A couple of poker pros gone busto
after seeing more live poker than perhaps 1,000,000's of humans and a fair share of online, how can you say winning a poker hand or a poker session is skill.??? you cannot say over 10 ,20 yrs , we live for today tomorrow is not promised. I've seen players bankrolls demolished after a week of bad beats, real bad beats not suckouts. never to recover. then u see donks, lets use mr gold.. a pure shmuck of shmucks king of the shmucks wins. his skill is non existent, LUCK got the $$$ as so often it does. some of the best players are never able to play above 1-2 2-5 due to many factors, NO luck has played a part in
after seeing more live poker than perhaps 1,000,000's of humans and a fair share of online, how can you say winning a poker hand or a poker session is skill.??? you cannot say over 10 ,20 yrs , we live for today tomorrow is not promised. I've seen players bankrolls demolished after a week of bad beats, real bad beats not suckouts. never to recover. then u see donks, lets use mr gold.. a pure shmuck of shmucks king of the shmucks wins. his skill is non existent, LUCK got the $$$ as so often it does. some of the best players are never able to play above 1-2 2-5 due to many factors, NO luck has played a part in
if m jordan had no arms he would beat u in bball ...if tiger had a arm tied 'round his back he beat u at golf......if eh u get it i can beat any pro poker plyr a hand. that is luck. fk u. u will never beat tiger one frikkin hole. well maybe erik lindgren can.
You are confusing sports and games. They are not the same thing. ![]()
if m jordan had no arms he would beat u in bball ...if tiger had a arm tied 'round his back he beat u at golf......if eh u get it i can beat any pro poker plyr a hand. that is luck. fk u. u will never beat tiger one frikkin hole. well maybe erik lindgren can.
You are confusing sports and games. They are not the same thing. ![]()
I have read quite a bit on covers though I do not post much. The skill threshold argument by Vanzack is not accurate at all. Vanzack is obviously one of the most respected, if not the most respected poster on covers. To be blunt if his skill threshold argument was posted by 99.9% of the covers community he would have gotten tons more heat. There is no skill ceiling that once a player reaches it he is equal to others that have also reached the top. As a matter of fact the game evolves all the time. A guy who was a winner in early online poker in lets say 2003 was not nearly as good as a guy in 2008. The guys that were tops in 2008 would get crushed by the guys in 2013. This applies to all stakes, from micros to high stakes. It also applies to live play. The players that continue to work on their game are the ones that continue to succeed year after year.
Good post.
Question - is the difference between play in 2003, 2008, and 2013 just a difference - or is it "better" as you say? In other words, are there trends in poker where you have an edge for a short period of time because you are playing differently - not better - and then quickly that edge is gone?
Also, would like to hear why if it is skill that you don't see the same players at the top and winning (or at least top 10) of tournaments all the time consistently. Like golf.
![]()
I have read quite a bit on covers though I do not post much. The skill threshold argument by Vanzack is not accurate at all. Vanzack is obviously one of the most respected, if not the most respected poster on covers. To be blunt if his skill threshold argument was posted by 99.9% of the covers community he would have gotten tons more heat. There is no skill ceiling that once a player reaches it he is equal to others that have also reached the top. As a matter of fact the game evolves all the time. A guy who was a winner in early online poker in lets say 2003 was not nearly as good as a guy in 2008. The guys that were tops in 2008 would get crushed by the guys in 2013. This applies to all stakes, from micros to high stakes. It also applies to live play. The players that continue to work on their game are the ones that continue to succeed year after year.
Good post.
Question - is the difference between play in 2003, 2008, and 2013 just a difference - or is it "better" as you say? In other words, are there trends in poker where you have an edge for a short period of time because you are playing differently - not better - and then quickly that edge is gone?
Also, would like to hear why if it is skill that you don't see the same players at the top and winning (or at least top 10) of tournaments all the time consistently. Like golf.
![]()
Good post.
Question - is the difference between play in 2003, 2008, and 2013 just a difference - or is it "better" as you say? In other words, are there trends in poker where you have an edge for a short period of time because you are playing differently - not better - and then quickly that edge is gone?
Also, would like to hear why if it is skill that you don't see the same players at the top and winning (or at least top 10) of tournaments all the time consistently. Like golf.
![]()
Golf is you against the course, not the other players. Also, you get to see what the opponent has (score), so you know if you need to make a birdy on the 18th to win or if a par will do. In poker, its always you vs 1-9 other people (usually 9 as most tourneys have 10 person tables), and then the other 50-8,000 people playing. Every hand puts you in a different position (UTG,BB,SB, cutoff etc), so the game is different 10 times per revolution of the table.
Golf is a sport, poker is a game. If I pulled 2 random clubs out of Tiger Woods bag at every hole and thats all he got to use, do you think he would still have won 12 majors? You can be the best poker player ever, but if you get dealt 2-8 offsuit every hand you simply cant win, and thats the "luck" part of it.
Just my 2c ![]()
Good post.
Question - is the difference between play in 2003, 2008, and 2013 just a difference - or is it "better" as you say? In other words, are there trends in poker where you have an edge for a short period of time because you are playing differently - not better - and then quickly that edge is gone?
Also, would like to hear why if it is skill that you don't see the same players at the top and winning (or at least top 10) of tournaments all the time consistently. Like golf.
![]()
Golf is you against the course, not the other players. Also, you get to see what the opponent has (score), so you know if you need to make a birdy on the 18th to win or if a par will do. In poker, its always you vs 1-9 other people (usually 9 as most tourneys have 10 person tables), and then the other 50-8,000 people playing. Every hand puts you in a different position (UTG,BB,SB, cutoff etc), so the game is different 10 times per revolution of the table.
Golf is a sport, poker is a game. If I pulled 2 random clubs out of Tiger Woods bag at every hole and thats all he got to use, do you think he would still have won 12 majors? You can be the best poker player ever, but if you get dealt 2-8 offsuit every hand you simply cant win, and thats the "luck" part of it.
Just my 2c ![]()
Golf is you against the course, not the other players. Also, you get to see what the opponent has (score), so you know if you need to make a birdy on the 18th to win or if a par will do. In poker, its always you vs 1-9 other people (usually 9 as most tourneys have 10 person tables), and then the other 50-8,000 people playing. Every hand puts you in a different position (UTG,BB,SB, cutoff etc), so the game is different 10 times per revolution of the table.
Golf is a sport, poker is a game. If I pulled 2 random clubs out of Tiger Woods bag at every hole and thats all he got to use, do you think he would still have won 12 majors? You can be the best poker player ever, but if you get dealt 2-8 offsuit every hand you simply cant win, and thats the "luck" part of it.
Just my 2c ![]()
Well - I think you restated my point.
I would suppose that if the poker top 10 changed every year, and there was very little repeats on that list, then skill as a determinant would have to be questioned.
I casually brought up golf - because it was probably the first thing I could think of that was an individual skill against a large pool of competitors. I don't think anyone would argue that on the scale of luck / skill that golf success is very close to the end of the skill continuum. And yes - Tiger Woods doesn't win every tournament, but you consistently see him over the longterm towards the top.
So maybe you don't like golf because it is a sport. Is Chess a sport or a game? Well, you don't see the chess ranking continuously flip year to year. I think it is safe to assume that Chess is - like golf - closer to the skill end of the luck / skill scale.
I know nobody is arguing that there is luck involved in poker - everyone acknowledges that. The one specific point that "jamesd816" made that I would like further clarification on is that poker - longterm - success can be attributed to skill.
I argue that poker is a lake filled with all kinds of fish. Big predatory fish like sharks, and small feeder fish like minnows - and everything in between. That poker lake has a drain at the bottom, and that lake loses a bit of its water every day with no replacement (rake). When that lake eventually dries up - and it will - the sharks will have long eaten the minnows and everything in between - but the sharks will also eat themselves and eventually go belly up on dry land.
I also argue that once you are a shark, there is no other "super species". You are at the top of the food chain, but there are also lots of other sharks in the water with you. Its no problem at first because there are lots of minnows, then carp, then bass - but eventually all there is left is sharks just like you. And a shark is as high as it gets - and there are lots of them - and the luck of the draw determines whether you get one of the last remaining bass or carp swimming in the lake. You made it to the end - and outlasted 95% of everything else - but eventually you are flopping around on the shore.
JamesD816 stated that poker players in 2013 are "better" than poker players in 2003. Is that true? Is that like saying LeBron is better than Magic simply because they played in different eras - or is it more accurate to say that they are of similar skill but in different circumstances?
Maybe - like I always say to covers posters who claim it is impossible to make money betting on sports - I am a caveman looking up at the stars. I cant do it, so nobody can do it, and I don't know enough about poker to make these kinds of assumptions. I am willing to accept that. I just want someone to tell me specifically where I go wrong.
![]()
Golf is you against the course, not the other players. Also, you get to see what the opponent has (score), so you know if you need to make a birdy on the 18th to win or if a par will do. In poker, its always you vs 1-9 other people (usually 9 as most tourneys have 10 person tables), and then the other 50-8,000 people playing. Every hand puts you in a different position (UTG,BB,SB, cutoff etc), so the game is different 10 times per revolution of the table.
Golf is a sport, poker is a game. If I pulled 2 random clubs out of Tiger Woods bag at every hole and thats all he got to use, do you think he would still have won 12 majors? You can be the best poker player ever, but if you get dealt 2-8 offsuit every hand you simply cant win, and thats the "luck" part of it.
Just my 2c ![]()
Well - I think you restated my point.
I would suppose that if the poker top 10 changed every year, and there was very little repeats on that list, then skill as a determinant would have to be questioned.
I casually brought up golf - because it was probably the first thing I could think of that was an individual skill against a large pool of competitors. I don't think anyone would argue that on the scale of luck / skill that golf success is very close to the end of the skill continuum. And yes - Tiger Woods doesn't win every tournament, but you consistently see him over the longterm towards the top.
So maybe you don't like golf because it is a sport. Is Chess a sport or a game? Well, you don't see the chess ranking continuously flip year to year. I think it is safe to assume that Chess is - like golf - closer to the skill end of the luck / skill scale.
I know nobody is arguing that there is luck involved in poker - everyone acknowledges that. The one specific point that "jamesd816" made that I would like further clarification on is that poker - longterm - success can be attributed to skill.
I argue that poker is a lake filled with all kinds of fish. Big predatory fish like sharks, and small feeder fish like minnows - and everything in between. That poker lake has a drain at the bottom, and that lake loses a bit of its water every day with no replacement (rake). When that lake eventually dries up - and it will - the sharks will have long eaten the minnows and everything in between - but the sharks will also eat themselves and eventually go belly up on dry land.
I also argue that once you are a shark, there is no other "super species". You are at the top of the food chain, but there are also lots of other sharks in the water with you. Its no problem at first because there are lots of minnows, then carp, then bass - but eventually all there is left is sharks just like you. And a shark is as high as it gets - and there are lots of them - and the luck of the draw determines whether you get one of the last remaining bass or carp swimming in the lake. You made it to the end - and outlasted 95% of everything else - but eventually you are flopping around on the shore.
JamesD816 stated that poker players in 2013 are "better" than poker players in 2003. Is that true? Is that like saying LeBron is better than Magic simply because they played in different eras - or is it more accurate to say that they are of similar skill but in different circumstances?
Maybe - like I always say to covers posters who claim it is impossible to make money betting on sports - I am a caveman looking up at the stars. I cant do it, so nobody can do it, and I don't know enough about poker to make these kinds of assumptions. I am willing to accept that. I just want someone to tell me specifically where I go wrong.
![]()
And let me state proactively - with total transparency - that I acknowledge that I am not a poker expert. My poker career consists of winning a handful of 10k poker tournaments - but my overall poker experience is certainly limited in comparison to many other people. Im not a minnow, but I am certainly not a shark.
But I am a student of game theory. And I do think that my knowledge of odds and statistics allow me to speak somewhat intelligently about this.
I guess what I am saying is that I welcome a discussion on this - as I have as long as this thread has been around - which is a long time. I am not certain of my position, but it doesn't hurt that this has been out there for years and nobody has really grabbed and tugged at the other side of the rope.
![]()
And let me state proactively - with total transparency - that I acknowledge that I am not a poker expert. My poker career consists of winning a handful of 10k poker tournaments - but my overall poker experience is certainly limited in comparison to many other people. Im not a minnow, but I am certainly not a shark.
But I am a student of game theory. And I do think that my knowledge of odds and statistics allow me to speak somewhat intelligently about this.
I guess what I am saying is that I welcome a discussion on this - as I have as long as this thread has been around - which is a long time. I am not certain of my position, but it doesn't hurt that this has been out there for years and nobody has really grabbed and tugged at the other side of the rope.
![]()
Well - I think you restated my point.
I would suppose that if the poker top 10 changed every year, and there was very little repeats on that list, then skill as a determinant would have to be questioned.
I casually brought up golf - because it was probably the first thing I could think of that was an individual skill against a large pool of competitors. I don't think anyone would argue that on the scale of luck / skill that golf success is very close to the end of the skill continuum. And yes - Tiger Woods doesn't win every tournament, but you consistently see him over the longterm towards the top.
So maybe you don't like golf because it is a sport. Is Chess a sport or a game? Well, you don't see the chess ranking continuously flip year to year. I think it is safe to assume that Chess is - like golf - closer to the skill end of the luck / skill scale.
I know nobody is arguing that there is luck involved in poker - everyone acknowledges that. The one specific point that "jamesd816" made that I would like further clarification on is that poker - longterm - success can be attributed to skill.
I argue that poker is a lake filled with all kinds of fish. Big predatory fish like sharks, and small feeder fish like minnows - and everything in between. That poker lake has a drain at the bottom, and that lake loses a bit of its water every day with no replacement (rake). When that lake eventually dries up - and it will - the sharks will have long eaten the minnows and everything in between - but the sharks will also eat themselves and eventually go belly up on dry land.
I also argue that once you are a shark, there is no other "super species". You are at the top of the food chain, but there are also lots of other sharks in the water with you. Its no problem at first because there are lots of minnows, then carp, then bass - but eventually all there is left is sharks just like you. And a shark is as high as it gets - and there are lots of them - and the luck of the draw determines whether you get one of the last remaining bass or carp swimming in the lake. You made it to the end - and outlasted 95% of everything else - but eventually you are flopping around on the shore.
JamesD816 stated that poker players in 2013 are "better" than poker players in 2003. Is that true? Is that like saying LeBron is better than Magic simply because they played in different eras - or is it more accurate to say that they are of similar skill but in different circumstances?
Maybe - like I always say to covers posters who claim it is impossible to make money betting on sports - I am a caveman looking up at the stars. I cant do it, so nobody can do it, and I don't know enough about poker to make these kinds of assumptions. I am willing to accept that. I just want someone to tell me specifically where I go wrong.
![]()
I agree and understand. I think the problem with trying to grasp poker skill is that there isnt another game/sport to really compare it to. No teams. Cant choose your weapon (no golf clubs, balls,pucks etc), you go into every hand not knowing what 2 cards you are going to look at. You dont know what "the score" is (wether your hand is the best), you have to deduce what the opponent has through various factors.
I am unsure if there is a ceiling to how good you can get, but the odds/luck part will cripple the best players in the world a good percentage of the time. Winning a poker hand doesnt mean you are better than the other guy. Rare game where a foolish move doesnt mean you will lose.
Kenny Rogers actually put it best in 1978 :
"Now Ev'ry gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
'Cause ev'ry hand's a winner and ev'ry hand's a loser,
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep."
Van![]()
Well - I think you restated my point.
I would suppose that if the poker top 10 changed every year, and there was very little repeats on that list, then skill as a determinant would have to be questioned.
I casually brought up golf - because it was probably the first thing I could think of that was an individual skill against a large pool of competitors. I don't think anyone would argue that on the scale of luck / skill that golf success is very close to the end of the skill continuum. And yes - Tiger Woods doesn't win every tournament, but you consistently see him over the longterm towards the top.
So maybe you don't like golf because it is a sport. Is Chess a sport or a game? Well, you don't see the chess ranking continuously flip year to year. I think it is safe to assume that Chess is - like golf - closer to the skill end of the luck / skill scale.
I know nobody is arguing that there is luck involved in poker - everyone acknowledges that. The one specific point that "jamesd816" made that I would like further clarification on is that poker - longterm - success can be attributed to skill.
I argue that poker is a lake filled with all kinds of fish. Big predatory fish like sharks, and small feeder fish like minnows - and everything in between. That poker lake has a drain at the bottom, and that lake loses a bit of its water every day with no replacement (rake). When that lake eventually dries up - and it will - the sharks will have long eaten the minnows and everything in between - but the sharks will also eat themselves and eventually go belly up on dry land.
I also argue that once you are a shark, there is no other "super species". You are at the top of the food chain, but there are also lots of other sharks in the water with you. Its no problem at first because there are lots of minnows, then carp, then bass - but eventually all there is left is sharks just like you. And a shark is as high as it gets - and there are lots of them - and the luck of the draw determines whether you get one of the last remaining bass or carp swimming in the lake. You made it to the end - and outlasted 95% of everything else - but eventually you are flopping around on the shore.
JamesD816 stated that poker players in 2013 are "better" than poker players in 2003. Is that true? Is that like saying LeBron is better than Magic simply because they played in different eras - or is it more accurate to say that they are of similar skill but in different circumstances?
Maybe - like I always say to covers posters who claim it is impossible to make money betting on sports - I am a caveman looking up at the stars. I cant do it, so nobody can do it, and I don't know enough about poker to make these kinds of assumptions. I am willing to accept that. I just want someone to tell me specifically where I go wrong.
![]()
I agree and understand. I think the problem with trying to grasp poker skill is that there isnt another game/sport to really compare it to. No teams. Cant choose your weapon (no golf clubs, balls,pucks etc), you go into every hand not knowing what 2 cards you are going to look at. You dont know what "the score" is (wether your hand is the best), you have to deduce what the opponent has through various factors.
I am unsure if there is a ceiling to how good you can get, but the odds/luck part will cripple the best players in the world a good percentage of the time. Winning a poker hand doesnt mean you are better than the other guy. Rare game where a foolish move doesnt mean you will lose.
Kenny Rogers actually put it best in 1978 :
"Now Ev'ry gambler knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
'Cause ev'ry hand's a winner and ev'ry hand's a loser,
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep."
Van![]()
Good post.
Question - is the difference between play in 2003, 2008, and 2013 just a difference - or is it "better" as you say? In other words, are there trends in poker where you have an edge for a short period of time because you are playing differently - not better - and then quickly that edge is gone?
Also, would like to hear why if it is skill that you don't see the same players at the top and winning (or at least top 10) of tournaments all the time consistently. Like golf.
![]()
Good post.
Question - is the difference between play in 2003, 2008, and 2013 just a difference - or is it "better" as you say? In other words, are there trends in poker where you have an edge for a short period of time because you are playing differently - not better - and then quickly that edge is gone?
Also, would like to hear why if it is skill that you don't see the same players at the top and winning (or at least top 10) of tournaments all the time consistently. Like golf.
![]()
@James,
Could you please enlighten us the 20 weakneses in poker ?,i'm still in the learning process of poker and hopefully get better in the future.
I play recreationally ,poker tournament's during weekends.
@James,
Could you please enlighten us the 20 weakneses in poker ?,i'm still in the learning process of poker and hopefully get better in the future.
I play recreationally ,poker tournament's during weekends.
@james
@james
I have a question on #21. Can you expound further on the reverse free roll? There are times where I will bet in the situation that you just mentioned, i.e when I have a set, top two pair, etc. when there is an open ended straight draw or maybe even 4 to a flush at times when I am pretty sure my opponent was not on those draws. I strike first so he cannot bet to try to bluff me out of the pot. Is that what you were implying?
I have a question on #21. Can you expound further on the reverse free roll? There are times where I will bet in the situation that you just mentioned, i.e when I have a set, top two pair, etc. when there is an open ended straight draw or maybe even 4 to a flush at times when I am pretty sure my opponent was not on those draws. I strike first so he cannot bet to try to bluff me out of the pot. Is that what you were implying?
Hot Forum Topics
-
🤢🥴💩_ Fubah's risky baseball bets _🥶😲🥵
445,999
-
🏈🏈🏈 “To BEt, or not to BEt, that is the question” ...Fubah2's risky bets
301,771
-
🏈🏈🏈 Fubah2's risky CFB bets
253,427
-
Patriots vs Seahawks in-game live season kickoff
1,435
-
PART DEUX
350
-
PART TROIS
278
-
Thursday 09/10/2026
603
-
NFL LOCKED IN!
95,230
-
9/9 🫣🫣🔥🔥🔥
4,745
-
Couple thoughts
4,067
Warning - External Link
Report User
This post is spam
Delete Post
Remove Thread
Scan Results
Login/Register
Accounts are free and easy to create.
Search
