Poker Mostly Sucks

There, I said it. I like watching High Stakes Poker on TV, thats about it. I've tried playing it, but in the lower ranks, its pointless. You can't bluff, half the table will call you. Plus, people dress up like its Halloween. They wear hoods and sunglasses and hats pulled way down. They have scowls on their faces and stare at you like serial killers. And this is at the low low stakes tables. There is way too much luck involved in all stages of poker. You can be the best player and have the best hand right up until the last card. Just this week some amateur nub won 1mil against Daniel Nagrano because Daniel couldn't gets good cards. You can be the best player in the world and without the cards, you're toast. The math says you could hypothetically go your entire career and never get the good cards. The variance can kill you. Around 2005, Doyle Brunson was considering retiring because he hadn't won a hand in 4 months. Who needs it..

Quote: EvenBob

There, I said it. I like watching High Stakes Poker on TV, thats about it. I've tried playing it, but in the lower ranks, its pointless. You can't bluff, half the table will call you. Plus, people dress up like its Halloween. They wear hoods and sunglasses and hats pulled way down. They have scowls on their faces and stare at you like serial killers. And this is at the low low stakes tables. There is way too much luck involved in all stages of poker. You can be the best player and have the best hand right up until the last card. Just this week some amateur nub won 1mil against Daniel Nagrano because Daniel couldn't gets good cards. You can be the best player in the world and without the cards, you're toast. The math says you could hypothetically go your entire career and never get the good cards. The variance can kill you. Around 2005, Doyle Brunson was considering retiring because he hadn't won a hand in 4 months. Who needs it..

To each his own. Some people can't accept the fact that poker is about 75% luck. Others are perfectly happy with the 25% skill component, and maintain that that 25% is sufficient to win. If you have a big enough bankroll, are sufficiently patient, and can handle the variance, financially AND emotionally, poker can be very lucrative.

The difference between the good player and the bad player is that the good player can stay afloat, and minimize his losses, when the cards are running bad for him. Losing $50 instead of $300 in a given hand is worth exactly as much as winning $250 in the next hand. Skilled poker is about playing bad hands, marginal hands, and hands that are beaten. It's not unlike basic strategy in blackjack, which is all about how to play the hard 13s, not the pat 20s.

Negreanu no doubt had several bad stretches during the tournament. The difference was, he survived them to get to that point. His opponent would not have. Heads-up finales are notoriously variable, and the fact of the matter is that even a relative novice will beat a pro in a high-blind competition where the stacks are relatively equal. In only takes a couple of hands to bust the pro even if he has a 3-1 chip lead.

Quote: mkl654321

and the fact of the matter is that even a relative novice will beat a pro in a high-blind competition where the stacks are relatively equal. In only takes a couple of hands to bust the pro even if he has a 3-1 chip lead.

Thats why you see so many no name young twerps winning the tournaments, its all luck. All the money in poker is in the private games in the back rooms in Vegas and California. The pro's don't want each others money, they want Joe the Dentists 150K that he brought from Duluth. The guy will go home with a smile on his face and the story of how he lost it all to Phil Ivey. They only get on TV for the face time and for what the online poker sites are paying them. Its one step above pro wrestling, and thats a very small step..

the reason most people get upset while losing at poker is that they expect to win when they play. when you play in the pits, you expect to lose. so when u lose its no big deal.

Quote: rudeboyoi

the reason most people get upset while losing at poker is that they expect to win when they play. when you play in the pits, you expect to lose. so when u lose its no big deal.

The only way I would expect to win is if I had a huge BR and brass balls, like Tom Dwan. But if you read his Wiki profile, he's had some very bad luck too in the last year and a half. The variance will kill you dead.

I understand that Doyle Brunson's online room is offering "bounties" for knocking the various Pro-Wrestlers out of a tournament.

Seems poker offers alot of variety:
Tournaments
Cash Games
.. Tourist fish such as Duluth dentists.
.. Tight playing Locals
.. Tight playing Locals getting blinds who just sit around waiting for a jackpot to be won.
Sometimes I wish I didn't have such an honest face.

There must be some reason why casinos still love poker players.

Quote: FleaStiff

I understand that Doyle Brunson's online room is offering "bounties" for knocking the various Pro-Wrestlers out of a tournament.

Seems poker offers alot of variety:
Tournaments
Cash Games
.. Tourist fish such as Duluth dentists.
.. Tight playing Locals
.. Tight playing Locals getting blinds who just sit around waiting for a jackpot to be won.
Sometimes I wish I didn't have such an honest face.

There must be some reason why casinos still love poker players.

From what I've read, the pro's who live in Vegas wait for the games with a big fish and they all decend like a pack of wolves. Taking each others money is pointless, they'll just give it back again next time. High Stakes Poker and the tournaments keep their faces in the spotlite and thats money in the bank for them.

I'm watching High Stakes Poker right now and Mike the Mouth just made my point. He said to have a huge giant BR is a big advantage in these games. That when Doyle and Chip Reese played in the early days and won, they did it with almost no BR.

Quote: EvenBob

the pro's who live in Vegas

I think these "pros who live in Vegas" would include all those men without any internet reputations at all who go to a poker room and play all day long every day of the week. Even retirees playing at a very low limit table are professional poker players on their own scale.

One guy sat down and commented that he was Betting in the Dark, not having looked at his cards: it was a ploy to get a few more chips into that pot in case he lucked out. The flop had two aces and when he did pick up his cards it was pocket aces! I guess players can't do that all the time but that is still a professional poker player at work.

Quote: FleaStiff

One guy sat down and commented that he was Betting in the Dark, not having looked at his cards: it was a ploy to get a few more chips into that pot in case he lucked out. The flop had two aces and when he did pick up his cards it was pocket aces! I guess players can't do that all the time but that is still a professional poker player at work.

Heh. Shades of "Maverick" (which I just saw), where Maverick won't look at his draw card and it turns out he pulled the ace for a royal flush to beat the Latino dude.

G-d I hate Hollywood gambling scenes.

Quote: EvenBob

There, I said it. I like watching High Stakes Poker on TV, thats about it. I've tried playing it, but in the lower ranks, its pointless. You can't bluff, half the table will call you. Plus, people dress up like its Halloween. They wear hoods and sunglasses and hats pulled way down. They have scowls on their faces and stare at you like serial killers. And this is at the low low stakes tables. There is way too much luck involved in all stages of poker. You can be the best player and have the best hand right up until the last card. Just this week some amateur nub won 1mil against Daniel Nagrano because Daniel couldn't gets good cards. You can be the best player in the world and without the cards, you're toast. The math says you could hypothetically go your entire career and never get the good cards. The variance can kill you. Around 2005, Doyle Brunson was considering retiring because he hadn't won a hand in 4 months. Who needs it..

EvenBob, let me recommend a book to you: Small Stakes Hold ’em: Winning Big with Expert Play. The entire thesis is that small stakes games among unskilled players are a different animal from high stakes games with knowledgeable players. It addresses many of the points that you bring up (players staying with nothing, being unbluffable, etc) and describes how to reduce the game to the math: Is this bet worth it, considering the pot size and my chances of winning? Now, I don't play the game, it doesn't hold my interest. But I found the book to be fascinating, and completely sensible. You stay when your odds are good, you fold when your odds are bad. By doing so, you win more than you lose.