No its not a terrible example , its a real world example which I witness for years in local home games. The min buy in is $100..the blinds are $1-$2...its pot limit..and its dealer choice . Anything else you need to know ? Anyone that claims a poker player is a awful player, because they only buy in for the min buy, is clueless. That would be like claiming that a poker player that always buys in for the most money at any poker table, is always the best poker player...which is stupid, and innaccurate.
...In bold: I never said that anyone that buys in for the minimum is an awful player, I just said that we don't have the needed information. Or do you not understand that playing QQ for 10BBs differs from playing for 100BBs? Not to mention that we don't know the players histories together.
The fact it got all in preflop for 50 BBs effectively probably isn't that uncommon in PLHE. However, you make it sound like your local home game is just constant coinflips.
Also, in your previous post I quoted, your claim that there is more luck in coin flips for a bigger stack because they have to lose more than a shorter stack to bust out is just stupid. Yes, of course a shorter stack has more at risk and yes, there it is luck based when in 50/50 situations, but it's not because of one stack being bigger than the other, it's just how the cards fall. If the shorter stack doesn't want to put themselves in these situations there they commit themselves for 50 BBs w/ QQ, they should buy-in for more.
Both got their money in with equally strong hands in an attempt to maximize their value, and unless it's a split pot, a players is going to win and a player is going to lose. That's how it goes. Yes, maybe the skill level in all-ins isn't as high as playing the hand out, but it's still there.
Anyone that trys to convince you that every person on earth, has the same amount of good luck and bad luck within the course of their existence on earth, is lying to you. Its that simple. Some people are struck by lightning several times in their life, while the majority are never struck by lightning. If good and bad luck was the exact same for all people on earth, then everyone would be struck by the lightning the same amount of times , within a given lifespan.
...Are we talking about luck in poker or luck in general?
I'm not denying that there isn't luck in poker, but I disagree that poker is purely luck based. I think skill = long term winner. Luck = short term winner. However, no long term winner has ever won based on 100% skill alone. I'm not going to lie and say I've never gotten lucky/unlucky while playing. It's just not something I rely on. Also, I don't view luck on just losing situations. I think it's lucky when I get my AK vs AQ AIPF situations or my AA vs KK. It's unlucky when i get my set vs higher set. Stuff happens all the time in poker, but as long as my decisions are +EV, in the long run, I profit. It doesn't matter about the short term bad luck results I might run into every now and then.
On the subject of poker, its just as absurd to claim that every player that plays 10,000 hours of poker, will experience the exact same amount of good luck, bad luck, bad beats, cold cards, as everyone else experiences within the same 10,000 hours of play . That is a statistical impossibility. Theres a good reason why its called
...I think if every player played at the exact same level, the exact same way, were dealt the exact same hands, in the exact same situations, then yes, their luck would be close to equal.
That's impossible, though.
I think there is such thing as players making their own luck. For example, aggressive players might come off as being more luckier than passive players, but that's only they put themselves in a lot more situations that can result in big out comes. For example, an aggressive player might play their flush draw after the flop betting out, raising, or maybe even semi-bluff shoving against their opponent. They win if they get their opponent to fold and they win if they get called and hit their hand. A passive player on the other hand would probably check/call a bet, then check/fold to more aggression on the turn if their card doesn't hit. And when it does hit, they probably don't paid off.
Now, the passive player is wondering how does the aggressive player get so lucky to hit their flushes all of the time? How do they get so lucky to win big stacks when they do hit? Is it luck? I don't think the passive player is any less lucky than the aggressive player. And the odds of hitting your flush when you have 2 in your hand, 2 on the flop is the same whether you're an aggressive player or a passive one. The only difference is the aggressive one is giving themselves 2 ways to win while the passive is only giving themselves only 1. Also, when they're all in, the aggressive player is guaranteed to see the turn and river, whereas the passive player may not get to see the river if faced with a big turn bet.
So, again, are aggressive players more lucky than the passive players? Maybe...maybe not. I think giving themselves a much better chance to win a pot is more skill than just relying on luck.
RANDOMNESS
For any idiot that claims the worst players always buy in for minimum and the best players always buy in for max, I can give you another real world stat that proves your theory is incorrect.
...I don't think anyone claims this. There are plenty of profitable short stack players and a lot of unprofitable big stack players. Skill level isn't determined based how much you buy-in.
With that said, the best players know that buying-in for less than max buy-in is -EV because you aren't maximizing the value of your big hand by short stacking. You don't have to be the best player to understand that.
STU UNGAR...one of the worlds best gin players and tourney hold em players...
he used to play in the largest side games in vegas...he would buy in for more then most other players at the poker table ..and guess what, he would go broke most of the time . If you dont believe this , then you need to do more research about the subject. You can start with a Doyle Brunson interview on youtube. where he discusses stu ungar, and just how badly he played in side big stake poker games.
...Isn't this because he was coked out all the time? Yeah, such skill there playing high. I'm not surprised and I think this is a bad example.
And was Stu Unger really that good? I often question that. I know he played hyper-aggressive when most played a super nitty NLHE style, so that gave him an edge over other players. Also being coked out of his mind probably made him fearless and/or not care, which probably made it harder for other players to play against. I guess this is another discussion, though.
I really cant believe that some of you people immediatley think that a player that buys in for a lessor amount then other players, is always a indication of the worst player at the table. Where do you come up with these false theories?
...Again, I don't think it's an indication of a bad player for buying-in less. I just think that a) the player isn't as good as they think they are if they don't understand the value of buying-in for the max. And b) if we take 2 equally skilled players, but one buys-in for max, the other buys-in for minimum...the player that buys in for max will have the greater edge. Especially in terms of overall profits.
Its typical to see a below average player, with a large bankroll , buy in for more then a above average player, with a limited bankroll....its part of a skill called MONEY MANAGEMENT.
...This is terrible money management. If the above average player can't buy-in for the max at a certain stake with their BR size, then they're playing too high of stakes.
The same goes for the below average player. If they're playing at a stake they can't beat, even though they buy-in for the max, they'll get eaten up by the regs who also buy-in for the max.
