Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Rumme1, post: 2966719, member: 182441"] Where on earth, do you people pull this bogus stats from ? Seriously, how did you come up with the above, unproveable forumla that dictates a person that has above average luck for a few years at a 9 handed table, is now due to have 16 years of below average luck ...and why am I the only one noticing these absurd and unproveable theorys and calling them out as complete bullshiit ? Did you happen to pull that statistic out of some poker book written by a pro ? If so, I can tell you that pro, was telling you a lie. No its not a terrible example , its a real world example which I witness for years in local home games. The min buy in is $100..the blinds are $1-$2...its pot limit..and its dealer choice . Anything else you need to know ? Anyone that claims a poker player is a awful player, because they only buy in for the min buy, is clueless. That would be like claiming that a poker player that always buys in for the most money at any poker table, is always the best poker player...which is stupid, and innaccurate. Some of you are truly naive. We can read thru this thread, and easily spot the players that make unprovable , false claims about poker, and luck. They create phony numbers out of thin air , which are completely unproven, and then they act like those numbers are proven and timeless laws within poker and luck factors. Anyone that trys to convince you that every person on earth, has the same amount of good luck and bad luck within the course of their existence on earth, is lying to you. Its that simple. Some people are struck by lightning several times in their life, while the majority are never struck by lightning. If good and bad luck was the exact same for all people on earth, then everyone would be struck by the lightning the same amount of times , within a given lifespan. On the subject of poker, its just as absurd to claim that every player that plays 10,000 hours of poker, will experience the exact same amount of good luck, bad luck, bad beats, cold cards, as everyone else experiences within the same 10,000 hours of play . That is a statistical impossibility. Theres a good reason why its called RANDOMNESS For any idiot that claims the worst players always buy in for minimum and the best players always buy in for max, I can give you another real world stat that proves your theory is incorrect. STU UNGAR...one of the worlds best gin players and tourney hold em players... he used to play in the largest side games in vegas...he would buy in for more then most other players at the poker table ..and guess what, he would go broke most of the time . If you dont believe this , then you need to do more research about the subject. You can start with a Doyle Brunson interview on youtube. where he discusses stu ungar, and just how badly he played in side big stake poker games. I really cant believe that some of you people immediatley think that a player that buys in for a lessor amount then other players, is always a indication of the worst player at the table. Where do you come up with these false theories ? Its typical to see a below average player, with a large bankroll , buy in for more then a above average player, with a limited bankroll....its part of a skill called MONEY MANAGEMENT. Exactly right ! at any given time or place..poker can be 100% LUCK.... [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us