Yuku free message boards

phatus wrote:

---

phillysteve wrote:

---

I just addressed this in another post that I won money playing poker, and considering the lower stakes I played for, I was successful and won a fair amount of money over the years. I choose not to play poker now, not because I couldn't win money, but I'd rather do other things with my life besides sit at a poker table all night and breathe in cancer causing second hand smoke to try to make a few hundred dollars.

LOL do you not realise you've just said that you yourself made money from poker. You made 'a fair amount of money over the years'. Your whole arguement is that NOBODY can make money from poker. So NOBODY in the whole wide world can beat the unbeatable game except for you. What a joke.

Phil wrote:

---

phillysteve wrote:

---

Phil - You consistently evade the simple request for audited and documented proof. It's not about me calling anyone a liar...who the heck cares about that one way or the other...I don't even care (LOL) - It's about someone making claims and not backing up the claims with proper proof. Nobody should have to ask for this proof - There are many other claims of money making systems involving real estate, stock market, and other forms of risk whereby the person claiming the winning is happy and willing to automatically post their audited tax returns and other documentation to prove their claims - This isn't anything new. So just post the proof, plain and simple, and you can prove to the world that you are right...but you know and we all know that you can't do that...so despite your best efforts to spin the simple request for proof, you're not fooling anybody here.

If an ignorant little old lady was playing poker against a skilled poker player headsup on a raked poker website, then "yes" the skilled poker player would beat the little old lady and win money even with the rake - but these situations for all intents and purposes of making money, don't exist in the real world. The ignorant little old lady gamblers who are foolishly gambling online, aren't playing poker at PS or FT...they're playing maybe video poker, or likely non-thinking games such as slots or roulette.

So let's talk reality versus your spins - As I'm sure you know, there has never been a "mathematical formula" guaranteed winner for NL poker - that is basically impossible because of the element of bluffing in poker whereby the best hand doesn't always win. Even in limit poker the best hand doesn't always win. Store bought bots despite perfectly knowing all the mathematical equations in poker, have all proven to be money losers against the rake. So any mathematical premise you propose is basically hogwash because even a perfectly programmed bot has proven it can't beat the rake. Could a monitored programmed bot, highly sophisticated, with countless man hours involved logging in other players tendencies beat the rake? - I haven't ruled out that possibility, but is that worth it? I mean anyone that smart could make a lot more money, with a lot less stress, owning their own business or working for someone rather than grinding out some money at online poker, with the constant risk of getting their account canceled and their money confiscated by the poker website because player bots as you should know are not allowed.

Let's again get back to the real world - it's a given that most if not virtually all players who open an account with say PS or FT are going to know the rudimentary fundamentals of poker. They've likely played poker with friends in high school or college, and have probably read articles and books about the game. So in reality, you're not going to find ignorant little old ladies opening an account at PS or FT. Yes, there could be and sometimes are some bad poker players on these websites, but there is way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to beat these type of players against the long term accumulative effect of the rake. As you know even a 2-7os hand can beat an A-A hand, even on the river. K-K can beat A-A, etc. I don't think I have to explain further holdem poker here - But the facts are that the rake accumulates, whether or not a player is hot or cold, the rake is always accumulating, and always in raked poker with players we are discussing, a given in average pots of S1,000 or less...the rake accumulates to a point where it crushes a bankroll, and there are no exceptions.

So you can spin your mathematical equations any which way you want and try to fool naive young gamblers and entice them into playing poker, but you're not going to fool me, or anyone here with an open mind unless their gambling addiction wants them to believe almost anything written about how to make money playing online poker. Your "presentation" and there are many others like it on the internet, especially from affiliate commission hucksters or those profiting from gambling websites such as receiving endorsement money...are simply illusions about winning money that don't exist in reality. The reality for an individual honest online poker player playing by the rules with no cheating, is losing their money and it's usually a lot of money and going into debt because by its nature, online poker is a very addictive game.

Stephen Katz

OK, so you haven't done the maths. With all your rhetoric all we have to do to find out if a player is beating raked poker is to know the percentage rake, the average pot size and the players edge.

If the players edge over the table is sufficient then they will beat the rake, it's that simple. You've already admitted you've played poker and won over the long term, so you had an edge over the game you were playing. If that edge was big enough you would have beaten a raked game as well. Just repeating that raked games can't be beaten doesn't make it true. You keep asking me for proof (although no proof is acceptable to you) so lets have your proof.

To break even at a 3/6 NL game with an average pot of $100 (rake 5% capped at $3) all you need is a 3% edge over the game, if your edge is more than 3% you make money. A 3% edge doesn't seem unreasonable to me, especially as most players have rakeback deals so they don't even need a 3% edge to break even.

Are you saying a good 3/6 player doesn't have a 3+% edge?

I know what you'll say next that rake accumulates, but your missing the point of what edge is. If you have a 3% edge over the game you have a 3% edge every hand on average. If you have a 3% edge on a game where the average pot is $100, you make $3 every hand on average minus any rake (over the long term). This is not spin, it's maths.

You mentioned 72 can beat aces, well obviously. You mention running hot and cold, all irrelevant in the long term. If someone wants to keep putting their money in with 72 against my aces I'll be very happy as they'll only win about 12.5% of the time. I might lose 10 times in a row (what you term running cold) but that's why poker players have bankrolls sufficient to ride the variance and realise their long term edge.

phatus wrote:

---

phillysteve wrote:

---

phatus wrote:

---

phillysteve wrote:

Unraked poker, which is what I played, can be beat, and almost every poker player already knows this - this isn't any great revelation here. I quickly knew in my earliest poker playing days back in high school, that I was better than a lot of players, and not as good as some.

The percentage of poker players who play raked online poker is very small compared to the amount of poker players worldwide. and why do you think that is? I'll tell you a big reason why, because most poker players already know and understand that raked online poker is a sucker's game, and therefore they do not play because they do not want to play a sucker's game. If they want to play a sucker's game with a shot at a big jackpot...they can simply play the lottery and save time.

So you're clearly stating here that some players are better than others. You're also saying that without rake a player can make money. Surely then some players are so much better than their opponents that they can make money even with rake being taken away from their winnings. It's crazy that you don't believe this. Do you also believe dinosaurs didn't roam the earth?

It sounds like you're trying to say that most poker players in the world play unraked games? That's without doubt the stupidest thing i've ever heard. All games online are raked and all games at casinos are raked. Are you trying to tell me there are more homes games being played than on the internet and casinos combined. LOL JUST LOL.

<<< Are you trying to tell me there are more homes games being played than on the internet and casinos combined. you trying to tell me there are more homes games being played than on the internet and casinos combined. >>>

I hope you're kidding? LOL

There are probably more home poker game players just in the New York City area alone, on a Friday or Saturday night, than on the internet. I don't think you understand how popular poker is, especially in the United States - perhaps it's not that popular in the UK or wherever you live.

prove to me that there are more home unraked games than raked games on the internet and casinos? Without proof your statement can't be true. This is the logic you are using to say raked poker is unbeatable. I want you to provide a signed list of everyone in the NYC area that played a unraked game last month. Can you provide this?

Phil wrote:

---

phillysteve,

This is too funny. No wonder you can't beat raked poker.

You say:

A good poker player could beatup on a bad player all night, then go all-in with A-A and get beat and lose their entire bankroll - How do you explain the "math" behind that?

Well any half way decent player would never have his whole bankroll at the table. He would buy in to a table where the buy in was maybe a 30th of his bankroll.

He would then beatup on the player all night get it in with AA and 80% of the time really beat up on the bad player when his aces hold up. The other 20% of the time he would lose. Do you not get that for example winning a $200 pot 80% of the time and losing a $200 pot 20% of the time is a profit making proposition over the long term.

You are confusing short term variance with long term edge.

I'll make it really simple for you:

Edge....lets take the example of a coin. You take tails, I take heads, we agree to do 10 spins every night for a year. If the coin lands on tails you win $1, If it lands on heads I win $1.50. You can see that this is a positive expectation bet in my favour can't you? Now over the short term you could beat me, but I still have an edge (of 25 cents a spin). Every spin I'm earning 25c and this will be realised over the long run. As long as my bankroll is big enough to ride out any variance then I will make money from you. If I turn up with $1 I have a high probability of going broke (just like the poker player sat with his whole bankroll) if I turn up with $100 I have a high probability of making a long term profit from you.