`New style` poker relying more on luck?

Like most of u guys I watch poker on TV and listen to the pundits talking about how poker has changed and the fact that internet poker has had a big impact on playing style.

I think, in a nutshell, what is happening is more `schooling` and players happier to play the luck card. They make a big thing about the `skill` level, but I think in a lot of cases it is nothing more than blind stupidity with an almost `macho` approach.

If u think about it, the easiest way to negate skill in poker is to push all in every hand - if in every game everyone simply pushed all in preflop, u would then be left in a situation where poker would be nothing more than a lottery, based on the cards u r delt

I would be interested with other peoples thoughts

There is a mathmatical approach to the all-in method of playing texas holdem.. I think the all-in system was proposed by salansky but do not have the book where he proposed it. If anyone can identify the book I would be very interested.

When you say that internet poker has popularized a "macho approach" to the game, are you referring to a tendency toward increased aggression? I'd argue that, if anything, this has increased the skill factor in poker. The aggression that has developed is for the most part cool-headed and calculated, and not so much of the rash, brutish (read: macho) kind, as you imply. Employing rational aggression when the line between a winning hand and a losing hand is much more blurred than it used to be seems more skillful to me than doing so when the disparities between hand strengths were more clearly defined.

It's true that if everyone were to go all-in every hand, all skill in poker would be negated and it would be nothing more than a lottery, but that is not what's happening. What is happening is that people are getting more and more clued into the right times to go all-in, and perhaps are doing so with greater frequency because their theoretical understanding of the game dictates that in certain situations, it's the right thing to do. There's a lot of theory and skill that underpins the seemingly reckless direction in which poker playing style has evolved.

The guys you see on TV are playing at the very highest level and the game is about so much more than the cards you are playing. If you think a simple ABC approach would work in those games you are mistaken.

From what I see, a simple ABC approach, no matter what level, is underestimated.

Going back to my initial point, it is getting almost impossible to bluff because the simple `ABC approach` dictates that if u have any kind of hand it is worth calling to the river.

My thoughts are that there are so many `chancers` entering pots that we get a schooling situation.

I mentioned all ins as well. I have found that if u have a monster early in a MTT/ SNG, pushing all in is not a bad move as the fish/ poor players, etc will call on a regular basis.

They edit alot of the TV games.....they only show you hands that are played....their are hours of thinking and choosing which hand to play....it just looks like they're playing anything they get!

Poker is not always a lottery, if it would, there would be no such things like bad or good poker players... online, donks tend to play the super turbo, mainly because they are impatient.

Well, the "best" approach in poker is a dynamic thing; it's whatever best exploits your opponents' tendencies (which are ever-changing, as they adjust to you as you adjust to them). Indeed, at certain levels and against many opponents, "ABC poker" works fine. But what happens if all your opponents are perfectly capable of playing solid, ABC poker? You'd best come up with a strategy that counters ABC.

These highly skilled internet pros could play ABC poker against each other all day long if they wished, but it would be pointless. They'd only be swapping money around, and no one would win anything that way in the long run. Everyone would lose equally to the rake. (I imagine this is true for every case that every player, playing against each other, adopts an identical strategy) It would in effect be the same as everyone going all-in every hand; the winner of any given pot would be purely contingent upon the cards dealt. So these pros have to think far beyond ABC--try to always stay one step ahead of their opponents--which often results in the apparent displays of overly-aggressive "schooling" you see on TV, but which in reality are decisions at which they arrived through careful and complex reasoning.

Frequent all-ins are the norm for high-blind (usually late) stages of a tournament. An extreme instance of this is STT Super Turbos, where in almost every hand you should either fold or go all-in. Nonetheless, it isn't a lottery; there are ways to play the all-in game profitably, and being able to do so is a skill in itself.

I never said poker was a lottery.

Going back to the ABC thing and good players. The reason people make money playing poker is not by taking money off other good players, it is by exploiting the bad ones.

all in is usually an overbet and not a great play

against decent+ players you can accomplishment the same thing with a simple 1/2 pot sized bet or 4X pre-flop, etc.

having said that ... vs. impatient players you might go all in knowing you have the best hand and knowing there is a good chance someone will call you and since getting your chips in good is the main goal, then you get them all in good

To a certain point, there are alot of players who push all in thinking they will intimidate you because they are online and you can see their tell, but the problem with this is when they do play live they will lose, because the style you use most often is what your comfortable with and bad play may win you a few dollars but the the end result will always be the same u will lose more than you win.

I dont think there is any general strategy you can employ.
it depends what your 'read' on the players you are in the hand with.
there is a right move and a wrong move for every hand you play.
our job as players is to try and deduce the best play
for the current situation.

Exactamundo! If the bad ones are becoming more agro these days, may be... once you spot them, felt them

Yes high limits go way beyond ABC, but playing agro fish at micro is pretty much ABC with a few twists (play slightly wider range, use position and board to hammer back and fold weak holdings and players, be prepared to call down bluffs more often)...

BTW Mike cool site u have, should have some tunes tho... my dog is named Elvis too, but he aint nothin but a hound dog...

Thanks buddy

I have just checked and u r right - just had the site changed and the videos and tracks are not highlighted

Here http://www.ukelvis.co.uk/#/new-road-to-vegas/4548837197

http://www.ukelvis.co.uk/#/new-live-band/4548838646

Looks like a phone call in order this Monday lol

I personally believe that skill will conquer over luck. Yes, everyone gets lucky once in awhile; it does help. But, the player that truly learns to master the odds and make the best decisions will be a winner in the long run.

The casual poker player plays for fun with money they can afford to lose. Some of us take the game more seriously; we want to win in the long run, not the short term. We read the books, analyze our hands, and constantly ask ourselves 'how could I have played that hand better?'

These "macho" types you are focusing on appear, at first glance, to be "winners," but in reality, they lose more than they make. That's just the way the game works.

This is all correct other than one major thing. Say, for example, u play AA preflop in a home game against a guy playing 73 sooted. Then, in the World series you play the same hand against a different player.

The home game u hit quads - u take down the pot of £2 or $2.

The WSOP u hit a set on the flop, get your chips in an the other guy hits his flush - u r out. How does this work in the long run?

A psuedo History of Poker

Over 10 years ago Devilfish and even Helmuth played over aggressive games and did well out of it.
As this style became recognised it was easy to wait and catch them out. As they and others who tried it were no longer winning with it the style faded away.
A few years ago it re-emerged with the likes of Tom Dwan and at that time Helmuth pointed out it was an old style which he and other pros had moved on from.

So it certainly isn't a 'New Style'.
The advantages are that you get two chances of winning, get a fold and win or get lucky and win.
It also gives the advantage of winning large pots because it will get called lightly when you do actually have the goods and also when you suckout.

Personally I find it very annoying to play against because even when you get it right these aggressors do hit their second chance of winning by luck more frequently than statistically feasible. (rigged anyone? LOL).

What is new this time around is that previously it was only one or two players using it and so they were easily dispensed by the majority after being identified, but now there are so many using the style they are as a group statistically favoured.

AA is a good hand against any other two cards, but it is not so good against three, four or more sets of random cards.

So in conclusion, there are no conclusions, just multiple evolutions and revolutions and perhaps luck will determine the survival of the fittest.

Honestly so much fail in this thread I wouldn't know where to start???? (I actually did start in on making some counterpoints re some misinformation provided above... but I do declare.. I gave up... "I'm allin").
OP, I'd be interested to hear at what levels you're finding ABC to be effective? From my understanding (& from studying the very best MTT players), they are continually evolving as play changes, looking for unexploitable plays, etc. (could provide plenty of examples but if Tourney players are even remotely in tune with the game it won't be necessary).

ok I think I'll just leave it at that for now..... gonna get on tilt if I write much more on here

I wouldn't really suggest it relies on luck.

To sum it all up, I don't think it's based on "luck" as you say. I think the big difference between the top players and donks who try this move is the spot, not the shove relaying on luck. Most pros can read what hand you're holding and what you're drawing too as well. If they think you have missed they can push you off the hand, even if that's incorrect they can still shove, get a fold and even IF called not a massive underdog and know it's profitable long term.

Of course you will always get people trying to play like the pros and of course it is based on luck for these players as they pick the totally wrong spots and times to do it. Also another big factor is, the pros can lay down monster hands that we would easily call off yet shove over the top with 4 high if they know they missed or think their oppositions hand is marginal where they wont call the shove which we just couldn't do.

That's the big difference, they know the spots to do this in. When you weigh it up, if you thought it was based on luck more so, then how do these pros make the craziest lay downs in the world which we would quite easily call off yet shove over the top with for example, nothing but 4 high? They basically know when they are beat, they know when players are weak and know what they will call and won't call.

Arthur C. Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Poker corollary: "Any sufficiently advanced strategy is indistinguishable from luck."

i started to take that survey but stopped because it was too annoying. how many times do you have to ask the same thing?

You are a good customer for spammers. How much viagra do you buy online per month? How long is your penis now with all the amazing ways to grow it that you were sent by email?

Is that where all those emails are coming from? (from surveys I've taken previously here on CC??). They asked me questions about poker... so I'm puzzled how they knew I needed that increase in length (& 'girth' obv.)? Perhaps it was in reference to that one question I answered > "how often are you 'allin'?" I think I replied something like, "I'm allin fairly often in later stages" (if I had the added length, perhaps I wouldn't be 'allin' quite so often?)

my penis is huge

My "e-penis" is GI-NORMOUS! irl.. not so much