|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 11:41:38 PM PACIFIC |
 A question I've pondered, socal_1111, 19. Oct 2003 13:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Do you have to love to gamble to become a great Hold 'Em player. The reason I ask this odd question is because I have never loved to gamble. I haven't spent much time in Vegas,etc. BUT I am an extremely competitive person who thrives on battling opponents (for anything). I played professional tennis for a few yrs. so competing is what I know. That is exactly why I got hooked to this darn game. So, I guess I'm wondering how much of being a great player, in the long run, is the love of gambling vs. the pure competition and essential skills needed? Let me give an example of a problem that seems to be holding me back: I hold KQo... nothing pre-flop suggests anyone holds AA or KK, or something big like that. Flop comes AKx... I bet, get raised, everyone in folds... NOW, this is a huge weakness of mine. I obviously know I have KK, but knowing the low limits that I play, anyone could be holding Ace little kicker... I don't know how many times I've given my opponent credit for the Ace in this situation, only to find out he was holding K4 or whatever tiny kicker. What's the play that I will benefit from in the long run? And how do I really know if I'm betting a beaten hand? Thank you! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, GambleAB, 19. Oct 2003 13:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Everything I've heard (and common sense) says that one of the many intangibles to being a good, successful long term pro poker player is the love of the game. It make sense, to, that guys that after 20, 30, 40 years of gambling still get excited driving to a casino are going to perform better than those that are bored by it, or don't have the fire to do it anymore. At a normal 9-5, it doesn't really matter if you hate your job or are dissatisfied, you go to work, sit at your desk, work, and collect your paycheck. Gambling has such a huge mental factor that I would assume that if you aren't genuanly happy to be there, your not going to perform as well over the long haul, and since its YOUR MONEY that your putting up to collect that paycheck, thats a huge disadvantage. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, Angel, 19. Oct 2003 14:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| socal asked >>"Do you have to love to gamble to become a great Hold 'Em player. The reason I ask this odd question is because I have never loved to gamble. I haven't spent much time in Vegas,etc. BUT I am an extremely competitive person who thrives on battling opponents (for anything). I played professional tennis for a few yrs. so competing is what I know. That is exactly why I got hooked to this darn game. So, I guess I'm wondering how much of being a great player, in the long run, is the love of gambling vs. the pure competition and essential skills needed?" Assuming I know what a great holdem player is socal, I'm going to say 'no'. I've never liked gambling either. I don't know how to play roulette, craps or keno and have no desire to learn. I've never made a sports bet or a bet a horse. I have however, been asked to restrict myself to a flat bet at blackjack and am well known in certain poker circles. I thrive on competition and understand the level you mentioned. I've competed at the national or higher level in a number of endeavors - and without a competitive challenge, life gets stale. Now we find ourselves faced with a game that is more fitting deserving of the title "puzzle wrapped in an enigma" then Russia ever was. This challenge can never be completed; the competition never over - because really it's about struggling for perfect poker and you can never really know if you're there. So you keep refining - looking for purity, continually raising the bar. Just when you think you've got it - you discover that really it's only 99 44/100ths pure. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, grant pittman, 19. Oct 2003 15:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Socal I have never met a successful poker player who was a real gambler. I think part of being a great poker player includes the fact that you don't go broke through spending, lending, or gambling. This being said......I do know some great poker players that create the illusion that they are gambling and playing loose. This is of course great for their image and DOES earn them extra bets where a "better" player wouldn't. These same players make plays that seem reckless and out of line at times but they most often make a lot of sense given the scenario. Sometimes their play looks loose but I guarantee a lot of their opponents would be shocked at some of the hands these "gamblers" toss in the muck. Good luck!! GRANT PITTMAN | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, Brian462, 19. Oct 2003 16:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm not a great poker player...........yet but I fail to see the attraction to any game in which you KNOW that if you play long enough you will lose money. I play poker because I believe that I can gain an advantage over my opponents that results un profit for me. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, modestmice, 19. Oct 2003 20:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 19. Oct 2003 15:41 grant pittman wrote: > Socal I have never met a successful poker player who was a real gambler. I think part > of being a great poker player includes the fact that you don't go broke through > spending, lending, or gambling. This being said......I do know some great poker > players that create the illusion that they are gambling and playing loose. This is of > course great for their image and DOES earn them extra bets where a "better" player > wouldn't. These same players make plays that seem reckless and out of line at times > but they most often make a lot of sense given the scenario. Sometimes their play > looks loose but I guarantee a lot of their opponents would be shocked at some of the > hands these "gamblers" toss in the muck. Good luck!! GRANT PITTMAN hey grant, stu unger was a great poker player. of course he wasnt "sucessful" i guess, because he was a true gambler. many great players have gone broke in their careers, some several times. there are many good poker players that are also gamblers imo this sounds simular to the religon issue, where you rationalize playing poker as acceptable in the eyes of god, you rationalize that poker is not gambling. as if your a great player you couldnt possibly go broke like those lesser types who are just gambling and go broke. it may be more difficult for a great pro to go broke, but it can happen, because poer is gambling. poker has luck, involves winning or losing money and is certainly gambling no matter how many math geeks tell me its a science, or how many players tell me its a art. that skill is involved doesnt mean its not a form of gambling. ------------------------------------------------------------ -"I prefer talking with old persons of the female sex who peddle family gossip; next, with the insane-and last, with very sensible people" -S. Kierkegaard | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, Angel, 19. Oct 2003 20:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You may become the worlds greatest poker player - and prior to achieving this title, you may have gone broke on the $1/$2 tables. Most of the great players I know that have gone broke - did so before they were great. The few that I know who did go broke after they became great poker players - went broke other ways. I disagree that a well bankrolled pro (well bankrolled for his limit) is going to go broke on short-term luck. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, modestmice, 19. Oct 2003 21:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 19. Oct 2003 20:57 Angel wrote: > > You may become the worlds greatest poker player - and prior to achieving this title, you may > have gone broke on the $1/$2 tables. Most of the great players I know that have gone broke - > did so before they were great. The few that I know who did go broke after they became great > poker players - went broke other ways. > I disagree that a well bankrolled pro (well bankrolled for his limit) is going to go broke on > short-term luck. > yeah. ------------------------------------------------------------ -"I prefer talking with old persons of the female sex who peddle family gossip; next, with the insane-and last, with very sensible people" -S. Kierkegaard | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, grant pittman, 20. Oct 2003 02:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Angel I agree with your reply completely just as I agree with everything else you have posted on this forum. Thanks for your input here. GRANT PITTMAN | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, modestmice, 20. Oct 2003 02:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 20. Oct 2003 02:02 grant pittman wrote: > Angel I agree with your reply completely just as I agree with everything else you have posted on > this forum. Thanks for your input here. GRANT PITTMAN i dont mind being wrong : ) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, Mark Barnett II, 20. Oct 2003 11:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| mathmatically you are incorrect, however people also win the lottery *so i hear* if luck is in any way involved then by definition someone can get lucky or unlucky to the Nth degree. the odds of a great player who has a sufficient bankroll going broke may be millions, billions, trillions to one but you cant eliminate the one. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, modestmice, 20. Oct 2003 20:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 20. Oct 2003 11:04 Mark Barnett II wrote: > mathmatically you are incorrect, however people also win the lottery *so i hear* > if luck is in any way involved then by definition someone can get lucky or unlucky to the Nth > degree. > the odds of a great player who has a sufficient bankroll going broke may be millions, billions, > trillions to one but you cant eliminate the one. ok, ok whatever, i already said i was wrong | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, modestmice, 20. Oct 2003 20:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 20. Oct 2003 20:31 modestmice wrote: > on 20. Oct 2003 11:04 Mark Barnett II wrote: > > mathmatically you are incorrect, however people also win the lottery *so i hear* > > if luck is in any way involved then by definition someone can get lucky or unlucky to the Nth > > degree. > > the odds of a great player who has a sufficient bankroll going broke may be millions, billions, > > trillions to one but you cant eliminate the one. > > > ok, ok whatever, i already said i was wrong forgot the LOL | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, Lou Krieger, 19. Oct 2003 18:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 19. Oct 2003 13:20 socal_1111 wrote: "Do you have to love to gamble to become a great Hold 'en player. " You don't have to gamble, but you have to take risks. But that's no different than it is in tennis, when you have to decide whether to go for the passing shot, attack the net, or simply eschew the risk and hit it deep and down the middle. In my opinion, great players do much to take the gamble out of poker as much as possible, and as far as that goes, I've don't play any gambling games, such as craps, baccarat, keno, or other table games in which the odds are immutable and favor the house. I do take risks in poker, but that's generally a case of wagering when I have the best of it and seeing what kind of cards fall. _____ Lou Krieger Raise your game with Lou Krieger, author of "Poker For Dummies" and five other books about poker, at Royal Vegas Poker http://www.royalvegaspoker.com/lou | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, Schuster, 19. Oct 2003 20:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I love to gamble on just about anything, but I always believe I have the best of it when I make a wager. I don't play slots, I don't play keno, I don't play the lottery, or anything like that, but if someone wants to put some money on a sports game, I can usually parlay my way into favorable odds or a spread I believe is favorable. Of course, it's not just sports, it's usually anything that people are willing to put money on. Not too long ago, I bet a friend on whether they reused coasters at a restaurant we were visiting. I love the thrill of gambling, but for me, the thrill comes from knowing that I can get someone to accept a bet where they don't have the best of it. The outcome is just icing on the cake. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, shorn, 20. Oct 2003 06:15 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I always like to harken back to what Sklansky says in TTOP when thinking about the "gambling" question. He states that "good poker players are at war with luck." I have always taken that to mean that in most cases at the table, if you are playing correctly, you aren't "gambling." In fact, you are simply applying your mathematical and qualitative knowledge in such a way that any time you put $$ in a pot, you are at worst in an even money situation. So, good players actually HATE to gamble, because that means they aren't getting the best of it. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, Kymmer, 20. Oct 2003 09:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "...at war with luck.." - I agree with that, and have been waging a MAJOR conflict with it lately! I've had several discussions with a friend of mine regarding the gambling/luck factor of poker. He leans heavily on the side of luck with poker - mainly because he's only played in home games and has never acquired a skill for strategy (ie. he couldn't tell you what good openers relative to his position were, etc.) and has done well at times. I've taken the position that poker is a game that fuses skill with luck - luck in the way the cards fall and skill in the way the cards are played. It's the skill and strategy of poker that attracts me - I hate to gamble, I hate slots, I hate "mindless" games that do not require anything more from you than plugging your money in a pushing a button. Nor do I like sports betting (except for the occasional office pool). I enjoy waging the war - I win some battles, and I lose some battles - looking forward to winning the war someday!! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, Denver, 20. Oct 2003 10:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Wait a second...lives in SoCal, former tennis pro, loves playing poker... Is this Hollywood home game guru Vince VanPatten? Just kidding. I think anytime you walk into a casino you are looking for action. The only difference with poker is that you want to take on people rather than a game. Even students of games like craps and blackjack do not want to gamble any more than they have to. They're are strategies in these games to bring the house advantage down. The poker player is hooked on the concept of turning the odds in his/her favor. You don't have to "love" to gamble, but you have to be willing to gamble -- because as I've read many times poker is nothing without bluffing and bluffing/semi-bluffing is a gamble with <hopefully> a built-in advantage for the player. Your overcard A question is a text-book "it depends" one imo. However, far more Ax (suited or otherwise) are played than any other paint card. What I try to do is find out who are the guys playing Qx and Kx and then raise for information when that situation comes up. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, Bart Mann, 20. Oct 2003 12:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I haven’t taken the time to read all of these posts, and I know I’m coming in a little late here, but my take is that you can only be truly “great” at something under three circumstances—using professional sports to complete my analogy . . . A) Pure God-Given Talent/Physical Ability – Kobe Bryant, Sammy Sosa, Randy Moss B) True Love for the Game – Larry Bird, Kirk Gibson, Brett Favre C) Both – Michael Jordan, Roger Clemens, Ray Lewis In poker, I’m not convinced that A is even possible. How someone can walk up to a table and be a “natural” at all aspects of Holdem is a little beyond my comprehension. You might start out good at reading people, but weak at reading cards/odds, or vice-versa. But I’m sure there are a few naturals out there, so those of you that are please do not take offense. In the absence of just being “naturally great,” the rest of us are relegated to reading and re-reading books, putting in hours of practice every day, running simulations, studying the great players and of course scouring this forum for hours at a time looking for the slightest advantage. In order to put in all of this time every week, I think you pretty much have to love it . . . don’t you? - Bart - p.s. Howard Lederer often admits to losing at $2 ante Holdem for over two years before he finally started winning. I would guess he’s not alone. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, socal_1111, 20. Oct 2003 18:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| What awesome responses to what I thought may be a strange question. Thank you all for your time. I'm just trying, any way possible, to figure out why I am coming up short in these games. Being hesitant and not willing to risk when I should seems to be a HUGE leak currently. Again, I appreciate your help! -Vince (kidding) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, KJo, 20. Oct 2003 22:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I both love to gamble and I'm highly competitive. I love playing blackjack and craps, but I play as well as I can to keep the house advantage down- but I love the gamble. Poker is about 20% about the gamble and 80% about the competition. I love winning, simple as that. It kind of depends on how you define "gamble." Anytime you're putting your money in against something with some luck as a factor, whether you have the best of it or not, you're gambling. I think any poker player that says they don't like gambling doesn't adhere to this definition of the word. Eli on 19. Oct 2003 13:20 socal_1111 wrote: > Do you have to love to gamble to become a great Hold 'Em player. The reason I > ask this odd question is because I have never loved to gamble. I haven't spent > much time in Vegas,etc. BUT I am an extremely competitive person who thrives on > battling opponents (for anything). I played professional tennis for a few yrs. > so competing is what I know. That is exactly why I got hooked to this darn game. > So, I guess I'm wondering how much of being a great player, in the long run, is > the love of gambling vs. the pure competition and essential skills needed? > > Let me give an example of a problem that seems to be holding me back: I hold > KQo... nothing pre-flop suggests anyone holds AA or KK, or something big like > that. Flop comes AKx... I bet, get raised, everyone in folds... NOW, this is a > huge weakness of mine. I obviously know I have KK, but knowing the low limits > that I play, anyone could be holding Ace little kicker... I don't know how many > times I've given my opponent credit for the Ace in this situation, only to find > out he was holding K4 or whatever tiny kicker. > > What's the play that I will benefit from in the long run? And how do I really > know if I'm betting a beaten hand? Thank you! > > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, modestmice, 20. Oct 2003 23:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 20. Oct 2003 22:45 KJo wrote: > I both love to gamble and I'm highly competitive. I love playing blackjack and > craps, but I play as well as I can to keep the house advantage down- but I love the > gamble. Poker is about 20% about the gamble and 80% about the competition. I love > winning, simple as that. > > It kind of depends on how you define "gamble." Anytime you're putting your money in > against something with some luck as a factor, whether you have the best of it or not, > you're gambling. I think any poker player that says they don't like gambling doesn't > adhere to this definition of the word. > > Eli > > > on 19. Oct 2003 13:20 socal_1111 wrote: > > Do you have to love to gamble to become a great Hold 'Em player. The reason I > > ask this odd question is because I have never loved to gamble. I haven't spent > > much time in Vegas,etc. BUT I am an extremely competitive person who thrives on > > battling opponents (for anything). I played professional tennis for a few yrs. > > so competing is what I know. That is exactly why I got hooked to this darn game. > > > So, I guess I'm wondering how much of being a great player, in the long run, is > > the love of gambling vs. the pure competition and essential skills needed? > > > > Let me give an example of a problem that seems to be holding me back: I hold > > KQo... nothing pre-flop suggests anyone holds AA or KK, or something big like > > that. Flop comes AKx... I bet, get raised, everyone in folds... NOW, this is a > > huge weakness of mine. I obviously know I have KK, but knowing the low limits > > that I play, anyone could be holding Ace little kicker... I don't know how many > > times I've given my opponent credit for the Ace in this situation, only to find > > out he was holding K4 or whatever tiny kicker. > > > > What's the play that I will benefit from in the long run? And how do I really > > know if I'm betting a beaten hand? Thank you! > > > > thanks KJO, thats part of what i lamely attempted to say. i do understand that the 2% of poker players that are great are not really gambling in the longterm. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A question I've pondered, modestmice, 21. Oct 2003 07:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=afeature&art_id=12519 a good article related to this subject. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|