Poker Players - do you think that poker is beatable longterm?

lemonsky: Cloutier is completely sick for craps. That's his vice. Most guys won't lend him money any more

I seen TJ playing craps at the RIO. He wasnt even playing big at all yet he found himself to go broke somehow. I can't imagine how high he use to play or how he lost his money. Wonder what's is like to play from sky high to 25 dollar chips.

TJ blowed his money on gambling not on drugs.

"Poker Players - do you think that poker is beatable longterm?"

A) Cash Games - Of course. Anyone who does not think you can make a profit in the long term playing cash games knows nothing about gambling or Poker.

B) Single Table Tournaments - Yes. I actually only play single table tournaments online. Easy to mutli-table and once you master the concepts needed to play short handed tournament Poker you can make alot on money with these.

C) Multi-Table Tournaments - Not a chance in hell. Unless you win the WSOP Main Event...or some other huge score. Your odds of making money in the long term with MTT is pretty much non existent. 99% of people who play MTT will lose money in the long run. The skillset needed to be good at these is far over weighted by the shorterm luck that is invloved with these type of events. Meaning unlike single tables and cash games...your skill cannot guarantee you a positive ROI. The variance is way to freaking high.

The end.

damn i just found this thread

very interesting

ill say one thing and that is this ....most of the time even in big live tournys the reason you see alot of the same players at the top of leader boards or final tables is because the cream rises to the top  and consistently .  Sure some luck is involved but most of the time you can play the game and come out way ahead if you know what you are doing .  I  agree with weathered what he said but even in multi table tournys you can and the same ppl usually do profit   

You missed the first posts i made.  I said the skill in the game comes from bluffing and making people with better hands fold, but as far as what cards get dealt to each player, that is 100 percent luck, unless some how your going to tell me the player with the skill can use those skills to have the cards he wants dealt to him, lollllllllllll.

I would suggest that those players win because they are part of a normal random distribution.  Someone has to win, and someone has to lose, and the "pros" you speak of happen to be winning now - but in 5 years they will be losing.

For your 50K who are group A winners - there are 50K group A losers.  Its pretty hard to find a list of pros who are losers.  Why do you think that is?

Sir -

You say they are winners NOT by accident.  Based on what?  They win by skill over time.  Based on what?  Multi-table tournaments are very beatable.  Based on what?

All pros win?  OK - then isnt being a pro a self fulfilling prophecy?  If you win, you are a pro, if you lose, you are just a loser?  Dont you see what you are saying here?  There are no losing pros in the longterm?

Who are the players who win over the course of years?  Are they the same guys who have sponsorship, are on commercials, and have ownership?

You threw out about 10 statements with NO BACKING of any of them whatsoever.  I still make the position - and so far you or nobody else has been able to come forward and debate it - that poker tournament play is a threshold skill, and once you get above that threshold, you are exactly equal to everyone around you.

Go.

You obviously have an opinion, and you state that opinion over and over and over.

But you have no backing to anything you state.

Try posting something to back up your claims - because until you at least back it with some logic - you are just another guy with an opinion - which is fine - but not really going to make me or anyone on my side of the debate change our minds.

Why did Daniel Negranu have a great year in 2004, and nothing since?

Why dont we see anyone dominate poker like Tiger Woods dominates golf?

Jesus Ferguson was the greatest poker player in the world 10 years ago, why not now?

I would like to see a list of the top 10 players from every year for the last 10 years, and see how many repeat on that list year after year.  My guess?  NONE.  Not one would be on the top 10 list for all 10 years, much less for 3 of the 10 years.  What other "skill" sport or game would you see that?  The answer is none. 

I agree with weathered to some degree. Cash games most likely to win and skill most prevalent. Single table is next and multi table tourney has most luck but still skill (this is where I do not agree as best players do more consistently cash).

Many people like the multi table because the individual event risk is low and they do not have to cash often to win.  My friend who has won big does not play in too many cash games because he says"Since I got did well in the WSOP I will never give back a meaningful percentage of what i won buying into tourneys but i could get crushed if on a steamer in large cash games"

At a certain point the tourneys have luck but how you get in position is more skill than luck--minimize losses and maximize wins, and lets not confuse the fact that tourney play is way different than a significant cash game.

vanzack,  my guess is both Negranu and Ferguson are winning money annually, just not at the top of the televised tourneys.

by the way, my friend who won big a few years ago bought into a few tourneys this year totalling about 20K and left Vegas with 60K. He finished well enough to make $$ but so far back overall you would never hear his name. Many pros do this all the time but only get noticed if final table or big hand featured.

because they reached the top of their skill level and now basically their luck has run out.

like i said in another post, the grewatest golfer in the world is probably going to win 99 out of 100 matches, probably 100 out of 100 if he plays the worst golfer in the world every game, but the best poker player in the world wouldnt beat the worst poker player in the world anywhere close to 99 out of 100 times and thats because the best golfer doesnt need any luck to win, where as the poker play does need luck to help him win.

Some people you will never convince thou, because they so much want to believe that poker is all skill, but its not. Poker is a random event and until that skill player can control what cards actually get dealt to him, it will always be a random event.

Very well said.

The SuperiorInsights and other poker apologists in this thread are missing - is the main point.....

That multi-tounament poker is a threshold skill and there once you get that skill, you are in a pool of players that all have a relatively equal chance of winning.  You cannot increase your skill above the threshold, and even if you could that increase does not correlate to higher winnings.

Anecdotal evidence about friends who play, made up stats about Phil Ivey without some kind of reference, and peoples opinions about luck - are all great to talk about over a beer - but not really advancing this discussion any further.  If I am wrong about the above statement, somebody please put together some kind of rational position and present it.  Im not against hearing opinions, that is fine - but dont confuse them with facts.  Telling me that "Phil Ivey has OWNED the poker world for the last few years" is nothing without some kind of reference.  Those words mean nothing - and I imagine the vagueness behind them hides your insecurity about the potential truth - or just ignorance. Maybe it is true, but Im asking you to show me.

And if it is true, my argument would be that in 10 years, Phil Ivey wont be the player of the day, just like Negranu, Ferguson, Brunson all came and went -  it was their time to fool the world with randomness - and today it is Iveys (if it actually is).  Besides, the guy is a moron - Ive seen youtubes of his craps sessions - anyone who loses 1mil in an hour playing craps is either going to be dead or broke soon, no way around that.