]]>
That's why i mentioned cashgames: it's a different ballgame. If you make 1 mistake in a tourney (or get unlucky), you're out and possibly have won absolutely nothing. In cashgames you'll just rebuy and play the next hand. So if you're taking good decisions (which a good pokerplayer would do) you'll end up as a winning player and pretty easily beat the cashgames. Ofcourse you'll have your share of bad luck as well, but skilled player will always be winning players, since they're making good decisions in the long run. So you'll need good bankroll management as well.
As to why those internet players are doing so well against pros that are playing for 20+ years: volume.
The 'oldschool' pokerplayers are live pokerplayers. Which means kinda slow play (even with good dealers), so less situations where you improve your game. With the internet generation, you've got tons of people playing 20 tables and more, so they're playing like 2000 hands in 1 hour! Which would take a live player perhaps 100 hours (rough estimate
).So pokerpros that are playing their whole life (take Doyle Brunson) have played much fewer hands than 20 year old internetkids.
There are probably other factors (like internetgeneration being much more agressive), but this is a very important reason.
Btw i think you underestimate the edge you can have on inexperienced opponents, or overestimate the amount of luck that comes into play. Example: say they allow you (or me, or anyone else) to play a series of heads-up matches against a good poker pro. It would be interesting to see, but i think you won't win often. Say 1 in 10?
Since there is still luck involved, you do have a chance to win ofcourse. If you were to play Federer heads-up in tennis .. well good luck.
Statistics: Posted by J — Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:59 am
]]>
]]>
However, the stock thing doesn't surprise me. I really should play the stocks...someone with my brain and constant internet access should be able to make better than the 2% interest I'm currently pulling in.
Statistics: Posted by Satis — Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:07 pm
]]>
A highly simplified version would be to say that you start with a 1000 managers in year 1. In year 2, only 50 of them are still considered to be 'succesful', so 500. Then 250, then 125, then 62, then 31, etc. Up until (around) 1. The result is that, after enough years, you get one guy who's got consistently amazing results. We'll see that guy and wonder over his achievements, and pay him loads of cash - but nobody will ever have noticed the vast throves of managers that didn't succeed.
There is SOME skill involved, but as with almost everything in life, it's catching lucky breaks. It's almost exactly the same with famous artists who sell their work for millions of dollars. Are they talented? Perhaps. Are they more talented than those millions of artists who never succeeded? Probably not. Why do they sell for insane figures and the others who didn't succeed don't? They just do. It's a series of lucky breaks.
(not every discipline in life is subject to this rule - for example an elite sportsman. There is still luck involved in that, but you can't become a sports legend by just being lucky.)
Statistics: Posted by Rinox — Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:11 am
]]>
The stock thing reminds me of something they did in P-magazine or at least some journal: monkeys could randomly pick a stock, and a 'pro' or a couple of them as well. I don't remember the exact setup, but it turned out the monkeys did better there as well.
Statistics: Posted by J — Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:06 am
]]>
]]>
It has been proved that wealth doesn't bring happiness, but relative wealth (ie being wealthier or have more means than those you relate to) does. So just apply the reverse to our poor asses and life suddenly looks a little brighter.
The only thing I DO still get irritated by is people who maintain that most of those professions require a lot more beyond luck and/or the ability to bullshit. I have these recurring discussions about poker with a friend...I say it's mostly luck, he says it's mostly skill.
Clearly, he's insane. You will never win a poker tournament purely on skill - but you can win it purely on luck. Those guys who're "at the top" playing the big leagues for big cash aren't there because they're better than most of the other players in the world - they got lucky breaks.Statistics: Posted by Rinox — Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:37 am
]]>
Age x Knowledge = Disbelieve and loss of faith in the world
Statistics: Posted by Mole — Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:27 am
]]>
Yup. It's another scam profession that wants you to believe that there is (much) skill involved...like top managers, high-level poker players, business consulting, wine tasting, modern art criticism and so forth.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/indexe ... ly-managed
Statistics: Posted by Rinox — Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:06 am
]]>