Is NL hold em, the biggest luck involved poker game ?

Rumme1 said:

Sounds to me that you are butthurt, that you got caught making a claim of something I said, when I never said what you claimed ?

Admit you were wrong, and it will be easier for you.

Furthermore, I have responded to threads on how I play in regards to certain hands. Check out the thread on A/K play.

On a final note, I dont feel it is my place to tell players, how they should play, just like it isnt my place to tell players they shouldnt straddle a bet and players have no right to demand me to straddle a bet.

My style of play will not work for most players , escpecially those who have very little experience in live higher stakes games and are online micro players. I dont claim to be incredibly knowledgable about micro stakes games, or online poker . Ive made my living from live higher stakes home games/ casino games. If you want to discuss aspects about that, im all ears.

Just like I would not be very interested in hearing advice from online micro players, who talk the lingo and act as poker veterans , when its obvious they are teenagers/ kids playing in 5 cent hold em games.

Click to expand...

philthy said:

So, you don't understand the value of shoving AK in the later stages of MTTs when stacks are shallow?

Maybe you don't understand the value of shoving in general when stacks are shallow late in an MTT?

Shoving in a viable strategy in MTTs, depending on the situation. There is skill involved in knowing when to shove, what range to shove, and who to shove against. I won't deny that once all the money is in the middle, there is a bit of luck involved in what comes out on the flop, turn, and river.

However, depending on the situation and all things considered, sometimes shoving all-in is the best way to get value for your hands. When blinds are high and how stacks are shallow at 10-30 BBs, we need to take the best approach to extract the most value from our hands and sometimes getting your money in preflop is the best option.

Poker isn't a game of hand vs hand. It's ranges vs ranges and if you're getting your money in situations where your range > your opponents range or your range < opponents range, but you're still in a +EV situation, then you'll profit in the long run. In MTTs, this especially true as we often need to take situations where we might have a small edge or be a slight underdog, but are still in a +EV situation. And recognizing these situation, again knowing when to shove, what range to shove, and who to shove against, takes a much deeper understanding of the game, which is a skill.

And if we take a look at the mathematical side of poker, as long as we're getting our money in most +EV situations, we profit in the long run. Especially if we're getting out money in +EV situations where we have tons of equity.

If your equity is 70% vs 30% in a KK vs AKo situation and you play out said situation 10K times, you are expecting to profit over the long run. If we say we're bet $1 for each hand x 10K, and plug it into an EV formula, we can see that our expected value is .40/hand. x 10K, that's $4K in profits.

Now, I know poker results aren't linear, but if graph this, we can see that straight, profitable EV line. However, the way poker is and with variance, our actual profit line would be all over the place and it's possible that our profit line could be above/below our EV line. Does this mean you're luckier/unluckier than other players if you're above/below? Not at all.

Sample size is also a factor. You can't expect to get a solid result without a decent sample size. Saying you're 78% of the time with KK means nothing if you've only been dealt KK 10x. Which is why I ask for a graph/proof your overall KK results. Mathematically, you should be profiting with KK in the long run, but it isn't impossible for you to be having some short term downswings with them. A graph would easily dispute my theories, but until I see one, I can not believe that you're actually losing 78% of the time with KK over a decent sample size. So, it's possible that:

-Your sample size is way too small.
-You play KK horribly every time. And since you don't like all-in crapshoots, you probably don't play them for stacks when necessary.
-You auto check/fold any A flop and lose tons of value on them
-You're so nitty that you only get called by opponents with AA when you do go all in

Again, this is just speculation. Please prove me wrong/yourself right by posting a graph or something of proof as your unfortunate luck with KK.

Click to expand...

shinedown.45 said:

If ignorance is bliss then you must be as happy as a pig in shit.
I'll be blocking you now because responding to you is :banghead:.

Click to expand...

Rumme1 said:

Yes, im a horrible player, ive lost millions in poker . Im fine with you having that opinion , this is why I dont feel the need to post any graphs to please you. This makes it easy for both of us.

Click to expand...

philthy said:

Did you even read what is posted?

Please tell me where I said you're a horrible player or where you lost millions. That is not my opinion of you.

The graph isn't to please me, I ask because your claim to lose 78% of the time with KK is ridiculously high and I'd like proof of it because I don't believe it. So, either you have proof and it's true, which really sucks. Or you don't have proof and you're just pulling numbers out of thin air. If you claim something, especially as crazy as a 78% loss rate w/ KK, don't be surprised if you're asked to prove it.

If anything, my posts are attempts to help you understand something I don't believe you fully do.

Click to expand...

FYP

philthy said:

The graph isn't to please me, I ask because your claim to lose 78% of the time with AA is ridiculously high and I'd like proof of it because I don't believe it. .

Click to expand...

Rumme1 said:

We are waiting for you to provide proof, that I said :

" I LOSE WITH AA- 78% OF THE TIME I AM DEALT IT.

theres probably a good reason why this forum is made up of mostly :

kids/ teenagers

micro players / small stakes players

habitual liars

Ive never seen a forum where people constantly make claims about what another poster said, that are 100 % false . Never in my life have I claimed I lose with

AA, 78% of the time...and yet you just pull that lie out and try to present it as a fact about me. amazing.

Click to expand...

juiceeQ said:

I've never seen a poster who reads the most miniscule meaning into a post that isn't there in the first place, misinterprets it, and freaks the **** out like you, and I've been here a long time. Chill out.

Click to expand...

Rumme1 said:

We are waiting for you to provide proof, that I said :

" I LOSE WITH AA- 78% OF THE TIME I AM DEALT IT.
...I made a mistake. It happens. I corrected myself near the end of my post. With that said, you and I know exactly what I am talking about, so you're just nitpicking.

theres probably a good reason why this forum is made up of mostly :

kids/ teenagers
...I'd say it's more on the lines of young adults+.

micro players / small stakes players
....Well, this is a great forum for those just starting in the game. And there is nothing wrong with playing micros. Some of us are either just starting and some of us just prefer to play the micros. I, for one, enjoy playing micro MTTs because they're fun.

Are you saying playing micros is a bad thing?

habitual liars
...habitual liars? I'd love to see where you're finding these members. Or are you talking about my minor error in my reply?

Ive never seen a forum where people constantly make claims about what another poster said, that are 100 % false . Never in my life have I claimed I lose with

AA, 78% of the time...and yet you just pull that lie out and try to present it as a fact about me. amazing.
...First of all, it wasn't 100% false. I admit I made a mistake and said AA instead of KK, but that's just a bit of nitpicking on your part. Again, I know that you know what I was talking about. However, lets move on to that ridiculous 78% loss rate with KK. That's a pretty big claim and quite frankly, I think you're either lying about it and have no proof of such a number. At best, it's just a number you pulled out of thin air. That's not a error, like I made, that is a straight up lie unless you can prove otherwise.

Again, if you're going to make claims like you did, be prepared to have those claims questioned. Graphs or it didn't happen. And it's not just on you, it's for anyone that makes a ridiculous claim.

So, please prove yourself right and post proof. Or just be honest and say you made the numbers up.

Click to expand...

Rumme1 said:

you are obviously BIASED....that poster makes a post claiming that I said :
...Maybe JQ is a little biased because I'm so cool, but she definitely isn't being biased about this.

I think anyone can see that I made a simple error. I even admitted I made an error. I do agree with her and say that you miss the point of the post but have no problem nitpicking small errors.

I LOSE WITH AA,,,78 % OF THE TIME
...Oh no! I mistakenly put AA instead of KK, but that's not the point! The point is you have no proof of such a ridiculous claim of losing 78% of the time with KK, it doesn't even matter if you had said AA or KK, both would be equally ridiculous without proof.

and never in my life have I made that claim and when I ask him to prove thats what I said, hes unable to do it..and still, you defend him and bash me.
...Again, it was an error on my part.

Also, it's not like I can't prove where you made this claim...not with AA because, again, that was an error on my part, but were you made the claim with KK. Again, a ridiculous claim with no proof. So, if you want me to prove where you said and where I made there error, that's easy. I didn't reply sooner (which, i guess, is your defense for not me having any proof) because I was busy with other thing.

yeah..chill out..I agree.

do you like it when people misrepresent the things you have said ? I bet you dont...and neither do I.
...I didn't misrepresent what you said. I'm sorry if you think that I did, but I didn't.

Click to expand...

philthy said:

above.

PS: you're probably not as unlucky as you think and you just have selective memory.

Click to expand...

Speedbruce said:

It's funny to see a lot of micro stakes players saying that luck is not the main factor in poker.
...It isn't the main factor in poker. Not denying that luck isn't a part of poker, but poker [if we're thinking long term] is more skill based over luck based.

And why is it funny to see micro stakes players saying such a thing? Do you believe that because some of us play smaller stakes we don't know what we're talking about? Would your opinion differ if I were a high stakes player but still believed that skill > luck in the long run?

At the micros it sure is so as in the home games. If you are in a table with 4 other players that does not know about starting hands, position, sizing, pot odds, the basic theory of poker, you will need to be very lucky to end up winning.
...So, you're telling me that a good player, even at the micros, wouldn't be able to adjust their strategy and play to counter the weaker unknown players?

I guess it would depend on how often they would play. If it's only going to be a single game played against the 4 weak players, then yes, I believe more luck would be needed to run well in that single game. However, if they agree to play every night for 90 days straight, then it's a long term game and skill would be more predominant

As long as the buy-ins and the knowledge increases, the luck factor decreases.
...Are you saying that knowledge only increases as buy-ins increase. Why can't knowledge increase but buy-ins stay the same? Again, I'm a microstakes player because I choose to be. I play MTTs, profit, cash-out, and leave myself enough to rebuild at micros. So, while my buy-ins haven't increase significantly, my knowledge and skill at the game have through experience.

If you're saying there is a correlation between high buy-in = more knowledge/small buy-in = less knowledge, your'e greatly mistaken.

About bad playing KK, i lost four times with it just today. And i bad played just one of them against AQ, the other three i end up loosing to KQ making a straight on the river even with me not giving odds to them before/after the flop. either way, aside some harsh discussions i liked the topic and most of the points showed in here.
...So you lost with KK 4x. It happens. It's variance. It sucks, but it happens. It sounds like you understand where you made a mistake in your hand and where you did things right. For example, giving your opponent improper odds to chase. As long as you're putting yourself in +EV situations and your opponents in -EV situations, you'll profit in the long run. With that said, if your opponent has any equity in the hand, they have a chance to win it. It sucks, but that's how poker goes.

Click to expand...

Speedbruce said:

It's funny to see a lot of micro stakes players saying that luck is not the main factor in poker. At the micros it sure is so as in the home games. If you are in a table with 4 other players that does not know about starting hands, position, sizing, pot odds, the basic theory of poker, you will need to be very lucky to end up winning. As long as the buy-ins and the knowledge increases, the luck factor decreases. About bad playing KK, i lost four times with it just today. And i bad played just one of them against AQ, the other three i end up loosing to KQ making a straight on the river even with me not giving odds to them before/after the flop. either way, aside some harsh discussions i liked the topic and most of the points showed in here.


I am. And is not my memory, there are other people that saw how unlucky i am and they were surprised to see it

Click to expand...

detroitjunkie said:

This thread has gone to the dogs.....it was interesting at first. put this thing down before it ruins a perfectly good new carpet

Click to expand...

philthy said:

...It isn't the main factor in poker. Not denying that luck isn't a part of poker, but poker [if we're thinking long term] is more skill based over luck based.
And why is it funny to see micro stakes players saying such a thing? Do you believe that because some of us play smaller stakes we don't know what we're talking about? Would your opinion differ if I were a high stakes player but still believed that skill > luck in the long run?
They say its not the main factor, but they shoves 30bb from UTG with KTo, and they end up winning lots of times from better hands that should really had called their shoves. The most part of them doesn't even know they are counting with luck calling 3-bets with ugly hands like A6o and winning several times.And YES, the huge amount of small stakes players doesn't know what they're talking about. Thats why i think it's funny. I'm a small stakes player and i see this players every day several times. If Poker does not depends on luck, why we need to see the results in the long run?

...So, you're telling me that a good player, even at the micros, wouldn't be able to adjust their strategy and play to counter the weaker unknown players?
I guess it would depend on how often they would play. If it's only going to be a single game played against the 4 weak players, then yes, I believe more luck would be needed to run well in that single game. However, if they agree to play every night for 90 days straight, then it's a long term game and skill would be more predominant
YES, the good player will have to adjust and limit his level of thinking to level 2 and wide his range a lot what means more LUCK involved. Your 90 days game is just theory, not real life.

...Are you saying that knowledge only increases as buy-ins increase. Why can't knowledge increase but buy-ins stay the same? Again, I'm a microstakes player because I choose to be. I play MTTs, profit, cash-out, and leave myself enough to rebuild at micros. So, while my buy-ins haven't increase significantly, my knowledge and skill at the game have through experience.
If you're saying there is a correlation between high buy-in = more knowledge/small buy-in = less knowledge, your'e greatly mistaken.
I I didn't said that. I sad that when the buy-ins and the knowledge increases, the lucky factor decreases. And YES, you can be a micro-stakes player and a very good player. But you will find a lot of "PPL" with the same stack as you and when you call a shove from MP with your AA in the button, they will call from the BB or SB with 44 and they will end up winning 3 or 4 times.
...So you lost with KK 4x. It happens. It's variance. It sucks, but it happens. It sounds like you understand where you made a mistake in your hand and where you did things right. For example, giving your opponent improper odds to chase. As long as you're putting yourself in +EV situations and your opponents in -EV situations, you'll profit in the long run. With that said, if your opponent has any equity in the hand, they have a chance to win it. It sucks, but that's how poker goes.
So you see that lack of luck can make you loose several times and you have to make a long run to make things even? It is not a 70%(Knowlege)-30%(Luck) equation like many are saying. In MTT or STG small stakes games with 45+ players if you play 10 times you will make it to the money in 3 being optimist. If anybody here can make to the money 7 times in 10 consecutive games like these ones, i'll defend this equation 70-30% for the rest of my life. But until it doesn't happen, i'll still with my conviction that if poker doesn't have the most part of it depending on luck, something like downsize will never happen

Click to expand...

S3mper said:

Wait.. Wha?! Did you just say that the worse the villains are at poker the more luck you will need to win?

I call Shenanigans

Click to expand...

Rumme1 said:

Imho , it is.

Luck is such a huge factor in it, especially tourneys because you will have to eventually play numerous hands, all in preflop, that are coin flips and that no real strategy is involved once the flop, turn and river are dealt, all you do is sit there and hope luck is on your side. Furthermore, its a game where players continually put all their money in preflop when they only have 2 cards which only represents 28% of their total hand. This truly is the definition of crapshoot poker.



And their are numerous examples of big name poker players, who became famous and wealthy, by putting their whole stack in a pot as a 90% or more underdog, and getting lucky to win. A perfect example is Moneymaker in the WSOP main event he won. He was involved in a hand with a guy that went all in on the flop , and the guy had pocket aces. I think moneymaker had pocket 6s and moneymaker went all in...and even said " I KNOW IM IN TROUBLE" .....moneymaker got all his money in, and turned a 6 to beat the pocket aces. Lets face it, NL hold em is really a crapshoot game when compared to other forms of poker that are limit/ pot limit . I was actually dissapointed when TV was able to transform the poker landscape and make NL hold em the big game of choice in the casinos and home games.

Click to expand...

Rumme1 said:

I was not trying to claim that NL hold em was all luck , just that the nature of the game with the all in preflops and coin flip hands, where much of the skill is taken out of the equation on the flop turn and river, makes it a poker game that is probably the most luck involved of all .

Click to expand...

Syltan said:

Poker is a game of luck, by definition, no matter what.

Click to expand...