Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="zachvac, post: 779068, member: 26306"]
Sorry but I read the Annie Duke article before and still think it's a bunch of crap. No one's playing against a machine. The definition of there being luck involved in the short term is can an extremely good player (of course that's somewhat subjective when winning is part of being good) lose to a bad player? The answer is clearly yes (Jamie Gold anybody?). Of course the luck aspect diminishes as the skill gap increases, but the opposite is also true. If you sit down two really good (or really bad actually, but no one would want to watch that :)) poker players and they played millions of hands, most of the short-term wins would be luck. As time went on the small edge one of them has may become apparent. Alternatively, if Phil Ivey went up against me, I could have a hand where I bust him. He could flop a set of kings, read me for strong, use that good read to get all my money in only to find out I have a set of aces. Even if somehow he gets a read and doesn't commit all his chips (something I WOULD do and thus a long-term edge he has on me since in the future the opposite will happen if we play enough hands), no one's committing 0 chips there and nothing can stop me from winning the hand. He's obviously leaps and bounds above me skill-wise, but I could win a few hands against him. That means that luck DOES exist in the short run. Sorry, but Annie Duke should stick to playing poker, she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about in this article.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us