"averse", not "adverse"...
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=19288
As for poker...too much randomness. Better understand how to bankroll, not just how to play poker well. If not you will lose your shirt, repeatedly. It's actually just as bad a way to make a living as chess...there's just a larger pool overall because the barrier to entry is lower to play poker "well".
People starting businesses and risking investment do so normally having carefully researched their prospective markets and decided that they can be confident of success in the prevailing conditions. In a card game played for money, you can only be confident of gain if you know you are up against clearly inferior opposition and even then, the cards might well thwart you.
Name one business that knows the conditions in which they will operate fully. You take all the information in and make the best decisions you can (same as you would in poker), but you're still influenced by uncertainties (competition, interest rates, cards).
The cards may thwart you short term, yes. If you have a +EV game, they wont do that long term, or there would be no winning players.
Cashgrinder, a friend of mine, 6 time U.S. Champion Walter Browne decided long ago that poker was more lucrative than chess and therefore curtailed his chess play for poker. I believe this was only after he realized he was unlikely to becone world champion, but it does validate your original decision, namely that it is extremely difficult to make a living through chess.
well i thought the same and thats why i timed out in 13 games 1 month ago... but i try t keep playing both games since I play at NL2 and sometimes, after too many hours spend in 1 session, playing chess helps to put order in your head and avoid tilt. Actually my best sessions were the shortest.
I didn't suggest that starters of businesses know "fully the conditions in which they will operate". I pointed out that they research these conditions and if they go ahead, are obviously confident, not sure, of success - or certainly should be (confident, that is). Otherwise they would drop the idea.
I didn't suggest that starters of businesses know "fully the conditions in which they will operate". I pointed out that they research these conditions and if they go ahead, are obviously confident, not sure, of success - or certainly should be (confident, that is). Otherwise they would drop the idea.
Yet still the vast majority of startups fail. There's risk in either. It's about deciding what risks you're willing to take.
How many hours of playing poker is needed for a beginner to become an advanced poker player (beginner<intermediate<advanced) Just my curiosity.
I assume you talking about poker online. At least 1 theory book read + practise + self control. There is no intermediate. The best poker player is the 1 who earns more money and beginners are who lose(some people never learn the theory and keep losing).
Although we can talk about noob(starts)<experienced(has played a lot)(<regular(plays regulary but doesnt make living)<professional(makes living)
I would say playing 2 or more hours per day, after a month u become experienced.
Anyways, I would recommend u not to leave chess for poker. btw at what levels are u playing ?
How many hours of playing poker is needed for a beginner to become an advanced poker player (beginner<intermediate<advanced) Just my curiosity.
I assume you talking about poker online. At least 1 theory book read + practise + self control. There is no intermediate. The best poker player is the 1 who earns more money and beginners are who lose(some people never learn the theory and keep losing).
Although we can talk about noob(starts)<experienced(has played a lot)(<regular(plays regulary but doesnt make living)<professional(makes living)
I would say playing 2 or more hours per day, after a month u become experienced.
If that were true, there would be very few beginners.
How many hours of playing poker is needed for a beginner to become an advanced poker player (beginner<intermediate<advanced) Just my curiosity.
I assume you talking about poker online. At least 1 theory book read + practise + self control. There is no intermediate. The best poker player is the 1 who earns more money and beginners are who lose(some people never learn the theory and keep losing).
Although we can talk about noob(starts)<experienced(has played a lot)(<regular(plays regulary but doesnt make living)<professional(makes living)
I would say playing 2 or more hours per day, after a month u become experienced.
If that were true, there would be very few beginners.
alright, u got what i said
Online poker is rigged.
I played for a month or two and saw two royal flushes in the same week.
On one hand their were four of us left - three had full houses and one had four of a kind.
My experience was with partypoker, but I understand the other sites are just as bad.
I realise that this type of discussion raises people's temperatures, but just play it, study it and see what happens - then put "online poker rigged" into search engines and see what others are saying.
btw are u guys regular poker players ? in which site do you play ?
btw are u guys regular poker players ? in which site do you play ?
I'm in the US. I play on Black Chip Poker and Intertops.
Online poker is rigged.
I played for a month or two and saw two royal flushes in the same week.
On one hand their were four of us left - three had full houses and one had four of a kind.
My experience was with partypoker, but I understand the other sites are just as bad.
I realise that this type of discussion raises people's temperatures, but just play it, study it and see what happens - then put "online poker rigged" into search engines and see what others are saying.
In long term it is not rigged. But I think they must have more variance than normal (is that possible ?) or something because there are some hands like... your future is determined : u will lose with AA against 36 after hitting flush 3 times in a row. It's like compensating it in short term. (it must not ! ) ... but ok lets say they added more variance than normal to increase the action, leading to more gambling. How and who will prove that ?
in other words: what is the normal variance ? And how many % it differs wrong the supposedly rigged'' ?
It's not very likely. They are audited. And the payoff to the sites is minimal vs risk. They get paid whoever wins.
The people complaining about bad beats are generally the ones that think aces should hold up every time.
Do they ever post a long term hand analysis of what hands are winning or is it always based on feel?
It's not very likely. They are audited. And the payoff to the sites is minimal vs risk. They get paid whoever wins.
The people complaining about bad beats are generally the ones that think aces should hold up every time.
Do they ever post a long term hand analysis of what hands are winning or is it always based on feel?
95% of compains are about bad beats in short term period. the other 5 or less % really had a bad beats in some long term... but it's still normal.
Keep in mind that the pace of play is much faster in online poker than it is in live poker. And there is multitabling as well. So you see much more hands in online poker.
Chance of having a royal flush in holdem is 1 in 31,000. With 9 players at the table thats about average every 3400 hands that you will see one.
For me, two weeks in online poker might be equivilent to years worth of live poker in number of hands seen. It's certainly possible to see two royal flushes in two weeks, depending on how much and how many tables I played at.
Before arguing that it's rigged, collect 10000 or so hands worth of data in pokertracker/holdem manager.
I still think it's reasonable to say that risking money already in your rightful possession on what might boil down to the turn of a card (and often does) is not sensible. I don't see that affordability comes into it. BTW, what is +EV? My education is clearly sadly lacking.
Positive expected value i.e. if you repeat the scenario infinite times you will be a winner overall. A factor of the probability/returns.
You could say the same to anyone starting a business about risking money in your possession. Any business is influenced by unpredictable circumstances. Clearly you're risk adverse, which is fine too.
Poker winning is about long term results. Thus it doesn't come down to cards except in the short run.
People starting businesses and risking investment do so normally having carefully researched their prospective markets and decided that they can be confident of success in the prevailing conditions. In a card game played for money, you can only be confident of gain if you know you are up against clearly inferior opposition and even then, the cards might well thwart you.