If everybody plays hands correctly the mathematical edge is 0. That's fact. Meaning nobody wins & nobody loses (with no rakes) You said that your edge comes from good reads. Does it mean that you can win only in brick & mortar casinos? Does it mean that if you don't see the players you are helpless? And even if you are a good reader you still can't win if you are playing hands wrong.
gki you just don't understand how poker works man...people look at it and they're like '52 cards, 10 guys...full house beats a straight' and they think they understand...and that is precisely why people can make so much money...because unlike a pool hustler or a great chess players, people keep coming back with money over and over and over and over to play against good poker players. It is a very complex game. One simple answer to your 'read's dilemma would be that the majority of 'reads' in poker are not based on facial expressions or ticks...but on betting sizes and patterns...you can read a hand based upon how it was played out and how it fits together with past actions seen by the same player. There are innumerable ways that good players can get an edge.
tradernick, Technicals are what drives short time traders. How else could a short time day trader get consistent? Price action is another way of describing a technical system. Pivot points either drawn on a chart or in the head is still the same thing, same for most technicals. All those ziz zags are "NOT" random, if they were truly random how could anyone be consistent profitable year after year. Luck is NOT an option for long term results. thanks
lol - it's clear that neither one of you has ever played a hand of poker. Just out of curiousity - what is it that makes you think that everyone plays optimally at all times? As a trader, surely you are aware that people make bad trading decisions. Why is it that you think that everyone plays poker correctly? The fact is that very few people play correctly. I never said that a good players edge comes exclusively from good reads. You seem to have selectively extracted that from my post because it helps your argument. Either that or you forgot that I said that other factors influence a given player's results. Since your premise is incorrect (the premise that it's a fact that 'no one wins or loses because everyone is playing correctly'), the conclusions that follow are also incorrect. Finally... if there was any doubt that you have never played at least online poker, it is laid to rest with your statement about being unable to make reads on players online. It is easy to read certain players online strictly based on their betting patterns. [edit] see farang's post prior to bighog's Why don't you take $100 and try actually playing the game? Either that or get a DVD of one of the tournaments and watch professionals laying down the best hand to an aggressive bettor. Then you can PM me with your retractions
Agree 100% I was making reference to the fact that a majority of newbies start out by learning about things like RSI, MACD, Stochastics, etc., and that a lot of other people like to say that there is nothing in this kind of analysis. You are right that reading the tape is also technical analysis. I was simply referring to the colloquial usage of the word which is usually with respect to the 'indicators'. I agree with you, though - technically, tape reading is technical. I make no representations about the value of either 'indicators' or simple tape reading. You're preaching to the converted. I have never understood the random walkers.
Fereng, as for your beating all these guys willing to lose their money to you, that is a role reserved for the markets in trading. Thats the difference. Perhaps your saying that you make the market at a poker table.
VERY WRONG ! In poker house collects certain % , without any risk of losing , for their services that they provide to players ( like a room , tables , dealers...). So if 10 players brought 10$ each to the table , they are playing for 98$ max ( and 96 next day and 94 next one). If all players are at the same level , they all will be losers after certain time
Poker is PURE LUCK When you have two equally skilled players at the final table and Chan draws an A2 and Doyle draws AA and the flop is 3Q5 and then the 2 hits on the river it was dead from the start and PURE LUCK this happens all the time. I have a lot of experience with both and have even played at some of the highest limit tables in Vegas. I have traded for longer and I am only speaking from personal experiences. Yes there is skill required for both BUT because trading is a zero sum game that difference makes all the difference. I'm not disputing the fact that you can sit at a $2 or $5 table and out skill a bunch of wanna bees but that is a useless endeavor compared to what is possible with a scalable trading edge.
lol sounds like you've taken a couple of bad beats on the internet. I'm kind of surprised at this analysis by you Samson... I know you to be a pretty heavy quant, but I''ll briefly refute it just so that it's on the record. In the situation you described, AA will beat the A2 92% of the time. Not ALL THE TIME. Right? http://www.twodimes.net/poker So citing the one flop which allows A2 a chance of winning doesn't exactly look like an objective call. Saying that poker is PURE LUCK because A2 can possibly beat AA if the flop comes 3Q5 and the turn brings a 2 is just weird, especially coming from someone with a knowledge of probability. Second, if Doyle fires at the pot with his AA, Johnny may come over the top. Now what does Doyle do? You never saw QQQ before? Doyle may or may not fold. It would be the perfect time to go all in - looks like a huge bluff, right? If you played at the highest limits in Vegas... maybe you should have been betting a bit harder So the medium limit ring games in Vegas are like $1000/$500 right? So you have played higher poker than that?? Wow!! You have stayed so quiet about it all this time but you never were the bragging type so I guess that makes sense.
wow man... you need to take some ginseng. I will put this in bold so you can quit posting. Once more, just for you - ALL PLAYERS AT A POKER TABLE ARE NOT AT THE SAME LEVEL - EVER okay? Second, the situation you are outlining NEVER HAPPENS. Seats are always being refilled in Ring Games. If the number of players dips below a certain lelev, some players will stand up and leave before losing all their money because they need a full ring to execute their strategies. WInning players are not required to sit there until they are raked down to mothing, and that would never happen anyway. I will give you a challenge IV_Trader - you find ONE POKER PLAYER who has ever seen happen what you described, where the house ends up with all the money eventually. I dare you IV. sheesh! Makes you wonder about the guys you're trading against, you know? Farang - there is hope, as you can see. This is a perfect example of a guy not being willing to say 'You know what - I was wrong, or at least I may not have had all the information I needed to take informed action. I think I will back off and re-evaluate and come back tomorrow'. He just keeps repeating the same thing over and over even after we have pointed out to him that all players are not equal, that players make mistakes, that all players don't play correctly, etc., etc. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is what makes people lose money in the markets and at poker. Let's hope IV_Trader doesn't trade like he debates!!