Posted Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:10 pm GMT by tame_deuces
I'm writing this post/article in direct response to a post where MrDarling asked me to write something about how to approach cash games in order to win/avoid losing.
This is a generalized post on the subject, and I won't dvelve into specifics, but merely seek to address points that are generally misconceived or not taken to heart when regarding poker. It's a long read.
Have you ever really tried pondering about games such as blackjack, slots, roulette and craps at the casinos? As poker players we are told that such games are losing games. The house has the edge, and in the end the house always wins (a few honourable exceptions may apply for some forms of Blackjack, but let us disregard those for the moment).
But that has never stopped people from playing them, and have you ever tried googling for 'winning roulette', 'winning at slots', 'winning at craps' et cetera?
You'll literally find hundreds of websites, books, movies, DVDs and opinions on how to win at these games. Some disguise themselves with mathematics, other are merely opinions, hunches and flawed theories guising themselves as 'truth'.
Now, you might be thinking...what is this guy on about? Poker is a game that can be beaten! What a dork, but let me continue.
The majority of poker players are losing players, this is an undisputable fact. So is the majority of roulette, craps and blackjack players, also an undisputable fact. But still people pause to read silly theories on how these games can be beaten. And maybe most dangerous of them all are the 'success story' of how someone went big and broke the house.
Don't think for a second that poker is any different. Since the majority of poker players are losing players, the game will treat them no differently than it would if they were to play craps and bet on the passline. They'll chose a bet which loses them the least because it is the most clever bet to make. And make no mistake, alot of poker theory is just like that. It will make you lose less money.
And now things will start to get more difficult. In any gambling game you'll have variance. This means that a losing approach or a losing game will also at times put you in the profit zone. Sure, statistically you lose money but that doesn't mean that you _can't_ at some time score a profit. It is actually rather probable that out of all the losing players, some will have a profit at some point in time.
On the flipside, this also means that a winning game can make people lose money. Poker is situational, you can't sit down at a poker table and expect to profit. There will times when you won't.
So, as an undisputable fact both winning games and losing games can profit or lose money. Sure it is probable that a winning game can win you some cash or vice versa, but poker isn't fair. It's a cardgame of likelyhoods. Some of us will score big and fly off to the higher stakes, some of us will bust.
So, heres comes the crux of the matter. It is exceptionally difficult to know WHY you are winning or WHY you are losing. You can be a loser and win and be a winner and lose. But at the same time we do like some of the roulette players do. We sit down and gobble theory and we eat it raw believing it will make us winning players. But the theory can be crap! Always remember this, keep a critical mind at all costs.
And remember, that when you sit down at the tables and you have made some change to your game and voila you suddenly win money, it doesn't mean that your 'tactic' is working. Losing games can win money too. And neither can you take for granted that your changed game is bad because your are losing $$$ either. A winning game can lose money.
Are you running bad? It doesn't mean that you are playing poor poker. And alot more importantly - are you running good? It doesn't mean you are playing good poker.
Someone said it best when they said that poker isn't a card game, it's a wagering game. Poker is about laying odds and taking odds. When you sit at the table you 'are the house'. You should be the roulette wheel that people are wagering money on, and even then, they can still clean you up and leave you broke.
So you can't take the results of your game seriously when you are striving to become a better poker player. You literally need handsamples that are statistically significant to make assumptions like that (one might speak of a hundred thousand hands or more). You have to learn the simple core truth of poker. Play the probabilities and lay down poor odds and take the good odds.
And also poker is situational. People play different places, different stakes, different opponents. What works for one guy in a given situation over and over may not be what is right for you. Be vary of 'given truths' and oneline sentences of 'correct plays'. If you want to be good, you better damn well know _why_ you are playing like you do beyond a line of 'never do xxx'.
In a poll given by cardplayer, 90% of the asked regarded themselves as 'winning players', think about that. There is alot of losing going because of 'bad luck' going on out there. Many bad players read books and theory too, and they probably believe in alot harder than good players do. Trust me. If you play at some guy and play a guy who seems to lose alot and plays what you think is 'bad poker'. Talk to him, trust me, he has his reasons for his plays: He wants to win. And he has ideas on how to win money. Ever thought of the notion that his ideas are almost just as good as those served to you? And that when you both embark on the 'losing game' it is only up to chance which one of you are going to win?
And don't take what you read in a book or posts on an internet forum for 'truth'. There will be a lot of 'how to win at roulette' type of opinions to be found in both the books and the posts.
Just because poker can be beaten, doesn't mean there aren't losing approaches to be found in theory regarding the game. Even in the accepted 'truths'.
And even if the theory is sound, poker isn't fair. The cards don't owe you a single dime, they have no memory. You'll have to accept that your edge is a smell edge and that it won't always play. You'll lose and you'll win and in the end you hopefully have an edge, so it is _probable_ that you win money.
Well, this post doesn't really give any advice and maybe it is a bad unnecessary post I don't know, but what is about has sort of been like a load I had to get off my chest.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:06 am GMT by MrDarling
Great post Deuces ,
It really is important to remember that poker is gambling. And like in Gambling you can put you money in with 9-1 and still lose.
Understanding this is an important part of understanding poker.
However unlike the rest of casino gambling, in poker your odds at winning the game is theoretically the same as everyone else's. There is no house you play against (there is the rake, which should really be taken into account) And like in the rest of gambling, you can learn to improve your expectation. And by improving your expectation you should be able to win the game in the learn run.
Thats all we do here, learn to improve our expectation!
I believe good players will make money in the long run. And thats what all this is about, isn't it?
In fact, I believe in players ability so much, that even if the game is rigged, I believe really good player will still be able to win it (or at least lose less) just by reading the game right!
In any case, thanks for your effort and time teaching us newbies how to see our way in this game. don't get me wrong, the improvement is hugh, especially due to this forum.
Posted Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:09 am GMT by Eusebio
| MrDarling wrote: |
It really is important to remember that poker is gambling. |
In my opinion that depends on the player.
If I put my money in with the odds against me it is gambling. If the odds are on my side its an investment that should make you money.
Its like the stockmarket: You put your money in and there is the chance that you could lose it, but on the other side there is a nice profit waiting for you, if you do it right. If you observe the market, etc. you will never put your money in when the odds are not correct.
You could even go broke, buying bonds or putting thr money on a savingaccount... but the point is, you can minimize the risk by making the right decissions
And that is what poker is about: making right decissions
If you consider all the facts of a hand and do the right thing every single time it is not gambling. The difference between poker and other Games, that are considered gambling, is the huge amount of things, that you have to take into account when playing it.
In Blackjack you have to consider your own cards, the cards of the dealer and the probabilities and if the game fits your BR ( i am not a BJ pro, and sure there are some more). In Roulette you can do almost nothing... just put your money on the table and pray...
We all know poker and what it takes
The decisisons start at " Which game fits my bankroll", "Which table seems to be a good one!" " Am I in the right condition for playing" "How are my opponents playing" etc. Those are all questions that can make a huge difference... winning or losing!
Then the other things: Holecards, Position, Tells, Odds, Implied odds, Aggression, Flop, Turn, River, etc... I guess there are countless factors and all those factors make poker more an investment, then a game!
I cant remember in which book it was, but it said: "Poker is not a game of winning money, but making good decisions... The money is a sideeffect"
And its true... of course there will be variance, its just another point to take into account...
Posted Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:23 pm GMT by lwestatbus
Interesting post that prompts a question: Given play at the same game format (FL Ring, NL SnG, NL MTT, etc.), same (or similar stakes), same site, what would be your definition of a winning player? Clearly the player would have to be ahead monetarily but what would be your definition in either number of hands, length of time, number of hours of play, etc., of being a winning player?
| tame_deuces wrote: | | In a poll given by cardplayer, 90% of the asked regarded themselves as 'winning players', think about that. |
Don't forget there is a little bit of sampling bias here. The point definitely supports your thesis but you might suspect that players that subscribe to Card Player represent a different population from the whole universe of players.
Posted Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:46 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| lwestatbus wrote: | | Don't forget there is a little bit of sampling bias here. The point definitely supports your thesis but you might suspect that players that subscribe to Card Player represent a different population from the whole universe of players. |
I might disagree with this to a point, since you could make the assumption that the percentage of winning players to losing players would be reasonably stable between readers and non-readers of the publication. The sample might be skewed a bit, but I don't think it would be to any large degree.
I'm just spitballing here. I have no evidence to back this up.
Posted Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:09 pm GMT by lwestatbus
Sean's assumption would definitely be plausible if the two groups only played within the groups. But since the readers play nonreaders there could be a bias.
My thoughts are based on a couple of assumptions:
1. Readership identifies players who care enough about the game to invest in the magazine.
2. Such people would also know more about poker, strategy, tactics, etc., and be better players.
If Readers only played each other it would be like the scene in Rounders where the sharks are all sitting at a table with each other waiting for a fish to come by. But a few fish can make winners out of more than one good player.
I'm spitballing also since I know nothing about the survey. It is a little remeniscient of the famous photo of Truman holding the newspaper with the headline "Dewey Wins". The newspaper based the projection on a sample of the readership of a publication that was only read by well off conservatives and didn't represent the whole electorate.
Only a small comment on Deuce's great post.
Posted Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:30 am GMT by tame_deuces
| lwestatbus wrote: | | Interesting post that prompts a question: Given play at the same game format (FL Ring, NL SnG, NL MTT, etc.), same (or similar stakes), same site, what would be your definition of a winning player? Clearly the player would have to be ahead monetarily but what would be your definition in either number of hands, length of time, number of hours of play, etc., of being a winning player? |
Actually I find that a very hard question to answer, as I'm not really too good with statistics beyond the basic understanding of their implication. I guess with there are probable sections in time/# of hands where it is likely that a solid winrate is directly assosciated with winning play, but I'm not too certain where that would be. My understanding is high enough to understand that it will be a quite high number of hours/hands though. 
| Quote: | | tame_deuces wrote: | | In a poll given by cardplayer, 90% of the asked regarded themselves as 'winning players', think about that. |
Don't forget there is a little bit of sampling bias here. The point definitely supports your thesis but you might suspect that players that subscribe to Card Player represent a different population from the whole universe of players. |
That is very true, and the players that answered the poll probably holds a higher winning % than the rest of the poker world. But even so 90% seems as such a high % that even if I can't prove that the numbers are lying it seems plausible to me. Interestingly it would actually be far more intriguing that players interested enough in poker to read a magazine about it are lying about their results than more casual players doing so would be.
But as you pointed out, it becomes more speculation than anything else.
Posted Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:44 am GMT by BeerWench13
| MrDarling wrote: | | It really is important to remember that poker is gambling. |
I think it's more of a calculated risk. Betting on the ponies or playing roulette, IMO, is more of a gamble. You're putting your money out there and crossing your fingers. You have no further control. Unless you're all-in preflop every hand, you have more options in poker. You can fold when you know your hand is no good. When you see that your 4-horse tripped out of the gate and has no chance of winning, you can't go back to the teller and ask to change your bet. Yes, the cards can certainly work against you (and they do), but if you calculate properly, know when to fold, know when to raise, know your opponent, know the odds, etc., you should come out ahead in the long run.
Excellent post, by the way, Tame.
Posted Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:18 am GMT by snoogins47
Saying poker isn't "Gambling" requires a very strict, arbitrary, and stupid definition of 'gambling.' The fact that we can only be reasonably certain of coming out ahead "in the long run" should be enough to realize that.
We're wagering money, on a game of chance. We may be making much better wagers than our opponents, but that is irrelevant.
It fits the 'wagering money' bill. It definitely fits the 'chance' bill.
It's important to remember that "Gambling game" and "Skill game" are not mutually exclusive descriptions, and that there is no magical cutoff at +/- 0 EV that somehow makes things 'Not Gambling.'
Posted Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:06 pm GMT by robvleugel88
Very nice thread!
I'm playing poker for about 1.5 years now and I can realy find myself in it 
when I just started and won some cash on partypoker I instantly tought I was a winning player and when I lost some later it was "because of bad luck". I guess 90% of the people think about it this way!
I'm currently alot better than I used to be. But still I am not a winning player. I am losing small bits of money, and in the long run I calculated that this is mostly because of the rake. I lost about $50 last month, from which about $60 is rake taken by pokerstars. To be a winning player you realy have to be much better than 95% of the players, which is simply impossible if you are just a hobby player like me. Sure it's possible, and I'm sure I'll ever start making (very small) profit as well if I continue playing it as much as I do now. I notice I'm still learning and improving my game after so many games.
But for all new players out there: if you think you can quit your job and become full time poker player, or just want to make some extra cash out of your new hobby: I have to disappoint you! If you want to become a winning poker player you have to invest atleast about $100-$1000 into it. And even than the profit will be very small and it'll take a long time to pay back the "learning money" you had to pay to all better players when you just started.
Posted Tue May 01, 2007 6:11 pm GMT by ToyMachine22122
I personally have made quite a sizeable profit in the long run by playing poker, considering the relatively small investment I've put into it.
I rarely play in casinos so I'm probably not quite in the same boat as most others here, but in my group of guys I know that I'm the second best player out of the group of friends I play with. Because of this, if the guy who's better than me is there, I'm usually able to make second place and get at least my money back if not a small profit, and if he's not, then I usually am able to win.
Obviously, there's no rake here, so that's possibly the biggest difference between my situation and the situation of casino players.
I don't always take first or second place, though, but it's still worth noting that I'm usually quite confident in my skills here, and that my above generalizations happen about 75% of the time.
Posted Wed May 02, 2007 1:04 am GMT by MrDarling
Rake is a big thing to consider , especially while playing small stakes. and yeah, you probably do have to bed better then most to make a profit playing poker. But you can!!
Also, try going to sites that give rake back.
|
|
