re: Poker & Concerning early game all-ins for tournament life
Originally Posted by Lheticus
My connotation for luck is only negative to the extent that winning by getting lucky doesn't prove anything about my skill--and proving myself, that I can play at a legitimate level, is at the heart of what I am as a gamer--it applies to far more than poker. Lots of people want victory in poker for its own sake or for the money--usually for the money, and well, good on them but that's not me.
It seems to me that you're not considering the fact that skill encompasses more than getting it in when you're +EV. To give a different take on missjacki's example, say you're HU with the world's best great HU player (pick whomever you like). Stacks are exactly even and deep. You're given the option to play the very first hand for stacks with the cards set up so you're a 3:2 dog. Should you?
If we set aside the soft factor of being able to play the match against whomever, you probably should. Why? Because if you choose to play, your probability of beating him is less than 40%.
The skill element in this admittedly contrived example is being able to recognize which -EV option is less bad.
It also seems like you're not considering that luck takes different forms. For instance, when you call someone's all in pre- as a 3:2 or better favorite vs. his range, is it purely a matter of skill when he has the bottom or middle of that range but of bad luck when he has the top and you're behind?
Skill and luck co-exist in poker. In the example above, you got it in good vs his range (skill), but had the bad luck to run into the top of his range. Over the course of your poker career, if you're better than your opponents, you'll be a net winner. But luck will factor into when and how much you win. For instance, Antonio Esfandiari is an excellent player, but his total career winnings would be much less if he had run well in another event rather than One Drop.
No matter what I play, I play to win, and to win in a way that leaves no doubt that I am legitimately good at the game.
What exactly does this mean? If winning a tournament legitimately requires not getting into substantial pots bad, how often do you think that will happen in sizable fields? Once in 1000 tournaments? 5000? More?
And assuming it will take multiple wins in this manner to leave no doubt as to your skill, how many tournaments will that take?
Also, what's your standard for no doubt? Let's say you "legitimately" win enough MTTs in a short enough time span to rate yourself as good. Unless you've done this at the highest levels, you can't legitimately tell yourself you're good fullstop, only that you're good relative to the levels you've played.