This is a discussion on Very interesting poker quotes within the online poker forums, in the General Poker section; I found these in this thread. This is basically a picture of a part of the thread. The thread is much longer than this and
I found these in this thread. This is basically a picture of a part of the thread. The thread is much longer than this and has more interesting statements. Read and judge for yourself. Something to meditate upon.
Poker is brutal no matter how you go about it.If it's not brutal - you're simply on a hot streak, or playing in unbelievably easy games.
Poker at the end of the day, is a matter of who cracks mentally. It is just so tedious. You can see this in live games for small stakes most clearly when someone gets bored after a couple hours of shit cards and does something he/she would never do an hour in. They call it tilt, I call it your inner wisdom letting you know you're wasting your life away.
Yeah, I love tournament poker but can't imagine playing live tournaments for a living. I played a ton online before Black Friday too, pretty successfully, and then was one of the top online tournament players when I got back into it for a bit while I was outside of the US a couple years back.As a last hurrah before getting back to startups I traveled to one big live festival..played terrible in the $10k main event due to poor sleep after travel and got 3-outed just before the money after playing great in a satellite to the $25k. It's one thing to miss the money after playing great for ~5 hours in a $500 tournament from the comfort of your own home...consistently walking away -$15k+ in the hole after expenses for days worth of effort? No thanks.
This is why I don't really like poker. There's just too much variance. Unless you play again and again and again there's not much correlation between skill and the winner.I think it's why people also believe there is "beginners' luck" - there isn't really - the entire game has tons of luck. But when confronted with someone who clearly isn't skilled but wins anyway, poker fans really don't want to face the reality that the game is mostly luck.
Another issue with poker - at least Texas Hold'em - is that the best strategy is folding 90% of the time, which is just boring.
I'm sure there are much better bluffing games.
The variance is also what allows poker to thrive and pro players to have an income though. Since poker is zero sum (really negative because of the casino's take) there has to be a steady supply of losing money playing. That means bad players have to believe they have a shot. If they never or very rarely won against higher skilled players, they'd dry up.Imagine casinos that had cash chess tables or basketball courts. Would you have enough dead money willing to risk playing? I'd wager no. You'd get occasional fish willing to try but they'd get dunked on and go home. Without enough new money, the game would dry up as the best players and the casino accumulate all the rest.
This is true for newbie investor after reading a book and investing in Wall-Street. They almost always lose the money and again Wall Street releases a new easy book on investing.I find a huge co-relation between how poker and wall street is aligned.
> The better team in <sport> wins the game.In response, I give you this snippet from "The Drunkard's Walk" by Leonard Mlodinow:
> ...if one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of its games, the weaker team will nevertheless win a 7-game series about 4 times out of 10. And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this. In the lopsided 2/3-probability case, for example, you’d have to play a series consisting of at minimum the best of 23 games to determine the winner with what is called statistical significance, meaning the weaker team would be crowned champion 5 percent or less of the time. And in the case of one team’s having only a 55-45 edge, the shortest significant “world series” would be the best of 269 games... (p. 70-71)
And that's the case of repeated games which would lower the effect of variance on the outcome. The saying "that's why they play the game" applies. You can get around it by defining the better team as the winner of the game but then "the better team wins the game" is tautological.