well the the chess is wood pushing and the dart is spining
Chess And Darts At Future Olympic Games
Sort:
Eiwob wrote:
I think it's important to see the difference between unlikely and impossible. It's not impossible for anyone to beat Anand, it's just extremely unlikely for most of us. Maybe it's more likely that a beginner beats a world-class poker player than a GM, but please think twice before you say that something is impossible.
I don't know how many examples of GMs losing to or drawing a very weak player head-to-head there are. I can think of one instance reported in Chess Life & Review in the early 1970s where a class B (as I recall) did in fact score against the GM in an open swiss. Such stuff has happened. A beginner doing the same? I'd bet it has never happened, barring the GM having a stroke and losing on time. So is it possible for a beginner to score on a GM one-on-one? I'd say if not impossible then the spot right next to it on the probability chart.
Well, I dont really think chess or darts should be in the OG. But, that's obviously that poker should be at all.
I dont know anything at all about bridge, but it seems to me that a card game where the cards are mixed and distribute to the players allways have somo luck influence.
About poker, thats obvious that luck is very present in poker, but you can allways play poker without use "mind games". Howerver, if you are a math genious and you can calculate your winnin %, you will never know your opponents cards, but in chess, your opponents game is in front of you.
And if you play a poker game 1vs1 with a poker professional you do have 50% of win, no matter what cards you have. I'm talking about Poker Hold'em because thats the only I play.
Eiwob wrote:
I think it's important to see the difference between unlikely and impossible. It's not impossible for anyone to beat Anand, it's just extremely unlikely for most of us. Maybe it's more likely that a beginner beats a world-class poker player than a GM, but please think twice before you say that something is impossible.
I said it is impossible for a beginner to beat a GM. (which is true unless something completely unrelated to chess happens causing you to win)
Jan 5, 2009
0
#46
Anyone, you're completely wrong in your statistics. Heads up poker is not a 50-50 proposition. Even if you take the situation where all the money is in the pot and who wins and loses is purely based on the probability of the cards falling a certain way, the closest you can come is 53%-47%. You must keep in mind, however, the professional sitting across from you DOES know your cards. That's part of being a professional poker player.
Drcruiser wrote:
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.
No you are the one confusing possibility and probability, OBVIOUSLY it is not probable that you will be dealt the best cards every hand, but it is in fact possible.
It is also possible to win a coinflip 300 trillion times in a row or indeed any number of times.
And I laugh at you making the statement that poker players can think 10 hands ahead, honestly.... I laugh.
Eiwob wrote:
goldendog wrote:
Eiwob wrote:
I think it's important to see the difference between unlikely and impossible. It's not impossible for anyone to beat Anand, it's just extremely unlikely for most of us. Maybe it's more likely that a beginner beats a world-class poker player than a GM, but please think twice before you say that something is impossible.
I don't know how many examples of GMs losing to or drawing a very weak player head-to-head there are. I can think of one instance reported in Chess Life & Review in the early 1970s where a class B (as I recall) did in fact score against the GM in an open swiss. Such stuff has happened. A beginner doing the same? I'd bet it has never happened, barring the GM having a stroke and losing on time. So is it possible for a beginner to score on a GM one-on-one? I'd say if not impossible then the spot right next to it on the probability chart.
That's the point, it is the spot next to impossible on the propability chart. The chance might be 1 to 10000000000000000 - I don't know - but it's not impossible. Like a beginner could get only pocket rockets during a whole major texas hold'em tournament, a beginner could do random moves and beat a grandmaster.
This is actually entirely true, though it would be more like 1 to 1 to the power of 100.
Jan 5, 2009
0
#49
Kupov wrote:
Drcruiser wrote:
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.
No you are the one confusing possibility and probability, OBVIOUSLY it is not probable that you will be dealt the best cards every hand, but it is in fact possible.
It is also possible to win a coinflip 300 trillion times in a row or indeed any number of times.
And I laugh at you making the statement that poker players can think 10 hands ahead, honestly.... I laugh.
Good, then I'd love to play poker with you some time.
Well please explain to me how you can think 10 hands ahead without having the slightest idea of what cards you will have for all 10 of those hands?
Honestly..
You you have 2 ases and I have the other 2, I think we have the same winning %, even if the draw % is way bigger. And no, they can't know each other cards, thats simply impossible. They can only guess and maybe be right, nothing more than that ..
Jan 5, 2009
0
#52
To both Kupov and AnyOne,
The answer to both your statements is simple, and it demonstrates the fundamental flaw in your view of poker. At the highest levels, its not about the cards. There is some luck involved. But the game is not dominated by it.
AnyOne, I'd also like to play poker with you too. Call me up anytime either of you want a game.
Kupov wrote:
Well please explain to me how you can think 10 hands ahead without having the slightest idea of what cards you will have for all 10 of those hands?
Honestly..
Obviously it is possible, if you promisse 20% of your prize money to the dealer, and a fantastic sex night she can give you amazing cards every hand .. Other way I dont think we can think too far away than one bet
This argument is open and shut as far as I am concerned. None of you have been able to prevent even a semi valid argument.
Jan 5, 2009
0
#55
You're right. My valid arguments have all been aimed at showing you how much you don't know about the game of poker. My bad.
Drcruiser wrote:
You're right. My valid arguments have all been aimed at showing you how much you don't know about the game of poker. My bad.
Oh and which valid arguments have those been?
But none of those arguments were v..... heeeeeeeey you tricked me ;D
Come on .. How do you beat 2 ases !? Aw: With luck !!
I'm not saying the most influent factor in poker is luck, but it has a huge role.
And tell me why can you win on me if I get 2 aces every hand and you to. Just if you get 4 card of the same suit of one of your ases. But you have the same probablity og getting them as I have. So, if you get it you're lucky. And I wont fold with 2 ases too many times.
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.
OK so you can't demonstrate proof that Texas Hold 'em is dominated by luck. The problem is that you don't know the games you characterized as luck dominated. There's no substitute for knowledge.