Poker Gameplays and Strategies

[wheelz1200]

As a poker player, you know yourself that it's always X% and Y% of skill. I personally think that luck plays huge part in poker, maybe 60%, but, on the other hand, it's not like in slots or dice, which are 100% luck based. That's why I would call poker a skill based game, where luck still plays a big part.

re the short run, i would agree. in the long run---unless you happen to be extremely lucky or unlucky statistically---i truly believe it boils down to skill much more than that. this is especially true IMO because skilled players know how to read hand ranges, employ pot odds, prevent tilt, control pot size, etc to give themselves an additional edge so it's not purely based on the chance of hand A winning vs hand B.

If you mean experienced vs inexperienced player, I totally agree with you. But there are thousands of pretty good poker players in the world, and when, say, a 100 of them meet in a tournament with 20 paid places, it depends 90% on luck, who of them will end up ITM.

in that one tournament, yes, luck will be a big determining factor. a single suckout can knock the best player out of the game. however, if you run that same tournament 1000 times, i am confident the best players will cash statistically more often. that's what i'm getting at.

Definately right on this one.  One game anyone can lose but playing winning poker over the course of a large amount of games the better players will ALWAYS win out.  Its definately not 90% luck who ends up in the money poker is not a game of chance like roulette or craps.

[1715681414]

1715681414

[1715681414]

1715681414

[1715681414]

1715681414

[Betwrong]

As a poker player, you know yourself that it's always X% and Y% of skill. I personally think that luck plays huge part in poker, maybe 60%, but, on the other hand, it's not like in slots or dice, which are 100% luck based. That's why I would call poker a skill based game, where luck still plays a big part.

re the short run, i would agree. in the long run---unless you happen to be extremely lucky or unlucky statistically---i truly believe it boils down to skill much more than that. this is especially true IMO because skilled players know how to read hand ranges, employ pot odds, prevent tilt, control pot size, etc to give themselves an additional edge so it's not purely based on the chance of hand A winning vs hand B.

If you mean experienced vs inexperienced player, I totally agree with you. But there are thousands of pretty good poker players in the world, and when, say, a 100 of them meet in a tournament with 20 paid places, it depends 90% on luck, who of them will end up ITM.

in that one tournament, yes, luck will be a big determining factor. a single suckout can knock the best player out of the game. however, if you run that same tournament 1000 times, i am confident the best players will cash statistically more often. that's what i'm getting at.

Agreed. But that would take like 3 years of playing. Also, we would have to assume that: a) weak players don't improve their skills over time; or b) some fresh weak players join the game all the time(which seems more realistic than the former scenario, and, in fact, that's what actually happening). So, yeah, with the exception of some crazy outliers, skillful players should perform better overall.

[Ucy]

As a poker player, you know yourself that it's always X% and Y% of skill. I personally think that luck plays huge part in poker, maybe 60%, but, on the other hand, it's not like in slots or dice, which are 100% luck based. That's why I would call poker a skill based game, where luck still plays a big part.

It's a game of probability but I think It's possible to predict your opponents better than what people think is possible.
In regards to dice(esp physical ones), I believe you can find/notice patterns, behaviors, sounds, features etc you could use to your advantage. I guess you'll need to train yourself to identify them.

[figmentofmyass]

in that one tournament, yes, luck will be a big determining factor. a single suckout can knock the best player out of the game. however, if you run that same tournament 1000 times, i am confident the best players will cash statistically more often. that's what i'm getting at.

Agreed. But that would take like 3 years of playing.

not necessarily. in fact, that's the beauty of online poker. between stacked tourney schedules and multi-tabling, online players can get way, way more games in than live players. if it would take 3 years live, it might take 3 months online.

[Twentyonepaylots]

in that one tournament, yes, luck will be a big determining factor. a single suckout can knock the best player out of the game. however, if you run that same tournament 1000 times, i am confident the best players will cash statistically more often. that's what i'm getting at.

Agreed. But that would take like 3 years of playing.

not necessarily. in fact, that's the beauty of online poker. between stacked tourney schedules and multi-tabling, online players can get way, way more games in than live players. if it would take 3 years live, it might take 3 months online.

But would not that be too bad for the player? I mean what if he got the same schedule of playing at the same time is that even legal? I'm just wondering if ever that there is 2 casino who got the same player with their tournament. But to be honest, it is more enjoyable playing poker in live than online, the interaction between the players gives more about than what they said.

[Betwrong]

in that one tournament, yes, luck will be a big determining factor. a single suckout can knock the best player out of the game. however, if you run that same tournament 1000 times, i am confident the best players will cash statistically more often. that's what i'm getting at.

Agreed. But that would take like 3 years of playing.

not necessarily. in fact, that's the beauty of online poker. between stacked tourney schedules and multi-tabling, online players can get way, way more games in than live players. if it would take 3 years live, it might take 3 months online.

But would not that be too bad for the player? I mean what if he got the same schedule of playing at the same time is that even legal? I'm just wondering if ever that there is 2 casino who got the same player with their tournament.

Yes, it is absolutely legal to play different games at the same time on an online poker site. Good poker sites make it as convenient as possible to do so. What is illegal is to have multiple accounts and play with two, or more of them, in the same tournament or cash game.

But to be honest, it is more enjoyable playing poker in live than online, the interaction between the players gives more about than what they said

There are ways to read your opponent in an online game. Factors to consider are:

1. the previous behaviour of the player;

2. time he's taking on making a decision;

3. the size of his bet;

4. and even what he's saying in the chat.

You don't necessarily need to see the face of the player to read him/her. That's why good live poker players do well in online games too:



If you love to play poker, you enjoy it both ways.

[spike420211]

As a poker player, you know yourself that it's always X% and Y% of skill. I personally think that luck plays huge part in poker, maybe 60%, but, on the other hand, it's not like in slots or dice, which are 100% luck based. That's why I would call poker a skill based game, where luck still plays a big part.

re the short run, i would agree. in the long run---unless you happen to be extremely lucky or unlucky statistically---i truly believe it boils down to skill much more than that. this is especially true IMO because skilled players know how to read hand ranges, employ pot odds, prevent tilt, control pot size, etc to give themselves an additional edge so it's not purely based on the chance of hand A winning vs hand B.

If you mean experienced vs inexperienced player, I totally agree with you. But there are thousands of pretty good poker players in the world, and when, say, a 100 of them meet in a tournament with 20 paid places, it depends 90% on luck, who of them will end up ITM.

I personally think that today any online poker tournament with $100+ prize pool attracts several such players, and who of them will win  depends mostly on luck.

Basically, that's what I mean when saying "luck still plays a big part". I don't take inexperienced players into account.

I think you're overestimating luck. It plays a very important role in every single tournament, locally, over a short distance.
But if we take a large sample of tournaments, then luck will be much less important. In fact, every decision made in a tournament has an aspect of luck, but if we sum it up, we can see that the main factor is skill.

Since the quantity and quality of your decisions depends on how large the factor of luck will be, both locally and globally.
The shorter the distance, the higher the factor, the longer it is, the lower it is.

[figmentofmyass]

not necessarily. in fact, that's the beauty of online poker. between stacked tourney schedules and multi-tabling, online players can get way, way more games in than live players. if it would take 3 years live, it might take 3 months online.

But would not that be too bad for the player? I mean what if he got the same schedule of playing at the same time is that even legal? I'm just wondering if ever that there is 2 casino who got the same player with their tournament.

there's a big difference between playing multiple tables at once (multi-tabling) and using multiple accounts in the same tournament (multi-accounting).

multi-accounting is prohibited but there is nothing wrong with multi-tabling. it's win-win, really. players can get a lot more hands in, which is good for profitable players riding out variance, and everyone benefits from the increased player liquidity. if everyone were only allowed one table at a time, there would be way less players sitting at ring games and playing in tournaments.

But to be honest, it is more enjoyable playing poker in live than online, the interaction between the players gives more about than what they said.

to each their own! i love both. the problem with live games is they are slow, and riding out losing/break-even stretches takes a lot longer since you're seeing so much less action than online.

[Kupid002]

in that one tournament, yes, luck will be a big determining factor. a single suckout can knock the best player out of the game. however, if you run that same tournament 1000 times, i am confident the best players will cash statistically more often. that's what i'm getting at.

Agreed. But that would take like 3 years of playing.

not necessarily. in fact, that's the beauty of online poker. between stacked tourney schedules and multi-tabling, online players can get way, way more games in than live players. if it would take 3 years live, it might take 3 months online.

But would not that be too bad for the player? I mean what if he got the same schedule of playing at the same time is that even legal? I'm just wondering if ever that there is 2 casino who got the same player with their tournament. But to be honest, it is more enjoyable playing poker in live than online, the interaction between the players gives more about than what they said.

In that case the player  need to fix his schedule or pass that tournament to others since its not possible to play it at the same time with two different website tournament.

Having it online make it possible to other players to play from different location and that I think the advantage for poker players that want to play online than in live .

[Betwrong]

~
I think you're overestimating luck. It plays a very important role in every single tournament, locally, over a short distance.
But if we take a large sample of tournaments, then luck will be much less important.~

As an aspiring poker player myself, I can say that it is better to overestimate luck than underestimate it. There is a dangerous trap waiting in the path of a "shark", namely, the illusion that you are  unbeatable. Some well-known poker pros lost a lot of money because of falling into this trap. Imo, it is always better to think that you were lucky in the case of winning, and to think that you were not skillful enough in the case of losing. It is a good strategy for improving your skills, and not falling into the trap I mentioned.

[figmentofmyass]

As an aspiring poker player myself, I can say that it is better to overestimate luck than underestimate it. There is a dangerous trap waiting in the path of a "shark", namely, the illusion that you are  unbeatable. Some well-known poker pros lost a lot of money because of falling into this trap. Imo, it is always better to think that you were lucky in the case of winning, and to think that you were not skillful enough in the case of losing. It is a good strategy for improving your skills, and not falling into the trap I mentioned.

that is an interesting theory. i understand the danger of becoming cocky and overconfident. it leads to poor decision making, same as going on tilt. to me that is separate from honing your skills---which is primarily about properly leveraging your equity (the chances you will win the hand, with or without a showdown) in any given situation. that's more about pure number crunching, and also having the kind of experience that aids in hand reading your opponents.

if you attribute everything to luck, i don't understand how that helps to hone those skills.

[Mauser]

As an aspiring poker player myself, I can say that it is better to overestimate luck than underestimate it. There is a dangerous trap waiting in the path of a "shark", namely, the illusion that you are  unbeatable. Some well-known poker pros lost a lot of money because of falling into this trap. Imo, it is always better to think that you were lucky in the case of winning, and to think that you were not skillful enough in the case of losing. It is a good strategy for improving your skills, and not falling into the trap I mentioned.

Luck definitely plays a big role during each individual hand you play, but on a bigger scale luck becomes not important anymore. On almost all of the poker softwares you can look at your past hands. It makes sense to keep track of your general plays. Like which hand are you playing good and make money and where are you losing money. It can happen that you lose with AA vs 27 in one hand. But across 10,000 off hands you will see AA dominate. It's all about playing for a long time to make luck not so important anymore.

[Betwrong]

As an aspiring poker player myself, I can say that it is better to overestimate luck than underestimate it. There is a dangerous trap waiting in the path of a "shark", namely, the illusion that you are  unbeatable. Some well-known poker pros lost a lot of money because of falling into this trap. Imo, it is always better to think that you were lucky in the case of winning, and to think that you were not skillful enough in the case of losing. It is a good strategy for improving your skills, and not falling into the trap I mentioned.

that is an interesting theory. i understand the danger of becoming cocky and overconfident. it leads to poor decision making, same as going on tilt. to me that is separate from honing your skills---which is primarily about properly leveraging your equity (the chances you will win the hand, with or without a showdown) in any given situation. that's more about pure number crunching, and also having the kind of experience that aids in hand reading your opponents.

if you attribute everything to luck, i don't understand how that helps to hone those skills.

As an aspiring poker player myself, I can say that it is better to overestimate luck than underestimate it. There is a dangerous trap waiting in the path of a "shark", namely, the illusion that you are  unbeatable. Some well-known poker pros lost a lot of money because of falling into this trap. Imo, it is always better to think that you were lucky in the case of winning, and to think that you were not skillful enough in the case of losing. It is a good strategy for improving your skills, and not falling into the trap I mentioned.

that is an interesting theory. i understand the danger of becoming cocky and overconfident. it leads to poor decision making, same as going on tilt. to me that is separate from honing your skills---which is primarily about properly leveraging your equity (the chances you will win the hand, with or without a showdown) in any given situation. that's more about pure number crunching, and also having the kind of experience that aids in hand reading your opponents.

if you attribute everything to luck, i don't understand how that helps to hone those skills.

No, not everything. Everything depends on luck in dice and slot games, but, of course, poker is far from it. I've just noticed that many people underestimate the part luck plays in poker, that's all.

As I said earlier, there are thousands skillful players, and who of them wins mostly depends on luck. But there are millions unskillful poker players. Let's not forget about that.

And since poker is a game that's constantly evolving and discarding old school rules, there's no such thing as staying at the same level. If you are not improving and getting yourself better, you might find yourself among those unskillful millions, one day.

[erikoy]

In that case the player  need to fix his schedule or pass that tournament to others since its not possible to play it at the same time with two different website tournament.

Proxy will do in this matter. Pretty sure that if you are a poker player you know some players that are lucky too when playing poker you can ask them to proxy for any schedules that you will not be able to meet. In this case who might knows that your proxy might be better or luckier than you.

Online gambling now is a trend so I guess that doing proxy would be fine as long there is a resources available at hand. Higher chance that the player could be denied playing as proxy.

[finaleshot2016]

As an aspiring poker player myself, I can say that it is better to overestimate luck than underestimate it. There is a dangerous trap waiting in the path of a "shark", namely, the illusion that you are  unbeatable. Some well-known poker pros lost a lot of money because of falling into this trap. Imo, it is always better to think that you were lucky in the case of winning, and to think that you were not skillful enough in the case of losing. It is a good strategy for improving your skills, and not falling into the trap I mentioned.

Luck definitely plays a big role during each individual hand you play, but on a bigger scale luck becomes not important anymore. On almost all of the poker softwares you can look at your past hands. It makes sense to keep track of your general plays. Like which hand are you playing good and make money and where are you losing money. It can happen that you lose with AA vs 27 in one hand. But across 10,000 off hands you will see AA dominate. It's all about playing for a long time to make luck not so important anymore.

Experiences do really matters on these games, the longer you play the more experiences you are gaining but don't forget that luck really plays an important role in each game. There are situations that we can both use experience and luck that will lead us to a great win. I know that feeling because I, as a player/gamer already felt that on a situational game where I should use my experiences and rely on luck. So in the end, even you already have a lot of experience and you thought you wouldn't rely on luck, we are wrong because we always rely on it on our mind and luck will be always there.

[Pamadar]

As an aspiring poker player myself, I can say that it is better to overestimate luck than underestimate it. There is a dangerous trap waiting in the path of a "shark", namely, the illusion that you are  unbeatable. Some well-known poker pros lost a lot of money because of falling into this trap. Imo, it is always better to think that you were lucky in the case of winning, and to think that you were not skillful enough in the case of losing. It is a good strategy for improving your skills, and not falling into the trap I mentioned.

Luck definitely plays a big role during each individual hand you play, but on a bigger scale luck becomes not important anymore. On almost all of the poker softwares you can look at your past hands. It makes sense to keep track of your general plays. Like which hand are you playing good and make money and where are you losing money. It can happen that you lose with AA vs 27 in one hand. But across 10,000 off hands you will see AA dominate. It's all about playing for a long time to make luck not so important anymore.

Experiences do really matters on these games, the longer you play the more experiences you are gaining but don't forget that luck really plays an important role in each game. There are situations that we can both use experience and luck that will lead us to a great win. I know that feeling because I, as a player/gamer already felt that on a situational game where I should use my experiences and rely on luck. So in the end, even you already have a lot of experience and you thought you wouldn't rely on luck, we are wrong because we always rely on it on our mind and luck will be always there.

On that statement, experienced may point you to the right position to take. Poker are more on strategy though it's different from online as you are not capable in seeing your opponents physical gestures, you are more in leaning with luck less strategy.
Only part that experienced helps is when the time for you to stop either you are winning or losing your money.

[adzino]

You should learn the basic rules first. Google it and learn. You shouldn't just jump and in and start playing with real money. This is the reason why you are losing.
Poker requires some skills, but also remember, it depends on your luck too. You should learn how to bluff and understand your opponent and make your plays.
But don't just rely on "strategies", after-all it is a game of chances, so strategies won't always help you win.

[Mauser]

On that statement, experienced may point you to the right position to take. Poker are more on strategy though it's different from online as you are not capable in seeing your opponents physical gestures, you are more in leaning with luck less strategy.
Only part that experienced helps is when the time for you to stop either you are winning or losing your money.

I think online poker is a great way to start learning poker. If you can survive online tournaments or cash games you are definitely ready to play offline games. You are right that it's a completely different setup when playing in a real casino with real people on a table. At home no one can see you, you don't give away tales, but in a casino everyone is watching you. Without a good "poker face" it's going to be hard to survive at high stakes tables. At lower stakes tables it's not so important in my opinion, better to stick to your strategy thatn trying to bluff too much.

[tabas]

Watch videos first of those highlights on YouTube about bluffing or interesting moments. You'll have the idea on what you should with those moments.
Playing poker isn't that hard but your decision making in the table is what makes it hard.

[figmentofmyass]

I think online poker is a great way to start learning poker. If you can survive online tournaments or cash games you are definitely ready to play offline games. You are right that it's a completely different setup when playing in a real casino with real people on a table. At home no one can see you, you don't give away tales, but in a casino everyone is watching you.

how is playing online gonna help you hide your tells at the casino?

throw on some sunglasses, a hoodie, maybe some headphones---just imagine you're phil ivey---you'll be okay.

live games (at least at low stakes which is relevant to 99% of people around here) are much softer than online, at least in my experience. that's also what i've heard from other players.