of skill must predominate over those of chance in determining the outcome....and in poker, that is not really the case. Every game you play is dominated by chance.

However, players can apply a 'skill' to proceedings to try to ensure they maximise their winnings in the long term. Which is usually done by observing the 'skill levels' of the opposition.

imlach

Out of interest, is there a World Ranking list for Poker? Has anyone been at the top of this list for a sustained period (ie, months/years)? You'd expect someone to dominate if it was a game of skill/ability (compare to Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Michael Schumacher, etc etc).

imlach

Did some googling....is the IPF the top poker ranking???

Anyway...no matter....

2004 top 10 : http://www.ipfpoker.com/ipf-world-rankings/2004
2005 top 10 : http://www.ipfpoker.com/ipf-world-rankings

Only 2 players are in the top 10 in 2004 that are in the top 10 of 2005.
If all 10 of the players of 2004 had a skill, why have 8 dropped out the top 10 so quickly?

I thought you said the maths cancelled out the chance and left us with the skill....

LG John

For years the same sort of faces were seen at the final table of the World Series of Poker but sadly that is changing. The reason for this is that the entry fees are the same $10k that they were back in the 70s (or whenever it started). As such last year had something like 6000 entrants. The way the tournament is structures 6000 people is too big a field to ensure you get the same skilled faces at the final table. Remember you just need one person to get lucky for all your chips once and your out.

It's not the case that every game you play is dominated by chance. Against unskilled opponents it's still my skill that principally determines the outcome but I know/accept that in any one game they can get lucky and it can be for all my chips. Part of the skill in poker is limiting the times you are allin to those when you have a very significant mathematical advantage.

I'm still confused as to how you see poker differently to what you do? Every decision I make in poker is based on the fact that I believe I am making a mathematically correct decision. I believe that the money I invest will yield a greater benefit. Sometimes I get it wrong and walk KK in to AA but much more often I get it right and often I get myself in situations where I stand to double my money/chips as a 70%+ favourite. What you do is not different Imlach. You look for oppertunities that are mathematically in your favour and invest in them. Sometimes you get it wrong but more often than not you get it right and when you get it right you're getting a favourable ROI. For this reason you continue to apply your system over and over. If I watched you in action tonight on the markets you might have a horrible night and lose money. As an observer I might think you were an idiot. I might even see you have a bad week or month and still think that. But that's not the whole picture - you do what you do because you know that the maths are in your favour in the long run.

Thats all that matters: having an edge. From the infamous roulette thread we established that you could through a system of play reduce the advantage of the casino to just a few percent. Knowing we know this why do the casino's not take out the tables? Because a few percent is more than enough. In poker I'll very often turn down bets even when I know I'm just a few percent ahead - I hold onto my money for the chances where I can use it to bet at situations where I'm much further ahead.

Look at it like football. Any minow team can beat Man U in one game if things go their way but if they played 100 times they don't have a hope in hell of coming out on top.

LG John

No idea how well regarded those lists are but I recognise a lot of the names in it. The reason that the lists chops and changes is because of the make up of the game. Poker, owing to the luck element, is a more volitile game than most other sports. You'll never get someone that is so good that they are no.1 and winning all the tourneys - it just can't happen and if it did they would be the luckiest person in the world.

Thats not to say you couldn't structure a tournament such that luck was ruled out as much as possible. The problem in doing so is that you'd have to make sure the number of hands played in the tournament went waaaaaaaaay up. The tournament would take weeks to complete, would be tiring and very boring for 95% of it but you would at the end know who the most skilled players were.

imlach

I don't. Playing the financial markets is gambling too. 100%
You're putting money at risk. That's gambling.

imlach

...which is why most 'in the real world situation' would call it a game of chance, and not skill.

imlach

Yes, I remember that thread. I'm glad you now accept that roulette playing would leave you at a loss long-term (max 98% of investment)

imlach

Anyway, the sun is out, the weather is roasting.....get that top down and get oot in yer orange monster.

LG John

LOL, going to Off to the hairdressers (somewhat ironic )

True, but that doesn't mean its bad Gambling has a bad reputation because 95% of the people that do it lose to line the pockets of the 5% that do it well. I'm in the 5%, I suspect you are too

ChriSTi

How much did she win then, did she come second ??

P1Fanatic

IIRC it was:

1st $1,000,000
2nd (Helen) $400,000
3rd $250,000

Simon.

LG John

Helen who by the way? What was the entry fee?

matt85

Well summarised IMO.

Tiggs

you have to split big tournemounts away from cash games. in cash were the edge is played out over hrs of games every day the same people have been making money for MANY years. Chip Resse, Brunson, Harman are names that most players will know as regular winners at cash. More latley Phil Ivey (who rummour has it made $10m last year playing cash)

In tourneys its harder because the edge has to help you out when time is not on your side - however....the same big names still crop up and last year was a prime example - daniel negranu was looking at 2nd place in the world rankings unless he placed on the final table of the last big game (belagio i think)...........very hard to do- he may expect to make X finals in a year but thats accross LOADS of tourneys...to just roll up to one game and expect it is a long shot - and he won it!

This year Greg Raymer (who won the world event last year) nearly made the final table AGAIN...beating 5000+ others.

Say Poker is 15% skill 85% chance for raymer but 5% skill 95% chance for the next guy...............he may beat Raymer once but if he sits with him 10 times Raymer will get his money (and Raymer isnt even that good

T

P1Fanatic

Chamberlain off Soccer Am on Sky Sports. Which she was doing the next day lol after finishing the tourney at like 1.30am.

Simon.

dharbige

Hats off to "spider99", the guy who won.
He qualified by playing a freeroll tournement on Ladbrokes - over 5,000 entrants and only one place paid.

But boy did it pay! That's the online poker dream for ya.