What do think of this? </p> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6252751.stm</p> I bet skill comes into it a bit less when 2 Frenchman are telling each other what their hands are! </p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6248553.stm" />
The thing is.... He's right.</p> Poker is a skilled game but luck also plays a part.</p> I suppose in this case its almost impossible to come to a fair decision.</p> In June you will be legally allowed to have poker competitionsin pubs for small stakes.</p> I don't know what they define as small stakes?</p> </p>
I would imagine small stakes are Small enough not to make a living at it - or require a living wage simply to finance the habit. 2 grand would not be small stakes. 20 quid probably would be. Get's grey around £200 I would say.
On the subect of definiton A player may win a hand through sheer luck. But how long would take before you could say the player is winning through his/her skill? Furthermore how would you define whether a hand is won through skill or luck?
The skill is in the betting How much and when? What hands are worth playing in the position you are sat in behind the dealer (which changes every hand) and also pot odds and percentages of hitting your cards.</p> All this needs to be done whilst making the other players believe they are winning to gain maximum winnings.</p>
Not really an expert but I think on balance skill is much more important than luck Professional players wouldnt last if skill wasnt the most important aspect
Not if you are a lucky fecker I would have thought that it had more to do with your risk taking philosophy and how much you can afford to lose.
Put it this way... I have 5 years experience of playing tournament poker.</p> When I play on the lower $5 entry single table tournaments (6 or 10 players) 5 times out of 10 I will win and take home the money.</p> If I play in the higher $2006 player tourneys I would be lucky to win 2 or 3 times in 10 games.</p> Skill plays a massive part as well as the luck of the draw. However you are constantly thinking of what cards are coming next and the %'s of them coming.</p> Maths plays a massive part in this, so if you mathematically challenged then stay well clear of Texas ho;ld 'em because you will be playing a game of luck and chance.</p>
RE: The skill is in the betting So if I were a member of the jury, I would be thinking that if the game was played by skilled players, it is much more a skill game with elements of chance. However if the game is being played by inexperienced player, it is far more down to chance who wins. Based on this, surely I would have no option but to find the defendant guilty?
A player may win a hand through sheer luck, but the chances are if they're inexperienced there won't be much money in the pot to win. The skill is knowing when to bet and how, what the odds are, when to throw in your hand no matter how good you think it is, and so on. Luck's in the draw of the cards, but there's skill in playing what you've been dealt.
In theory yes but when you add bluffing then no matter what cards you are dealt Whether you have the worst hand at the time you still win the pot.</p> This is a skill that not many can master.</p> And this is what gives the pro's the edge. They will jump on any weakness shown in the betting whther they have **** cards or not.</p>
There's a definite skill in bluffing. Even messing on the practice tables (which is all I do to be honest - never played the cash ones) you see some people who would be good at playing for real cash, but some whose idea of a bluff is to go 'all in' as often as possible. That said, are these people 'bluffing' to get you to think 'if people on the practice tables are this bad, surely I could win some cash at this game?'. I tend to play tournaments in practice and rarely finish outside top 3. Well, before I got addicted to World of Warcraft anyway.
I can guarantee that when/if you start playing... For money the game morphs into a totally different game from play money. Bluffing with fake money is not the same as bluffin with real chips or real money.</p> I played play money for1 year and thought I knew the game then started playing for cash. I then realised I knew absolutely nothing. It has taken me 3-4 years to get to the point where I make a regular income from it. Having said that I play poker 8 hours a day.</p>
Wouldn't play for real money mate. Haven't got the guts. Or the money. Wouldn't mind playing for real money in person where I can try to read expressions/body language etc, but definitely not online.
If I organise a home game - £5 per game etc I'll let you know mate. Good way to start learning and play for a bit of cash</p> If you would be interested?</p> And that goes for anybody else for that matter?</p>
Its a game of skill (if you choose to learn it properly) which carries a massive amount of short-term volatility, due to the luck factor. If you keep making +EV decisions then you will make money, but the short-term swings can be brutal. The key to succeeding is keeping good records, bankroll management and always playing at a limit appropriate to your bankroll. This means dropping down in limits if necessary to protect from going bust. I play 'seriously' (5-15,000 hands per month) as a hobby from a bankroll grown out of a $100 deposit made 3.5 years ago and have used it as a supplementary income to my job. I know people who play full-time (20,000+ hands per week) who are long-term winning players but have been on 3-month+ losing streaks due to variance. However, they have a very good idea of what their long term win-rate should/will be from the records that they keep. Poker is the only casino game you can beat in the long-term, simply because you are playing against other players, not the house, and so are not competing against an in-built mathematical disadvantage. The issue over the Gutshot case is that the Gaming Commission (along with the 'assistance' of the major UK casino chains, who have a vested interest in this) want to keep poker regulated under the casino rules, as the barriers to entry of small clubs getting properly licensed are huge. Gutshot, and countless other unlicensed clubs which have sprung up over the past few years and will be forced to shut down if they lose this test case, need to differentiate poker in law as a game of skill (or at least as a game which is not purely of chance) in order to win the case. It'll be an interesting one to keep an eye on, as the ruling has knock-on implications for poker players whichever way the judgement goes.
totally correct mate Fact is...</p> In June there is goinf to be a relaxation of the gambling laws that were brought out in the 50's 60's.</p> The Government plan to make pub poker legal in june due to the US of A tightening their gambling laws.</p> Our Govt are now trying to make our country the bastion of not only Online gambling but Live gambling hence the Super casino plan.</p> I commend the Govt on the online thing but the distinct possibility is that our nation is an addictive bunch at best. Be it getting pissed, watching football, horse racing, drugs, need I go on.</p> What they need to know is for every 4 winners at poker there needs to be 6 mugs at least.</p> This is the worry where skill comes in. The internet is like this site. Pseudonyms. So that bloke on the $10/20 cash tables (where you need about 5K to bankroll) you could be playing against the best and not know. You could also be playing against a bum with shed loads of money.</p> Its a good game but have no doubt that the majority lose.</p> The skilled players will win almost everytime.</p> Whilst I've been writing this I've won 50 quid but by the time I press that send button I could have lost 200 as easy.</p>
