A "System" That Seems To Work

I will take this opportunity to apologize to anyone whom I may have offended by my unfortunate outburst.

I am neither ignorant nor unstudied in the ways of the various games discussed on this site. I have been gambling since my penny-ante days in the hunting camps during deer season. I was 12 years old then and am 67 years old now. Let's just say I've shot a lot of deer, won a lot of pennies, and played a lot of just about everything. Let us also say that I do not suffer fools graciously.

As far as gambling is concerned I am a student of chaos, volatility and risk. I realized a long time ago, maybe before many of you were born, that results in gambling (and just about everything else) were non-linear. For example I win almost always when I play poker but most of my winnings come from two or three hands out of the dozens of hands that are played during the session. I don't know when those hands are going to occur - I just know that I had better be ready to play them when they do. I.E. with no fear.

Bottom line - I'm very good at poker - I hate sitting at a table for hours waiting for the hands. But if you think about it rationally - 'sitting at a table waiting for the hand' is just as much a "system" as any other that has ever been proposed. And I've watched Doyle Brunson and many others play that "system" for years - so don't tell me that "systems" don't work - I know from personal experience and watching Doyle Brunson that they do. If "catching a wave and riding it" is good enough for Doyle then it's good enough for me.

I'm sure that will stimulate heated discussion - I won't partake.

Martin, no one here would say that no system can work. What they will say is that no system can work at beating a negative EV game. Poker, given the varied abilities of the other players, may be a positive EV game for some. And the poker 'systems' would not qualify as a true 'system'. A true system would need to be defined, like, if x happens, then I do y. If z happens, then I do v. Etc. Given the gazillion possibilities in poker, you would not reasonably be able to define a true 'system'.

Quote: SOOPOO

Martin, no one here would say that no system can work. What they will say is that no system can work at beating a negative EV game. Poker, given the varied abilities of the other players, may be a positive EV game for some.

I'd say that poker, as a competition between players, is a game of skill as much as a game of chance. I used to play with friends frequently, and I rarely lost. I could tell, mostly, when they were bluffing and I could fool them into thinking I was bluffing. one time I said "I've three aces," and they still raised my bets. I did have three aces, BTW, and I won that hand.

Pity we played for peanuts...

Anyway, with a group of friends one knows very well, such things are easy. I lost sometimes when I didn't get any decent hands. I mean, you can beat a set with a pair of deuces, but not all the time. So of course random factors affect the outcome, but they don't determine it.

Now imagine poker were played like 3 card poker. Say you get dealt three cards and can either raise or fold only your ante, but you can't raise another player's bet, only the player with the best hand takes the pot. Then we'd be playing by dumb luck, and skill wouldn't even enter into the picture. In that kind of game a system would not help you, though I've no idea what the EV would be for a table of, say, 8 players.

Poker is the ultimate non-system gambling game. If you played a system, your opponents would figure it out and beat you over the head with it. Poker is a people game, not a system game.

Quote: Martin

I have been gambling since my penny-ante days in the hunting camps during deer season. I was 12 years old then and am 67 years old now.

I'm sure we will continue to benefit from your knowledge.

>As far as gambling is concerned I am a student of chaos, volatility and risk.
Sounds good. Certainly sounds relevant.
>results in gambling were non-linear.
I would agree with that. As I guess would anyone playing a slot machine, tracking a roulette wheel, etc.
>when I play poker most of my winnings come from two or three hands out of the dozens that are played during the session.
I know little of poker but have heard People Game Played With Cards, Card Game Played by People, Loose, Tight, Card Dead, etc.
Since style of play varies and composition of tables varies and abilities vary, I don't know if poker is a process much less a linear one.

>I don't know when those hands are going to occur
Well, if you did know, so too would the other players which would make things a bit useless.

> Play with no fear.
I've heard of someone who not only Bet in the Dark but announced he was doing it. Then after the flop had revealed two aces and he had looked at his hand which held two aces, he truthfully announced the situation. Now this is NOT known as "playing tight" unless you might use the word "tight" to mean drunk. Yet he won. Big! Fear? I don't know if he feared losing or not.

>Bottom line - I'm very good at poker
Well, if its a game of skill, then any system can only enhance it. Perhaps.
>I hate sitting at a table for hours waiting for the hands.
Of course, but you can't win if you don't play the game.

>I'm sure that will stimulate heated discussion - I won't partake.
I hope not too heated. Please partake however, otherwise that stack of pennies will have been a poor investment.

I think "system" may be misunderstood. We seek to see some sort of rational system in that we simply don't want to admit that our winnings were simply random events.

Quote: Mosca

Poker is a people game, not a system game.

It's a game of waiting for the "big fish", in the bigger games, where the rake is relatively-small. New players can't (exactly) give away what they don't know, the good ones are as likely to do one play as some other, but the "big fish" know just enough to get into trouble. Otherwise, as Mike Matusow pointed out, "Better put some (of that) money away, because every professional player I know has lost it all back at least once."

Many of the world's wealthiest, however, didn't "drop out" altogether... they just didn't waste their time chasing 0.5% (perceived) edges against each other, and ultimately against casinos, book-makers, et al.

Quote: Garnabby

they just didn't waste their time chasing 0.5% (perceived) edges against each other,

This is why shows like High Stakes Poker are so fake. Those guys have no edge against each other, there is no way on earth they would bet 50K of their own money when they have no edge. Its as fake as professional wrestling.

Quote: Martin

As far as gambling is concerned I am a student of chaos, volatility and risk. I realized a long time ago, maybe before many of you were born, that results in gambling (and just about everything else) were non-linear.
...
I'm sure that will stimulate heated discussion - I won't partake.

Being knowledgeable regarding risk and volatility is wise for anyone who wagers, but you would be remiss in suggesting that gambling results are "non-linear". Insofar as your average wager is scaled by a factor of X, then ceteris paribus, your average result will also be scaled by a factor of X. That is the definition of a linear relationship. On the other hand, if you find a wagering game where this linear relationship does not hold, that would be an interesting discovery. (I don't mean a slot game with a higher payback based on larger denominations, for example).

That said, why would you seek to stimulate a heated discussion and then not participate?

Quote: EvenBob

This is why shows like High Stakes Poker are so fake. Those guys have no edge against each other, there is no way on earth they would bet 50K of their own money when they have no edge. Its as fake as professional wrestling.

I can't speak directly to "fake", but if that show earns money through advertising (which it undoubtedly does), and some percentage of that revenue finds its way to the participants, then every player has a positive edge. I would gladly push money back and forth across a poker table between us if we were both being paid by a third party, and especially if we agreed beforehand to void the results of any pots, eliminating any bankroll fluctuations and guaranteeing both of us a consistent profit with zero variance.

Quote: MathExtremist

I would gladly push money back and forth across a poker table between us if we were both being paid by a third party, and especially if we agreed beforehand to void the results of any pots

Thats exactly what they do. They only real money is the bundled cash, and that belongs to the producers. Its all for show and for the careers of the players. Its not even 'real' poker because they tend to take more chances because the money isn't real.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats exactly what they do. They only real money is the bundled cash, and that belongs to the producers. Its all for show and for the careers of the players. Its not even 'real' poker because they tend to take more chances because the money isn't real.

Is this FACTS that you can back up with URLs that support this claim, OR, is this a In My Opinion ?

We've had this debate in other threads, so I will not hijack this one, but In My Opinion the money being bet is real,and the results stand. It may very well be that the players are getting additional compensation for playing, that I would not find hard to believe.

Quote: RaleighCraps

but In My Opinion the money being bet is real,and the results stand.

Then what they're doing makes no sense. These guys don't play this way against suckers, where they have the edge, why would they do it against each other? It was kept secret for the first 2 seasons, but after 6 seasons the cats out of the bag. Did you see the ep where one of them was 'missing' 50K? Then it was magically 'found' later in the show? A total setup by the producers to make it look like the money is brought in from the outside. Its like a poker sit com, they get paid for it and it boosts their personal fortunes incredibly because of all the TV face time. They're encouraged to yuk it up, keep the chatter going, make it entertaining.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: RaleighCraps

but In My Opinion the money being bet is real,and the results stand.

Then what they're doing makes no sense. These guys don't play this way against suckers, where they have the edge, why would they do it against each other? It was kept secret for the first 2 seasons, but after 6 seasons the cats out of the bag. Did you see the ep where one of them was 'missing' 50K? Then it was magically 'found' later in the show? A total setup by the producers to make it look like the money is brought in from the outside. Its like a poker sit com, they get paid for it and it boosts their personal fortunes incredibly because of all the TV face time. They're encouraged to yuk it up, keep the chatter going, make it entertaining.

The games are real and the cash is real. Yes, the producers want entertainment so they choose certain line-ups that include players people will want to watch. Yes, the players are compensated to be on the show. Yes, the players are winning and losing their own cash. Yes, many of the players have outside interests that benefit from them being on the show. This is from a number of players I know who have been on various shows. "Yukon" Brad Booth and I have talked about this many times and despite his whining about losing over $2Mil to a crooked website I tend to believe him when he talks poker. Mike Mautsow has also as much as verified the same. Daniel Negreanu told me that he doesn't really play much different as far as strategy is concerned but that he does "Hollywood" things a bit more. No, I don't have the bankroll these guys do and I don't play those kind of stakes on a regular basis but I play enough and know enough players to say with a great degree of certainty that what you see is the real deal when these "A" list players are across the felt from each other. It's not about having an edge as much as it's about status.

About the original question (poker being a game played with a system), poker is about as far from being a "system" game as any. A smart, winning player will put him or hersef in a position where the likelihood of winning money will be in their favour but the factors involved in doing that have nothing to do with ay kind of system. If you want to make money at poker, the first thing to do is improve your game. Learn the odds, learn patience, be aggressive when the time is right and PLAY AGAINST INFEIROR OPPONENTS. Look at it this way - think about the best golfer (chess player, bowler, pool player, etc..) you know and ask yourself if he is a better player than you. Sure, you might hit a better shot from time to time or even win a game once in a while but face it, he'll probably beat you 8 or 9 times out of 10. Now ask youself if you'd play this guy for money straight up. You probably wouldn't because you know that he's better than you and that he'll more often than not take your money. So, don't play him for money... but instead, find someone who YOU can beat on a consistent basis who is willing to play you for money. You know that as bad a golfer as you might be that there's someone else out there worse than you. Just find a worse player who is willing to put their money on the line. I'll tell you now that I'm certainly not the best poker player there is BUT I do know that there are a LOT of players who are worse than I and all I have to do is sit at their table and isolate them. Sure, they can beat me in a hand here or there and suck out when they have only two cards to hit on the river but over time I'll beat them more often.

In poker you have the opportunity to choose your opponents. The old saying goes like this, "If you're sitting at a table for 15 minutes and you haven't figured out who the fish is... it's you." I watch tables and individual players before I sit down (live and on line) and I choose to play against weaker opponents. Poker isn't about one hand or one session or even one week... it's all about the "long run" and for professional poker players, their resuts in the long run are the only thing that matters. Play weaker opponents, hone your skills, lose your tells, be patient, and have proper bankroll management. I wouldn't call that a system but if someone else does then that's their right.

Quote: TheNightfly

Yes, the players are winning and losing their own cash.

Nope, they're not. You think one of the players is going to spill the beans when its in his contract not to? All pro players depend on a few of the players at the table to have far less ability and talent than they do, or they have no edge. On the show, the talent is almost equal, theres not enough difference that you'd wager a lot of money on a hand. Yet they go 'all in' half a dozen times an episode. In real life they would be betting very conservatively, not throwing around hundreds of thousands with no edge. Phil Helmuth said as much in season 6. Phil Ivey had just barely beat him by sheer luck out of a huge pot. Helmuth said afterwards that he and Ivey were equally talented and Ivey had just been lucky lately. He knows that with a table full of equally talented people, all you have is luck going for you, and they're NOT going to wager huge amounts of their own money on luck. Not in a million years. These guys love to act like big shots who don't care about losing money, but the truth is, most of them are so tight with it that they squeak when they walk. Unless they can perceive an edge for themselves, they don't play. I remember reading an article years ago with Chip Reese. He went into great detail about how the pro's play fake games with each other so the word would get out and the suckers would be drawn in. He said they had no interest in playing each other because they had no advantage, it was pointless.

Quote: EvenBob

Nope, they're not. You think one of the players is going to spill the beans when its in his contract not to? All pro players depend on a few of the players at the table to have far less ability and talent than they do, or they have no edge. On the show, the talent is almost equal, theres not enough difference that you'd wager a lot of money on a hand. Yet they go 'all in' half a dozen times an episode. In real life they would be betting very conservatively, not throwing around hundreds of thousands with no edge. Phil Helmuth said as much in season 6. Phil Ivey had just barely beat him by sheer luck out of a huge pot. Helmuth said afterwards that he and Ivey were equally talented and Ivey had just been lucky lately. He knows that with a table full of equally talented people, all you have is luck going for you, and they're NOT going to wager huge amounts of their own money on luck. Not in a million years. These guys love to act like big shots who don't care about losing money, but the truth is, most of them are so tight with it that they squeak when they walk. Unless they can perceive an edge for themselves, they don't play. I remember reading an article years ago with Chip Reese. He went into great detail about how the pro's play fake games with each other so the word would get out and the suckers would be drawn in. He said they had no interest in playing each other because they had no advantage, it was pointless.

It never ceases to amaze me that people on this site rebut statements with fact filled, irrefutable, well thought out posts like, "Nope, they're not". I'll do you one better.

Ok, I'm wrong, you're right, I'm sorry.

Quote: TheNightfly

It never ceases to amaze me that people

It never ceases to amaze me that people will believe what they see on 'reality' TV is real, even when it flies in the face of all logic and reason.

Quote: EvenBob

Unless they can perceive an edge for themselves, they don't play.

First, with the appearance fees each is getting, they ALL would perceive an edge for themselves.
Second, the added value of the TV face time for their sponsors is additional value to the competitors.
Third, they are gamblers first. I have read about various top players craps exploits, or blackjack forays.
They certainly had no 'edge' in those games.
I am not saying I know one way or the other if the games are real.
I am just saying that it is very possible they are.
It is also possible they are not.

Quote: SOOPOO

I am just saying that it is very possible they are.
It is also possible they are not.

If you think losing 100K is easier for them than it is for you, you're wrong. They didn't get where they are by being idiots.

Quote: EvenBob

It never ceases to amaze me that people will believe what they see on 'reality' TV is real, even when it flies in the face of all logic and reason.

I generally don't respond to people who talk out of their backsides but please Bob, take a moment to read the part where I explain how 3 high profile players have all said to me that they play with their own money. I assure you that the million dollars Brad plunked down on the table in HSP was his own (through backers) and had nothing to do with producers of the show. I also tend to believe Daniel Negreanu's word before yours.

By the way, the reason they DO play against one another is that they believe that they do have an advantage over the other players on the table... call it ego or delusions of grandeur or a thick head if you will but when they sit down they expect to win, no matter who is across the table from them. Keep in mind that they're not playing for chump change and the list of players who will sit down with half a million dollars is rather limited. Feel free to rail on any number of tables on FTP and you can watch players win and lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in a space of a few hours. Some of these players are well known and some are just individuals with deep pockets.

I expect that you'll have something unremarkable to say about this so by all means, knock yourself out.

Without much lost in translation, concluding that everything about Vegas, and anyone connected in any way to it, is a lie aimed at the stupid... is closer than any 50 miles of system, mathematical interpretation, song and dance, etc.

What the heck do you think those glorified circus-act players say to each other after some of those shows? After the "private" games which they play the other 300 days of the year, where they don't have to deliberately attempt to collude with each other against the "suckers"... having done it for so long now, they "just know" what the other holds, and hence also the "suckers".

Like Brunson wrote in his first book, when one of the "locals" was trying to help out, "Don't wise up the suckers!" Well, the thing Brunson failed to realize... that's just about impossible to do anyway, unless one gets it right from the start.

>... those glorified circus-act players
Whether its Professional Wrestling, Televised Poker or a "Reality" show, ... its mostly hype.
Same with just about everything in Vegas.

>"Don't wise up the suckers!"
Wall street, medical wards, courtrooms ... its all the same rule: Don't Wise Up The Suckers!

(I watched a re-hash of The Enron Chronicles last night: A stock-analyst who was starting to think independently was ostracized because he was "on the team"; a reporter who asked a simple question any executive would normally answer in two minutes flat was ridiculed, her editor was ridiculed, her publication was attacked, her industry was attacked... everything except the executive simply answering a routine question in a direct and forthright manner. So later people start talking about "scandal" and "fraud". Those Suckers should have wised up right there!!).

>Luck too, is in the eye of the beholder.
So tell me: When am I ever going to behold some?
I rolled the bones this morning while slurping my morning coffee as a little 1.414 percent diversion while intending to press my imaginary winnings. I didn't have ANY winning bets. Not even my imaginary bets win. So I might as well be dumb enough to believe in TV wresting, TV poker and TV reality.

Quote: RaleighCraps

Is this FACTS that you can back up with URLs that support this claim, OR, is this a In My Opinion ?

We've had this debate in other threads, so I will not hijack this one, but In My Opinion the money being bet is real,and the results stand. It may very well be that the players are getting additional compensation for playing, that I would not find hard to believe.

LOL, the other day I was watching idly, I saw Phil Ivey make the 4th call pre-flop with 6-4 unsuited. It was almost as if he was saying, "WTF, it's not real anyhow."

FleaStiff,

When i was in grade school, a not-that-terribly bright "friend" (, if friendship means much at that, or any other, age,) asked, "Why am I me?" Does that question put the old mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes to shame, or what?

Eg, perhaps, we're lucky we're not Oprah, Justin B, or even the Wizard... i know Oprah's pretty messed-up, still trying to sort out the W.

Here's a thing i posted on another site yesterday under the title, "A bit of gossip":

"On boxing day... Justin Bieber, Beiber or Beeper, however he spells it, spent a couple hours unannounced "shopping for sun-glasses and swim-suits" at the Fairway Mall (in Kitchener).

Apparently, what didn't happen was much of a reaction when he was spotted. I told the wife, he's just trying for some sort of a Beatles' moment. A while back, i almost bought his poster one day, as a novelty to the ridiculous... the kid looks like a wiener, weiner, whiner, whatever in plastic underwear.

Later, one of my wife's friends told her that the Beeper had tried to have the up-scale Conestoga Mall (in nearby Waterloo) close itself while he was shopping. When that didn't happen, he feigned a snit, and went down the road to middle-class Kitchener.

Hard to imagine, how maddening that must be... a new billionaire, "all dressed up but nowhere to go". Like Carter, whose first order (as president) to open the "Bluebook" (UFO files) was disobeyed."

Quote: TheNightfly

By the way, the reason they DO play against one another is that they believe that they do have an advantage over the other players on the table... call it ego or delusions of grandeur or a thick head if you will but when they sit down they expect to win, no matter who is across the table from them.

Wow, are you ever wrong. Where do you get your info on pro players, the tabloids? You think they got to be pro's by having a ploppie attitude? "I'm gonna win and thats that!" They would leave town on a Greyhound half the time.

Quote: EvenBob

Wow, are you ever wrong. Where do you get your info on pro players, the tabloids? You think they got to be pro's by having a ploppie attitude? "I'm gonna win and thats that!" They would leave town on a Greyhound half the time.

Gee Bob, once again your evidence is overwhelming. "Wow, are you ever wrong" certainly put me in my place. No Bob, I do no get my info from tabloids, I get it from the players. Who do you think is the better player; Tom "Durrrr" Dwan or Patrick Antonius? Tom has issued the following challenge on his website:

“I’m making this heads-up challenge to the world. Anyone can accept. Four tables, minimum of $200/$400, and I’ll put up $1.5 million to their $500,000. We play 50,000 hands minimum and if they end up a dollar after rake they keep the side money or whatever. So basically, if you and I played and you won a dollar, you would get my $1.5 million and if I won a dollar I would win your $500,000. So I’m giving a million dollars free if anyone thinks they can do it.”

Right now he and Patrick Antonius are in the middle of this challenge with Phil Ivey and Davd Benyamine next in line. Phil Ivey is considered by many to be the best NLHE player in the world, especially in ring games. All 4 of these players are willing on a regular basis to put up their cash against other big name players, in live cash games and online. They do it because they believe that they will win money. They believe they will win money because they believe their skills are superior to the other players.

The "Big Game", played in "Bobby's room" at the Bellagio is probably the highest stakes anyone will find on a regular basis and the list of players is a who's who of poker. These players sit down with anywhere from $80K and up and go head to head against the best in the game. No TV cameras, no sponsors, no hosts with play-by-play, just honest to goodness poker at the highest limits. The game has been there for years and if you feel like scraping together $80K you can pull up a chair yourself.

I know that it's easy to say that the games we see on TV are "rigged" or "set up" and people like you tend to believe things like this are a sham. I understand how you feel - you don't want to be sucked in and have the wool pulled over your eyes. Fair enough. On the other hand, there comes a point where your lack of willingness to accept that this is real has no bearing on whether or not it really is. You can say over and over again, "It's fake" and scold others for believing something you don't believe yourself but in this case you are just making unfounded silly statements. I know a number of these players and once again I'll say that I take their word over yours. I play with Yukon Brad on a regular basis and I have for years. What on earth makes you think you have more insight into this than he does?

So, continue to beat your drum if you must but it might just be simpler for you to just say that you're wrong. I know that's not likely to happen but the door is open.

Quote: Mosca

LOL, the other day I was watching idly, I saw Phil Ivey make the 4th call pre-flop with 6-4 unsuited. It was almost as if he was saying, "WTF, it's not real anyhow."

He might have been thinking "Two love cards, and value. Plus no one would think im holding 6-4 on a 3-5-7 board, apart from maybe Gus Hansen, who plays this shit all the time"
He could have been gambling or had prop bets on winning pots with hands like 7-2 and 6-4.
Or it could all be fake.

I really dont know what to think. But I do enjoy the entertainment, and testing myself on the to win percentages.

Here's one good article on the HST controversy.

http://www.richardmarcusbooks.com/downloads/HighStakes28.pdf

Its not unusual in a real high stakes game thats not on TV for a game to go for an entire session and not one player goes 'all in' even one time. And if there are some that happen, a small percentage of them are called. Yet, magically, on HST they go 'all in' all the time and they get called at a rate 4 times higher than in HS games that aren't on TV. They also have far too much table talk when a hand is in play. Its very hard to concentrate when everybody at the table is talking at once, and its not done in private games. But when you're there to have a good time for the cameras and you're playing with monopoly money, who cares. Face it, its an entertainment show, not a real poker game.

Quote: Martin

I will take this opportunity to apologize to anyone whom I may have offended by my unfortunate outburst.

I am neither ignorant nor unstudied in the ways of the various games discussed on this site. I have been gambling since my penny-ante days in the hunting camps during deer season. I was 12 years old then and am 67 years old now. Let's just say I've shot a lot of deer, won a lot of pennies, and played a lot of just about everything. Let us also say that I do not suffer fools graciously.

As far as gambling is concerned I am a student of chaos, volatility and risk. I realized a long time ago, maybe before many of you were born, that results in gambling (and just about everything else) were non-linear. For example I win almost always when I play poker but most of my winnings come from two or three hands out of the dozens of hands that are played during the session. I don't know when those hands are going to occur - I just know that I had better be ready to play them when they do. I.E. with no fear.

Bottom line - I'm very good at poker - I hate sitting at a table for hours waiting for the hands. But if you think about it rationally - 'sitting at a table waiting for the hand' is just as much a "system" as any other that has ever been proposed. And I've watched Doyle Brunson and many others play that "system" for years - so don't tell me that "systems" don't work - I know from personal experience and watching Doyle Brunson that they do. If "catching a wave and riding it" is good enough for Doyle then it's good enough for me.

I'm sure that will stimulate heated discussion - I won't partake.

Not heated at all. I doubt anyone cares what you think is a system. Last I saw, Doyle was walking with a cane so I doubt he's riding any waves. Guess you're all wet riding them waves.