I love watching Jamie Gold lose money on the show High Stakes Poker, and then on top of it The Mouth making fun of him about his lucky run. I laugh every time.
I wish I could have seen that.I always forget to watch that show. Somehow the Game Channel isn't in my normal rotation.
0
Quote Originally Posted by PocketJacks:
I love watching Jamie Gold lose money on the show High Stakes Poker, and then on top of it The Mouth making fun of him about his lucky run. I laugh every time.
I wish I could have seen that.I always forget to watch that show. Somehow the Game Channel isn't in my normal rotation.
but in the long run if we all play enough hands we will all get the same cards
not true based on statistical normal distribution(bell shaped). The majority of the people will get the same cards(the middle of the bell), but there is a small percentage who will have better cards than most(the right side of the bell). At the same time there is a small percentage who will have worse cards than most(the left side of the bell).
Just like average height is a normal distribution. Most will be around the average height while some will be taller/shorter than most. And the degree of tallness/shortness is inversely proportional to the size of the group. Meaning as the height increases/decreases from the average, the smaller group.
0
but in the long run if we all play enough hands we will all get the same cards
not true based on statistical normal distribution(bell shaped). The majority of the people will get the same cards(the middle of the bell), but there is a small percentage who will have better cards than most(the right side of the bell). At the same time there is a small percentage who will have worse cards than most(the left side of the bell).
Just like average height is a normal distribution. Most will be around the average height while some will be taller/shorter than most. And the degree of tallness/shortness is inversely proportional to the size of the group. Meaning as the height increases/decreases from the average, the smaller group.
yeah but you have the greatest statistical chance of ending in the middle...so his statement has merit
of course some people will get better cards than others....but I will tell you this...i know alot of players who get good cards and are still losing players....and i know a couple of players who dont always need to catch good cards and they are still long term winners....
0
yeah but you have the greatest statistical chance of ending in the middle...so his statement has merit
of course some people will get better cards than others....but I will tell you this...i know alot of players who get good cards and are still losing players....and i know a couple of players who dont always need to catch good cards and they are still long term winners....
Always be a student of the game, when you believe you have mastered poker and feel there is no room for improvement, you have no chance to become a better player than you currently are....
0
Always be a student of the game, when you believe you have mastered poker and feel there is no room for improvement, you have no chance to become a better player than you currently are....
I believe that playing to your personality is good advice. I agree that you have to play the player not the cards, and playing to your personality can help that. Your style will remain consistent, its almost like constantly going with your gut, because if you break that rhythm, you will only fall downhill. Its hard to explain but I was playing at Foxwoods one day and someone spoke to me about that, and I realized that my style has alot to do with my personality.
0
I believe that playing to your personality is good advice. I agree that you have to play the player not the cards, and playing to your personality can help that. Your style will remain consistent, its almost like constantly going with your gut, because if you break that rhythm, you will only fall downhill. Its hard to explain but I was playing at Foxwoods one day and someone spoke to me about that, and I realized that my style has alot to do with my personality.
I,m now convinced that playing within your bankroll is the key so long as you're a decent player.
When playing no limit ring games i think you should have at least 25 full buy in's. When you increase your roll enough that you have at least 25 full buy in's for the next level then move up, but if you lose 4 or 5 of those buy in's move back down a level until you can win it back.
When playing tournaments i think you should have at least 100 buy in's as tournament winnings are more sporadic and lucky.
Staying within your bankroll this way keeps you in the game when you get a cold run of cards or a streak of bad luck, also takes the stress out knowing that half of your roll cant disapear in one hand.
HERE IT IS BOY'S,,,,,IF YOU OVER BET YOUR BANKROLL IN ANY TYPE OF GAMBLING YOU WILL BE A LOSER SOONER OR LATER.....Even if you can pick more winners than losers you will finally go broke "over betting" your roll because of a prolong losing streak that eventually happens to the best players in the world. Pro's that bet sports and can hit 54 to 62 percent winners year in and year out almost never bet over 2 percent of their roll on any one game, most only bet 1 percent max per play,,,,,,,research it and you will learn for yourself.
When playing poker if you move up a level or two after some losses in an effort to recoup those losses quicker you are doomed if you do it on a short bankroll,,,,sooner or later you get broke and have to reload yet once again,,, dont be a chaser and a loser, guard your roll like it's a pile of gold nuggets.
0
I,m now convinced that playing within your bankroll is the key so long as you're a decent player.
When playing no limit ring games i think you should have at least 25 full buy in's. When you increase your roll enough that you have at least 25 full buy in's for the next level then move up, but if you lose 4 or 5 of those buy in's move back down a level until you can win it back.
When playing tournaments i think you should have at least 100 buy in's as tournament winnings are more sporadic and lucky.
Staying within your bankroll this way keeps you in the game when you get a cold run of cards or a streak of bad luck, also takes the stress out knowing that half of your roll cant disapear in one hand.
HERE IT IS BOY'S,,,,,IF YOU OVER BET YOUR BANKROLL IN ANY TYPE OF GAMBLING YOU WILL BE A LOSER SOONER OR LATER.....Even if you can pick more winners than losers you will finally go broke "over betting" your roll because of a prolong losing streak that eventually happens to the best players in the world. Pro's that bet sports and can hit 54 to 62 percent winners year in and year out almost never bet over 2 percent of their roll on any one game, most only bet 1 percent max per play,,,,,,,research it and you will learn for yourself.
When playing poker if you move up a level or two after some losses in an effort to recoup those losses quicker you are doomed if you do it on a short bankroll,,,,sooner or later you get broke and have to reload yet once again,,, dont be a chaser and a loser, guard your roll like it's a pile of gold nuggets.
Best advice I heard was Hold em is 80% luck and 20% skill. And that it is a stupid game dominated by bad players and continuous suckouts.
Dominated by bad players, wtf? Yes there are alot of bad players and suckouts but as mentioned in another thread that is how you make money, against bad players. Did this advice come from a losing player? Why is it a stupid game? Nobody is forced to play so if you think it is a stupid game then why play?
0
Quote Originally Posted by wizardofroz:
Best advice I heard was Hold em is 80% luck and 20% skill. And that it is a stupid game dominated by bad players and continuous suckouts.
Dominated by bad players, wtf? Yes there are alot of bad players and suckouts but as mentioned in another thread that is how you make money, against bad players. Did this advice come from a losing player? Why is it a stupid game? Nobody is forced to play so if you think it is a stupid game then why play?
My point is that you do need good cards to be a winning player. If you say you don't then, you are a liar.
Doyle Brunson has said many times that he could sit down at a poker table with a bunch of avg. Joe's and if his opponents didn't know that he was doing so, he could break the table in an hour w/o looking at his cards. Sounds to me like the greatest don't need any cards.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ColonelKurtz:
My point is that you do need good cards to be a winning player. If you say you don't then, you are a liar.
Doyle Brunson has said many times that he could sit down at a poker table with a bunch of avg. Joe's and if his opponents didn't know that he was doing so, he could break the table in an hour w/o looking at his cards. Sounds to me like the greatest don't need any cards.
Somehow the Game Channel isn't in my normal rotation.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
