Phil Ivey vs. Magnus Carlsen..poker and chess

Phil Ivey, regarded as the greatest poker player of all time 

Magnus Carlsen, arguably one if not the greatest player of all time/and certently the strongest right now

who would have a better chance at winning against each other in there game

would Ivey have a better chance at beating Magnus in chess...or would Magnus have a better chance at beating Phil in poker?

I'd say Magnus would win 100 out of 100 games of chess, Ivey would win 98/100 games of poker (assuming they both know the basic rules and strategy of each others game).

anyone else

Obviously Carlsen will win much more at the poker because of the luck element involved. It's not even a debate.

It depends on the specifics. If you are talking about a single game of chess, and a single match of poker where they play until one player has all the money, then here's what you would have:

Chess: Phil would win very close to 0% of the time
Poker: Magnus would win close to 30% of the time

In poker, at least in a no-limit game, you can use the "all-in or fold" strategy, forcing your opponent to gamble with you (in fact this is the optimal strategy if your opponent is clearly superior). Then it's just up to how the cards fall. Phil would still win 60-70% of the time though.

If, on the other hand, they are going to play 100k hands of poker, Magnus has close to a 0% chance of having more chips than Phil.

     Carlsen would play circles around Ivey in chess, winning a VAST majority of games, if not all.  Besides initial random draw of who plays first (or who plays who), there is no luck involved in chess.  Therefore, Carlsen rates to be a HUGE favorite versus any chess player but a handful of the best in the world.

     Ivey would play circles around Carlsen in poker, and likely win a majority (more than 50%) of the hands or money.  However, Carlsen, or anyone who played poker with Ivey would win a certain number of hands (or amount of money) due to poker's inherent randomness--the luck factor.

     Another question which explores a similar idea:

"Who would an amateur have a better chance of defeating in their respective fields of expertise, Magnus Carlsen or Phil Ivey?"

     The answer is Phil Ivey for the same reasons listed above.  An interesting corollary to this idea follows--Amateurs or losing poker players often continue to play and lose despite having negative expectations in their games because poker's inherent randomness causes them to win at times.

     This reality enables those poker players who have a positive expectation in their games (the winning players) to enjoy a steady source of competition from inferior players.  These same losing amateurs would likely not continue to play if they lost every time.

There are also factors on the poker side that you're not considering.  First, Ivey is not exclusively a "Texas Hold'em" player.  When you're talking about playing poker against Phil, are you talking about playing Hold'em, Seven Card Stud, PL Omaha, Badugi, HORSE or what?

Also, are they playing a cash game with a fixed buy-in, a heads-up tournament, or are they playing until one or the other goes broke. 

Carlsen has a better "chance" at winning in a game of poker against Phil due to the luck factor, but at the same time are we talking just a single game or long term.  If the two play in 100 cash games, Carlsen will not come out a winner.  In a single heads-up event, Carlsen could run well or even catch lucky and win. 

Magnus has been playing poker though....

Hey guys, if you like poker, you might like this poker chip chess set!

It's $15 for custom chess poker pieces. Reply to the thread to let me know you're interested. We need about 25 people to complete a custom order.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/poker-chip-chess-set

bump

Haha. Bump? Really superking, really? How's your chess going, have you been studying?

Will Phil Ivey be the 2015 World Poker Champion (Main Event)?

Magnus Carlsen should join the 2015 WSOP (Main Event)

Still waiting for Carlsen VS Ivey or a poker pro VS a chess pro in both games...

Highly unlikely. Given the field size it is unlikely he ever makes another final table, much less wins. 

Also, while Ivey is likely the best all around poker player, he probably isn't the best NLHE tournament player. He's won ten WSOP tournaments, and none of them are holdem. 

The poker pro vs. chess pro question has been answered for the most part. Ivey never beats Carlsen at chess, and Carlsen's chances against Ivey at poker depends on the format. Give them each 10K and play heads up NLHE with 25/50 blinds until someone has all of it, Carlsen probably wins 25% or so, depending on how well he plays. He can win 20% or so just by going all in every hand. Have them play 4K/8K HORSE for 200K hands, and Carlsen has roughly zero chance of coming out ahead and likely loses a staggering sum. 

Even setting aside the random factor...Phil Ivey could teach Carlsen to play poker 90% as well as he does in about 8-10 weeks.  How long would it take Phil Ivey to reach 2600+?  About as many years?

In any case, this was a troll topic from the get-go, so it's not like SuperKing/Queen500 doesn't already know the answer.

Just stop it...

Ok, how much time do you think it takes to impart the raw odds, the nuances of betting as the button goes around, some tricks about tells, etc.  There's just not that much there.  Why do you think that half the final table of WSOP events are always 20 year olds who started playing a year ago? ;)

Why do these same "beginners" buy their way into "pro only" events after their WSOP final table winnings and still do just fine when the "mass random factor" of the WSOP is removed from the equation?  It's not because they keep getting lucky.  It's because poker has a small learning curve relative to a game like chess.  You can get really, really good at Texas Hold 'Em in a matter of weeks/months.

One you add the random factor in...especially heads-up:

"I'm all in."

"You going to look at your cards?"

"Nope.  Going to call?"

...the question becomes silly.  Magnus will beat Ivey in chess 100% of the time, and Magnus, with intense training in a short period, could probably beat Ivey about 35%-40% of the time.  If a schlep like Jamie Gold can do it, Carlsen can easily do it.

Magnus would beat Ivey in chess 1000 times out of 1000, even if he was drunk as hell off no sleep for days.  How good Magnus could ever do in Poker against him depends on your belief on the existence of "luck."  Are some people luckier than others?  Maybe, maybe not.  

The wrong is strong with this post... I'll just address three things rather than spend all day on this...

1) Half the WSOP events won by 20 year olds? Tricky, seeing the legal age for entering the tournaments is 21. Even so, half is a nonsense number, and pretty much all these guys in their early 20s have a staggering amount of poker experience anyway via the internet. It isn't like the strongest chess players are exactly old either...

2) You seem believe that "poker" means "no limit holdem freezeouts." This is like thinking all chess is 1/0 bullet Fischer Random played in 10000 person six round open class swiss format because in this alternate universe that is the format that gets the most TV attention. 

3) Jamie Gold won a tournament Just as one hand of poker is nearly meaningless in the scheme of things, one tournament really says nothing. The number of typical live major tournaments one would have to play to overcome variance is staggering.