Home
I am wondering if anyone has read ” Bad for Your Wealth: A Scientific, Evidence-Based Study of Why You Should Avoid Playing Poker Tournaments.”
It is an interesting read for sure. I am not sure if I agree completely with the findings although they seem to be somewhat irrefutable.
PC
Briefly explain the findings? Poker has given me a lucrative hobby that keeps my mind sharp and my pocket book healthier.
It would be hard to include them here, but here is a brief synopsis of the book by the author:
Tournament poker will lead to gambler's ruin in the long term. Your instincts are correct: there is no gambling edge in the game. I have shown why in my book, Bad for Your Wealth: A Scientific, Evidence-Based Study of Why You Should Avoid Playing Poker Tournaments.
I use data collected from the WPT and other sources of slow-speed tournaments (deep-stack tournaments) to find the probability of making the money for an experienced player and median values for profit or loss per tournament.
I also plug the data into the expected-value formula, the Kelly formula and other useful mathematical and gambling tools to discover if there is an edge.
The results of “professional players” are surprising. There are so many unsubstantiated claims made about tournament poker. The conclusions I make, however, are supported by evidence and facts.
So if you think the game can be beaten, think again.
October 6, 2010
Offline
i would love to see these facts because they sound like BS.
it is possible he comes to the conclusion that most people can't sustain a big enough ROI to beat the rake, but there is a pretty big flaw in his argument, and that is there are lots of people that make a LOT of money grinding the 180s etc, and have done so for years on end.
it is easy to argue against possibly a 50 tournament sample size, but not against a 100k sample size
heres an older article about the same subject
i dont believe it, we all know its definitely possible to beat online mtts. its not easy and its a fact there are only around 6% winning players in the long term, but thats enough(for me).:)
June 22, 2010
Offline
A lot of these studies base it on pure mathematics, the edge in poker comes in the meta-game, which no one has been able to quantify accurately.
"Your either in Sheen's Korner or your with the trolls."
Feel like these arguments are referring mainly to big buy-in live tournies. We all know live pros that play the big buy-ins offset the potential of going broke and in debt by getting staked, selling pieces, and playing cash games. Online grinders can do some of the same things and can grind for rakeback.
I would simply argue back that poker is not a science and therefore the whole premise of the book is flawed.
Look, if poker was a science then everyone would be getting the same results and it truly would be a losing deal.
But that's not the case as there are regs, pros, and recreational players (studying TPE) who keep winning and fish who keep losing.
So toss the book and get back in the game 🙂
October 6, 2010
Offline
pdog said:
I would simply argue back that poker is not a science and therefore the whole premise of the book is flawed.
Look, if poker was a science then everyone would be getting the same results and it truly would be a losing deal.
But that's not the case as there are regs, pros, and recreational players (studying TPE) who keep winning and fish who keep losing.
So toss the book and get back in the game 🙂
i disagree with this
it is true that poker is not a science, but that doesnt mean it cannot be analysed mathematically. just like tennis or whatever sport you care to mention can.
poker, without rake, is a zero sum game, but with rake, it is not. it is possible that the edges are so small that noone can beat the game if they play against the other best players in the world, but we all know that this isnt the case in big buyin tournaments, which is where i disagree with the premise.
What is interesting is that it seems the book has been pulled from Amazon and iTunes. iTunes is where I originally purchased it. I have it on another iPad. I am neither advocating or denying his premise. Just trying to stimulate conversation. Which it looks like I did 😉
Most Users Ever Online: 2780
Currently Online:
23 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
bennymacca: 2616
Foucault: 2067
folding_aces_pre_yo: 1133
praetor: 1033
theginger45: 924
P-aire 146: 832
Turbulence: 768
The Riceman: 731
duggs: 591
florianm1: 588
Newest Members:
CSerpent
KJ
Tillery999
sdmathis89
ne0x00
adrianvaida2525
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 24
Topics: 12705
Posts: 75003
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1063
Members: 12010
Moderators: 2
Admins: 5
Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos
Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1
