Dan Lambskin wrote: Madison wrote:
I'm saying if the predominant factor of something is chance, then it is gambling. If the predominant factor is skill, then it is not gambling. Poker is predominantly skill based, so it is not gambling and should not be treated the same way games of chance are treated by the law.
question: if you dont think poker should be treated as gambling, how do you think it should be handled from a tax perspective? you'd still be obligated to claim the income and pay taxes on it, yet you wouldnt be able to claim any losses to offset it. or would you expect to claim them as a business expense?
Yep, losses and expenses would be a business expense. At least that's how I (and hundreds of thousands of others) have been filing and paying our taxes. You should see the state tax laws in some places, they are nuts and make no sense at all.
GiantsFan14 wrote:why stop there? why not wait till you have a full house and he has a flush and is drawing dead?because that's not how poker works. you can't just wait around for the nuts before putting your money in the pot. in your case if i have the Ax suited, i'm far more likely to get all my money in the pot on the flop than after i whiff on the turn. by letting me see a cheap turn you'd just be giving me a chance to draw out on you for free. you're trying to make things more simple than they really are.
honestly mad, i think it's kind of funny how you attributed my talk of luck to the fact that i'm on a losing streak when it seems pretty obvious to me that you don't comprehend how huge of a factor variance is most likely because you've never been through a horrible streak of bad variance. the amount of variance in poker is mind-blowing and it's something that people on the good side of variance refuse to believe because they want to think that they're winning purely on skill.
yes you can play to reduce variance, but reduced variance will undoubtedly lead to a smaller winrate. if you're trying to play optimally, you should be making the most +EV decision which a lot of the time it will be a high variance play, but it's the play that's the most profitable over the long term.
one of my good friends and housemates is an incredibly good poker player. he's been a professional for years now and has put an enormous amount of time into doing a ton of math and learning how to play optimally. he makes coaching videos for a big time coaching site and also coaches players one on one. i can guarantee his understanding of the game is a ton deeper than either mine or yours and he's the one who taught me about how incredibly high variance of a game poker is.
i agree with you on a lot of stuff mad, but you're just flat wrong about this. your understanding of the game probably isn't as good as you think it is and because of that you probably wouldn't comprehend the amount of variance in the game unless you've been through it. if that variance tool can't convince you, i'm not sure what can other than going through it yourself. the fact that you can have 20 people all with a very good 2 ptbb winrate and over 300,000 hands one can lose money, a few will win very little money, a couple will win A TON of money and everyone else will probably land in between is just insane. these are simulations of people playing exactly the same and purely based on luck some are winning 10s of thousands of dollars while others are losing money and probably quitting the game. if that doesn't convince you, then nothing i can say will.
Who said "cheap" card? If I bet the pot, it is a -EV play for you to call since you're getting 2-1 on a 3-1 draw, but nowadays everyone thinks of the "implied" odds if they hit, so they call anyway. There's really no reason to go for your entire stack on the flop in that spot, but I watch people attempt it all the time, and those types of players have far greater swings (up and down) than those who don't do it. You shove on the flop, I call of course, but my typical play is to bet the pot, you call, and after you miss the turn, the pot is large enough to warrant you calling off your stack to see the river. Now you might be a good enough player to not fall into the trap, but that type of play has been quite profitable on my end, with much smaller risk.
You're right, I've not gone through a crazy swing on the low side. My worst run was around 100,000 hands at Absolute and I chalked that up to my mind not being all there (life sucks, but sometimes life goes for your throat). When all was said and done though, I still finished up. I'm well over the 3 million hand mark you mentioned before, I've played more hands than that at Pokerstars alone. You're probably right that I underestimate variance and I admit that I believe the player has more control over variance than you do. That's also a mindset though, which is different for each player based on their expectations. What I mean by that is when someone sits down at a cash game, what is their goal? Obviously we all sit down with the goal being to make money, but are we going for every chip on the table regardless of the risk, or are we simply going to make as much as we can as smartly as we can? So yeah, as far as cash games, I won't be hitting the monster swings upward (without changing my game of course, but we are all tweaking our games all the time), but I won't hit the monster swings downward either, and I will continue to be quite profitable at it.
I read what you wrote about your housemate earlier in the thread. Sounds like you have a wealth of knowledge at your fingertips, and I have no doubts your friend knows more than us. I don't work for any poker related companies in any way, not sponsored by one, haven't written any books (although I have considered doing just that, specifically on how to avoid the big swings down - and I had the idea over a year ago, this conversation didn't spur me to think of that
), never been on television, or anything. I'm no one special, but I am a very long term winning poker player.
It's not that I don't comprehend what variance can do, I just believe players have a lot more control over the situations where variance comes into play than you do. And that's where I believe the biggest difference is with the best players in the world, and everyone else. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I'm one of the best players in the world, I am far, far away from that, I'm not anywhere close. What I mean is would you consider Tom "Durrr" Dwan one of the best players in the world? I don't. He's a very high risk high reward player, and is quite successful at it (even with the monster swings up and down), but he is not anywhere close to the league someone like Phil Ivey is in. The biggest difference in those two players? Phil Ivey controls variance on a much higher level. So while a computer simulation (or millions of simulations) might show Dwan as the "better" player because his highs are higher, it couldn't be further from the truth. Computer simulations are wonderful things, I enjoy checking them out, studying them, and playing with them. The problem is the amount of variables involved. I'm sure the link you gave me is quite accurate as to the possibilities of what can happen, I have no doubts about that, but I do believe the players control how, when, and how much (as in bet amount) those numbers come into play, which gives them a whole lot more control over it than you think they have. So while (as you said):
" the fact that you can have 20 people all with a very good 2 ptbb winrate and over 300,000 hands one can lose money, a few will win very little money, a couple will win A TON of money and everyone else will probably land in between"
This may be true overall, I believe it to be the skill level of each player determining which path has their name on it.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....