frontrunner78 wrote:
I have read 97% of players in poker lose money.
The generally quoted figure is that 10% of players are winning players, I haven't seen any hard figures to show the reality though.
Had to leave chess for poker...
Sort:
Feb 11, 2014
0
#123
About that 97%: I have read that 42% of all statistics are wrong!
frontrunner78 wrote:
I have read 97% of players in poker lose money. It's hard to beat the rake and survive variance in the game unless you have a deep bankroll and strong money managment skills. Poker can also be a boring game, you can sit for hours without getting a playable hand. At least in chess you have action all the time. You can win money in Poker, but you have to pick the right game. It seems like Poker is on the decline now for a variety of reasons.
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
I dont see the point of discussing " if poker is a profitable game" . Since u play against humans (for now) u will be always able to win in long term.
That is, if you are better than those humans.
...Like in every sport and game.
And, like every sport or game, you are doomed not to be in the chosen few if you are not practicing day and night.
About the statistics : be aware though that 94.25478% of studies give unecessary precision.
Irontiger wrote:
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
I dont see the point of discussing " if poker is a profitable game" . Since u play against humans (for now) u will be always able to win in long term.
That is, if you are better than those humans.
...Like in every sport and game.
And, like every sport or game, you are doomed not to be in the chosen few if you are not practicing day and night.
About the statistics : be aware though that 94.25478% of studies give unecessary precision.
Again u are talking just for talking. -1
dont talk if u dont know....
HarIeyQuinn wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
I dont see the point of discussing " if poker is a profitable game" . Since u play against humans (for now) u will be always able to win in long term.
That is, if you are better than those humans.
...Like in every sport and game.
And, like every sport or game, you are doomed not to be in the chosen few if you are not practicing day and night.
The problem with poker, relative to every other sport and game, is not only CAN you play against the pros even if you're unprepared...they actually encourage you to.
There's very little downside to not being as good at tennis as Roger Federer. He wouldn't even bother playing you, and you'd get laughed out of the locker room if you tried to force your way onto the court at Wimbledon. Phil Ivey would welcome you to the table with open arms.
As would every other pro, shark, and monomaniacal card zombie grinder casino degenerate on the planet.
Man, this is not a problem.
Who have experiences in both poker and stock market? Which do you think is more reliable as income source? What I only knew is there are much more losers than winners.
And if Phil Ivey takes an interest in low-mid stakes online poker he's welcome to my money.
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
Again u are talking just for talking. -1
dont talk if u dont know....
Again, you are talking, not argumentating.
Mandy711 wrote:
Who have experiences in both poker and stock market? Which do you think is more reliable as income source? What I only knew is there are much more losers than winners.
I worked for many years in stocks & shares but I know nothing about poker. I've played black jack a few times but not online.
Irontiger wrote:
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
Again u are talking just for talking. -1
dont talk if u dont know....
Again, you are talking, not argumentating.
What am I supposed to argumentate ? You haven't played poker in your life but u still throwing your 5 cents again and again. Argumentate with you would be like talking about chess with a cat.
Feb 12, 2014
0
#132
CashGrinder wrote:
It's just logistics and finances. I can't justify 16 hours straight over the board when there isn't actually any chance of me earning a living behind it and I'm a person who needs money. I could start dedicated all my time into chess but I'm 32 and playing for only one year on and off. I'm never going to be able to make money from chess. With poker I can earn a living, teach others, play thousands upon thousands of hands a week without worrying about fatigue so much, etc.
Anyone else really like chess but leave the game for poker so that you could earn a living from the game?
What is Poker?
_36darshan-- wrote:
What is Poker?
Unusual. Most people in your position don't ask, they just give their opinion.
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
To chris2471@: Your point is = playing poker against players who are as good as you and have the same experience, make the same bets and follow the theory according to the odds at 100% , just playing their cards.... then you are not talking about poker. Since you play against other players, there are much more factors to consider : bluff, image at the table, range of hands, ...etc etc etc. ..and the roulette thing and that theory has nothing to do with poker since it doesn't require to "double your bets to win" and i guess u have not played poker regulary, so you probably won't understand what im talking about...
No it isn't. If you read what the original post I quoted said, he was listing the mathematical winnability of poker as a plus point, suggesting its far more certain and definite than it really is.
My entire point has been that mathematical winnability doesn't translate to a good thing for any individual player. That is it, not about how tactics don't come into it, not about how a martingale approach is useful in poker or anything. The whole point of the system was purely to show that issues like expectation, probability and statistical approaches are all subject to the law of large numbers, which makes them highly infeasible in real life situations.
chris2471 wrote:
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
To chris2471@: Your point is = playing poker against players who are as good as you and have the same experience, make the same bets and follow the theory according to the odds at 100% , just playing their cards.... then you are not talking about poker. Since you play against other players, there are much more factors to consider : bluff, image at the table, range of hands, ...etc etc etc. ..and the roulette thing and that theory has nothing to do with poker since it doesn't require to "double your bets to win" and i guess u have not played poker regulary, so you probably won't understand what im talking about...
No it isn't. If you read what the original post I quoted said, he was listing the mathematical winnability of poker as a plus point, suggesting its far more certain and definite than it really is.
My entire point has been that mathematical winnability doesn't translate to a good thing for any individual player. That is it, not about how tactics don't come into it, not about how a martingale approach is useful in poker or anything. The whole point of the system was purely to show that issues like expectation, probability and statistical approaches are all subject to the law of large numbers, which makes them highly infeasible in real life situations.
''My entire point has been that mathematical winnability doesn't translate to a good thing for any individual player''.
Can you explain this ? Because i think i dont get it... maybe its my bad english.
Scottrf wrote:
_36darshan-- wrote:
What is Poker?
Unusual. Most people in your position don't ask, they just give their opinion.
+1. nono... wait: +1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 (...)
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
Again u are talking just for talking. -1
dont talk if u dont know....
Again, you are talking, not argumentating.
What am I supposed to argumentate ? You haven't played poker in your life but u still throwing your 5 cents again and again. Argumentate with you would be like talking about chess with a cat.
You are assuming here. Actually I have (though not for big stakes, and anyways it is irrelevant).
My point is that to make a living out of poker (not just winning a few bucks now and then) you need to practice seriously, like a -err- job. Your point is that I shouldn't be listened to because you decided I must be a moron.
If my point was so idiotic, you would have an easy time refuting it so completely it makes me look ridiculous, wouldn't you ?
But please post pictures if you feel it makes your position better-looking to others.
Irontiger wrote:
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Idrinkyourhealth wrote:
Again u are talking just for talking. -1
dont talk if u dont know....
Again, you are talking, not argumentating.
What am I supposed to argumentate ? You haven't played poker in your life but u still throwing your 5 cents again and again. Argumentate with you would be like talking about chess with a cat.
You are assuming here. Actually I have (though not for big stakes, and anyways it is irrelevant).
My point is that to make a living out of poker (not just winning a few bucks now and then) you need to practice seriously, like a -err- job. Your point is that I shouldn't be listened to because you decided I must be a moron.
If my point was so idiotic, you would have an easy time refuting it so completely it makes me look ridiculous, wouldn't you ?
But please post pictures if you feel it makes your position better-looking to others.
This is an elephant:
I'm surprised that this thread garnered so many replies but I'm of course glad it did.
Poker does need to be treated like a job if you plan on using it to support yourself. I would treat chess just as seriously (if not more so) if there was actually any opportunity to make money by spending my time in the world of chess. I mean anything...not just playing. As it is, there's really not one opportunity for a person getting into chess to make money off of their decision to do so.
I have read 97% of players in poker lose money. It's hard to beat the rake and survive variance in the game unless you have a deep bankroll and strong money managment skills. Poker can also be a boring game, you can sit for hours without getting a playable hand. At least in chess you have action all the time. You can win money in Poker, but you have to pick the right game. It seems like Poker is on the decline now for a variety of reasons.