Are there enough really variables for a 'Poker Edge'

T

TheLulham

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Total posts
35
Chips
0
Good morning guys,

Have not posted for a while as I have not been playing recently,

My discussion is... Are there enough variables & complexities in Poker to gain a significant edge. Clearly in a game like Chess or Bridge there are millions of possible variations which and complexities within to allow players a HIGHLY significant edge. Look at the difference between a Grandmaster and a decent chess player they stand almost no hope of even drawing.

I just wondered whether a clear and definite line can be drawn between a decent player and an expert player or is there a fairly small edge?

There are obviously the Victor Bloms, Phil Helmuths Daniel Negreanus etc who you could say are grandmasters of the game.

Judging that these players have 10s of millions in prize money there could perhaps be a significant edge to be gained from a 'DECENT' or 'GOOD' player. Is this line about 60/40 or greater? Look at how probably the most highly regarded player Ivey swept away Blom's chips in the high stakes match over many many hours.

Clearly the key aspect of Poker is ability to read situations as accurately as possible and make the most mathematically probable decision.

What I am really getting at is. Are there too many players these days with a GOOD enough understanding of poker for it to be too tough to get an edge. Or is the game RICH and COMPLEX enough to gain say a CHESS GRANDMASTER level of expertise. I want to know that poker is a massive step up from just gambling for this to be a worthwhile hobby and pursuit,

Have you played against a player who is virtually impossible to read/play against?

Thanks for reading please share your thoughts!
 
PurgatoryD

PurgatoryD

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Total posts
736
Chips
0
I think you pose a great question and I look forward to reading the responses you get. I haven't played poker long enough to know the answer myself.

My suspicion is this: even though a good player can beat a grandmaster in a single tournament, given 1000 tournaments, the good player will never be able to beat the grandmaster most of the time. Never. If that's not the case, then poker doesn't allow for the mastery edge you describe.

But what percentage can the good player expect to win? 200 games? 400? I really have no idea. I'd love to hear what others think on that one.

Poker is difficult to compare with chess since a good chess player can never beat a grandmaster in a single tournament. It just can't happen. That's because in chess, there is no luck. In poker, however, we all know that a 90% favorite still loses 10% of the time. And variance can pump that loss percentage even higher in the short term.

That's what I find fascinating about tournament play. Even if I'm an 80% favorite at every all-in showdown, I can only go there so many times before I'm out of the tournament. The survival factor is more complex than just playing the odds every single time.

Good topic!
 
S3mper

S3mper

Poker Not Checkers
Loyaler
Joined
May 13, 2013
Total posts
8,355
Awards
2
US
Chips
123
Tournaments have higher short term variance and I would imagine that the edge is still significant in tournaments. Phil Hellmuth being a great example with 13 bracelets.

In a cash game the edge is huge, if an amateur were to sit at a table with a pro like phil Ivey or Tom Dwan or any other top pro, they may win short term but if they were to stay at the table with the pros for 8 or more hours the amateur would have no chance of winning (Assuming the amateur isn't as skilled as the pros)
 
D

DunningKruger

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Total posts
1,030
Chips
0
There is luck in chess. just not in quite the same way or to nearly the same degree. That the "luck" inherent to poker does such a great job of making a player's edge or a player's handicap (or even simply whether it's one or the other) extremely difficult to quantify is why the games remain profitable even in 2013 and also why we occasionally see topics just like this one on the forums.

There are highly significant edges to be found in poker, and it's why anyone who moves up before they're ready will certainly get destroyed unless they survive a relatively small sample of hands and then quit those stakes before the damage is done. The way to realize your edge in poker is to play a lot of hands. In the same vein that consistently making bets with a negative expectation by playing pit games at the casino will inevitably bust you even if short term luck allows some initial profit, consistently making bets with a positive expectation by playing poker against inferior players will inevitably grow your bankroll (indefinitely) even if short term luck dictates some initial losses.

Poker is extremely complex, and it's worth noting that even the best players in the world constantly make mistakes while they play. This is because poker is at heart a game of people, and the key to being successful at it is to understand who you're playing against and how they think - something no one will do perfectly all the time especially if they haven't yet played the person much.
 
T

TheLulham

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Total posts
35
Chips
0
Interesting common and very true. All the great players are multiple bracelet winners.

I would be interested to know whether the live elements is a great help as there are slightly less tells and reads to go on with. I have seen Daniel Negreanu save & gain an awful lot by his talk on the table he seems to say a possible hand and gauge how the players body language is. Clearly when someone announces the hand that you have a thunderbolt goes through you and you must give some subtle body langauge feature away.

Also have you noticed how Helmuth does exactly the same
 
T

TheLulham

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Total posts
35
Chips
0
In my opinion also getting an extremely fine-tuned intuitive feel can only be gained from extensive practice. These fellas have played for thousands of hours in their poker lives
 
Wolfpack43ACC

Wolfpack43ACC

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Total posts
664
Chips
0
My theory is if you limited a tournament entry to 100 people (50 pros, 50 amateurs) and played that tournament 100 times, a pro is going to win that tournament a majority of the time.

If you play a 27 3 table pro only tournament the same 100 times with 9 Phil Ivey's, I'd like to think those 9 Ivey's results would show through and prove that skill level does shine through over a larger sample size.

Any one jack can win or run good over a few tourneys, it's the guys that stick around for the long haul that are the best.

Or like some say if you want to find out who the best player is the one true test is man on man, 1 on 1, heads up poker. There's where the true skill lies.
 
C

cotta777

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Total posts
868
Chips
0
the only thing I would say I do think you can consistantly see the top players making a profit because they seek out soft games

and the same applies in tournaments, the best players have so much money and they can read hands so they just put you all in.

you aint calling your tournament life with top pair on a wet board - no wayyyy
or with like a speculative hand
scott seiver puts you all in pre flop. your folding

and he will repeatedly do that all the way to final table. as will neagranu and hellmuth will do the same


The hardest part is getting lucky and making it big.
once you make it big you can easily stay there by picking weak games and exploiting the push strategy in big tournaments
 
PurgatoryD

PurgatoryD

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Total posts
736
Chips
0
My theory is if you limited a tournament entry to 100 people (50 pros, 50 amateurs) and played that tournament 100 times, a pro is going to win that tournament a majority of the time.

I think that works. But what about 50 "grandmasters" vs 50 "good players"? How much of an edge are the really good players going to have over the good players? I suppose nobody knows the answer, but it's an interesting question.
 
C

cotta777

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Total posts
868
Chips
0
I think 50 pros against 50 grand masters their is not really an edge in a tournament.

MTT's someone has to get lucky and stack another player several times and that can be any one good player who knows enough about the game to win a tournament.

the only one true factor I personally believe works for the true greats
are instincts.
Phil ivey cant and wont lose when he's reading perfectly, its as if he knows you are going to fold or he knows his hand will win at showdown pre flop.

this is the only pure factor you can use that a grand master would have and for the average pro... their is no way of playing against it - if someone instinctively senses the outcome of a hand you cannot win that hand
 
M

MK8

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Total posts
39
Chips
0
There will certainly always be edges to be had against human opponents, however edges will get smaller and smaller.
 
aero87

aero87

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Total posts
283
Chips
0
There is a significant edge in the lower stakes. Good players know not to call raises with J2 because its suited hoping to hit a flush. They hit one suit on the flop so they stay in because hey they could still get a flush!
 
Top