You are being silly and intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying Goldendog. Go ahead and try to outswim Micheal Phelps or outplay a grandmaster at chess. A billion beginners could try a billion times and none of them would ever do it.
However a billion beginners playing 1v1 poker (any form) would have at least a small winning percentage.
Bridge I will admit is different.
Someone who has played poker once in his/her life can join a game with the top professionals in the world and they have a chance (not a high one) to win on luck.
I wonder, if Phelps had slipped off the starting line and broken his knee on the poolside, would you be saying he was an unskilled swimmer or just an unlucky swimmer?
There's a reason for the phrase "any given Sunday."
Pure chance enters into every human endeavor. And so does a person's knowledge, skill, and will. The difference between chess and poker, in that regard, is just an arbitrary line someone drew. In chess, someone will always get stuck playing black and the statistical disadvantage that comes with it.
Just for fun - http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/Chessluck.html
ok i would love to see either chess or darts in the olympics.
and as for poker,yes the cards u get in ur hand are luck,but how u bet and stratigically talk with opponents makes it strategic just like chess.
Someone who has played poker once in his/her life can join a game with the top professionals in the world and they have a chance (not a high one) to win on luck.
I wonder, if Phelps had slipped off the starting line and broken his knee on the poolside, would you be saying he was an unskilled swimmer or just an unlucky swimmer?
There's a reason for the phrase "any given Sunday."
Pure chance enters into every human endeavor. And so does a person's knowledge, skill, and will. The difference between chess and poker, in that regard, is just an arbitrary line someone drew. In chess, someone will always get stuck playing black and the statistical disadvantage that comes with it.
Just for fun - http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/Chessluck.html
Ehhhh your logic is flawed obviously Anand could have suffered severe brain damage in a car accident (etc) on his way to the World Championship matches with Kramnik. Would this be a sign of luck inherrant in a game of chess? No of course not. (and yes I realize that jumping into the water is a part of swimming)
Phelps can swim faster than you, you would never swim faster than Phelps, the same way you would never outplay a grandmaster. And not only is my argument based on that you would not do those things, but that you in fact COULD not.
Whereas with poker it is entirely possible, albeit unlikely to beat a top rated player.
You are being silly and intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying Goldendog. Go ahead and try to outswim Micheal Phelps or outplay a grandmaster at chess. A billion beginners could try a billion times and none of them would ever do it.
However a billion beginners playing 1v1 poker (any form) would have at least a small winning percentage.
Bridge I will admit is different.
I'm not being silly. I was just correcting you when you wrote that poker and bridge were dominated by luck. Read 'em.
ok i would love to see either chess or darts in the olympics.
and as for poker,yes the cards u get in ur hand are luck,but how u bet and stratigically talk with opponents makes it strategic just like chess.
The strategy in Poker and the strategy in Chess are almost completely incomparable.
You are being silly and intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying Goldendog. Go ahead and try to outswim Micheal Phelps or outplay a grandmaster at chess. A billion beginners could try a billion times and none of them would ever do it.
However a billion beginners playing 1v1 poker (any form) would have at least a small winning percentage.
Bridge I will admit is different.
I'm not being silly. I was just correcting you when you wrote that poker and bridge were dominated by luck. Read 'em.
I still have yet to see any valid refutation of my statement that "Poker is dominated by luck" come from anyone.
I concede bridge because I know so little about it.
not at all kupov,
compare the guy who starts the poker betting to the chess player who starts the game as white.
the poker better wants to get his opponents to think he either has a bad hand or a good hand depending how he bets and us it in his favor against his opponents. known as a "bluff" or "fake Bluff"/"Trap"
the goal of a lot of openings(i know not all) is to get ur opp to do something so u can set up a trap/fork/pin etc
You are being silly and intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying Goldendog. Go ahead and try to outswim Micheal Phelps or outplay a grandmaster at chess. A billion beginners could try a billion times and none of them would ever do it.
However a billion beginners playing 1v1 poker (any form) would have at least a small winning percentage.
Bridge I will admit is different.
I'm not being silly. I was just correcting you when you wrote that poker and bridge were dominated by luck. Read 'em.
I still have yet to see any valid refutation of my statement that "Poker is dominated by luck" come from anyone.
I concede bridge because I know so little about it.
It's your assertion that Poker is dominated by luck. So provide proof that Texas Hold 'em is dominated by luck.
not at all kupov,
compare the guy who starts the poker betting to the chess player who starts the game as white.
the poker better wants to get his opponents to think he either has a bad hand or a good hand depending how he bets and us it in his favor against his opponents. known as a "bluff" or "fake Bluff"/"Trap"
the goal of a lot of openings(i know not all) is to get ur opp to do something so u can set up a trap/fork/pin etc
You simply can not be serious.
You are being silly and intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying Goldendog. Go ahead and try to outswim Micheal Phelps or outplay a grandmaster at chess. A billion beginners could try a billion times and none of them would ever do it.
However a billion beginners playing 1v1 poker (any form) would have at least a small winning percentage.
Bridge I will admit is different.
I'm not being silly. I was just correcting you when you wrote that poker and bridge were dominated by luck. Read 'em.
I still have yet to see any valid refutation of my statement that "Poker is dominated by luck" come from anyone.
I concede bridge because I know so little about it.
It's your assertion that Poker is dominated by luck. So provide proof that Texas Hold 'em is dominated by luck.
The game delivers the proof to me itself (not I never once stated that it was a game played 100% by luck) you receive cards and some are good and some are bad. It is entirely possible to receive nothing but terrible cards, the same way it is entirely possible to receive nothing but great cards.
im dead serious,how can u not see the basic logic in that?
i know they are not even the same. its like comparing 2 completely different sports like soccer and basketball,but it can b done and is comstantly in media and sportcasters
and kupov are u retarded=BASEBALL DOES NOT START WITH A COIN FLIP!!
and kupov are u retarded=BASEBALL DOES NOT START WITH A COIN FLIP!!
Thank you for giving me the grounds to ignore your posts from here on. I was worried that I would legitimately have to reply to that sheer stupidity.
and on wat grounds do u have to call me stupid,u dont even know how a major sport starts
What?
i apologize kupov,i misread ur post for anothers.
Kupov,
You are partially correct, and partially incorrect about poker. I haven't played poker at the highest levels (nor chess) but I have played poker for a living. You are correct when you say there's an element of luck in poker. It is not, however, "dominated" by luck as you say. Over the long run, luck equals out and the skill of the professional poker player wins over the inexperience of the beginner. Here, "long run" can be defined as a sufficiently large tournament, such as might be imagined in the Olympics. This experience also shows in the short run because a professional poker player does not need "good cards" to win a hand. They use many other tactics, such as bluffing, traps, and knowledge of their opponent. Chess masters use the same methods to win a game.
Another (small) flaw in your premise is that you are interchanging luck with probability. It is not actually possible to always be dealt "good cards". Since the cards in poker are a closed system (ie, there are a finite number of cards and therefore a finite number of combinations) laws of statistics and probability dictate that each combination occur the same number of times (unless, of course, someone is stacking the deck).
Poker and chess are, indeed, similar. Poker pros might set up a play many hands in advance by something as little as a head nod, or passing comment. Much like a grand master sets up a combination by the smallest pawn move. Both games are deeply psycological at the highest levels. Both require incredible amounts of study both before and during a game. One big difference is that with chess there is always a "correct" play, with poker there isn't.
Still, I don't think either game should be an Olympic sport. I don't think Rhythmic Team Gymnastics should be, either.
Maybe if chess players weren't allowed to sit during the games and had to do cardio. That might be a sport.
I used to think rhythmic gymnastics weren't a sport, but in this last olympics they were my favorite event--mostly because NBC finally showed something that wasn't women's beach volleyball! But it was a real beautiful display of grace and athleticism and coordination that was more rewarding to watch than pole vaulting or diving or most other olympic crap. Also, the fencing was fun to watch. I was angry they didn't show more table tennis seeing as how it's China's national sport and all. But Chess? Darts? That would be hard to watch on TV.
Poker and Bridge are luck dominated and should not be included with the word "intellectual" in any sentence.
The popular forms of Poker are not luck dominated, and duplicate bridge is as scientific as chess is.
Can you or can you not get 2 aces ever hand?
You can.
Can you or can you not get a 2 and a 7 every hand?
You can.
Edit: Bridge obviously has more to it than Poker but to put it on the same level as chess is lunacy.
It appears you don't know anything about Duplicate Bridge, so what's your opinion worth?
Forms of Poker such as the Hold 'ems require a great deal of skill to succeed at the highest level. It's not a game to piss on ignorantly--like chess isn't just a couple of nerds pushing toy pieces of wood around a toy board.
When did I say that neither of those games require any skill? I stated that they were/are both dominated by luck.
Someone who has played poker once in his/her life can join a game with the top professionals in the world and they have a chance (not a high one) to win on luck.
Bridge is quite a bit different but the element of luck is still present.
No element of luck in Duplicate Bridge. No. None at all in the sense that chess has no luck. You obviously don't understand what Duplicate Bridge is.
I can't think of an example where a raw beginner at Poker entered a top tournament and met with any success. Sounds like it never happened.
I never said it has happened. I said it is a POSSIBILITY, if you are honestly denying that possibility then I invite you to look at how the game of poker (in any form) actually works. As for bridge there is at least some luck. (how can you say none...)
I know how Poker works and I had to inform you that some forms require a high degree of skill to be proficient at it. Know something before spouting off on it why don't you?
Why don't you find out about Dupe Bridge before you start making declarations about it. It has luck like chess has luck, which is to say either not much or none depending on how one wants to define luck.