Tapsearch Com EditorPoker, RIP
July 31st 2007 22:53
Salon.com has an interesting piece about how poker has changed over the years. It's become much less relaxed and friendly as statistics junkies have replaced the read-your-opponent types.
The writer is just plain misleading on this, though:
That's completely true -- of tournament poker. Earlier in the article he insists that tournament games have gained "massive popularity," even though "[y]ou cash out only by beating at least 90 percent of the field; only the top 1 percent of participants get a significant payout." He says this is "a sharp contrast with traditional poker games, in which a single table can host multiple winners."
Well, great, but I've run into a couple of young folks trying to live off poker, and while it's not a pretty sight, it's simply not true they rely on tournaments and ignore single-table games. That would be insane, because (A) poker is luck-heavy enough that the odds of winning a tournament are low, even if you're the best player in the room, and (B) tournaments attract people who know what they're doing, whereas to make a living at poker you have to prey on people who don't know what they're doing.
If you're good at poker and can find a casino with lots of high-betting, inexperienced players, that's the way to go. You only have to do slightly better than the average person at the table to make money (as the writer says, it's a zero-sum game, save for the casino taking a rake of 6 to 10 percent).
The writer is just plain misleading on this, though:
Until recently, most tournament players believed that they had an edge over other players and could overcome the vigorish through skillful play. But this was before optimal game strategy became more universally employed. As poker moves from seat-of-the-pants play to easily available complex mathematical strategies, the likelihood of great players emerging from the mass of entrants will dramatically decline. More and more tournaments will be decided by a succession of "coin flips" (competition between two hands of nearly equal value), with results becoming increasingly random. Given that tournament poker is a zero-sum game (all the money comes from the entrants), and the casinos take 6 to 10 percent (or more) for hosting the events, the likelihood of being a long-term consistent winner is quite low. Unlike golf or tennis, where skill is a major factor and the best players inevitably rise to the top, it is now unusual to see a poker player, no matter how skilled, booking repeated wins.
That's completely true -- of tournament poker. Earlier in the article he insists that tournament games have gained "massive popularity," even though "[y]ou cash out only by beating at least 90 percent of the field; only the top 1 percent of participants get a significant payout." He says this is "a sharp contrast with traditional poker games, in which a single table can host multiple winners."
Well, great, but I've run into a couple of young folks trying to live off poker, and while it's not a pretty sight, it's simply not true they rely on tournaments and ignore single-table games. That would be insane, because (A) poker is luck-heavy enough that the odds of winning a tournament are low, even if you're the best player in the room, and (B) tournaments attract people who know what they're doing, whereas to make a living at poker you have to prey on people who don't know what they're doing.
If you're good at poker and can find a casino with lots of high-betting, inexperienced players, that's the way to go. You only have to do slightly better than the average person at the table to make money (as the writer says, it's a zero-sum game, save for the casino taking a rake of 6 to 10 percent).
| 33 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous