The New (Computerized) Card Shark
from the changing-the-face-of-the-game dept
Back in May, there was a flurry of news stories about an accountant named Chris Moneymaker who surprised everyone and won the World Series of Poker after only picking up the game a few years ago and playing exclusively online. The NY Times is looking at this new trend in poker (and other games) for people to hone their skills against opponents online or to use software to let them experiment and better understand the fundamentals. Whereas the traditional way of getting good was to hang out in a casino all night playing hands, that’s increasingly becoming a thing of the past. Players point out that there are plenty of benefits to playing online instead, such as more room to experiment, cheaper fees, faster deals, no smoke, and fewer distractions. The one thing that’s missing – being able to “read” the players – is highly overrated anyway. The end of the article makes the most interesting point, though. With the proliferation of such “learning tools”, fewer and fewer players actually have an advantage when they play. Everyone is more or less equal, and the winner is left up to chance. In fact, the winner of the World Series of Poker from the previous year (also an unknown amateur) apparently lost in the first round of this year’s tournament.
Comments on “The New (Computerized) Card Shark”
No Subject Given
I’ve watched a bit of The World Series of Poker TV. They play Texas Hold ‘Em, which really is mostly about luck. Every time I’ve watched the game, the critical hand that really changes the game is either somebody bluffing big with nothing, or somebody with a pair of aces down. Granted, recognizing when to hold them and when to fold them (sorry, I had to use that phrase) is an art form that take time to master, but really, if your cards completely suck, you won’t win. And the cards you get are left to random chance.
Re: No Subject Given
Sorry, can’t resist, i have to post another comment since this is just too good (also from University of Alberta:
—–quote—–
Texas Hold’em
We have chosen to study the game of Texas Hold’em, the poker variation used to determine the world champion in the annual World Series of Poker. Hold’em is generally considered to be the most strategically complex poker variant that is widely played in casinos and card clubs. It is also convenient because it has particularly simple rules and logistics.
—–endquote—-
Re: Re: No Subject Given
Yes, no-limit hold’em is universally (among poker players) regarded as the most skillful of all poker games. The statement “it’s mostly about luck” reflects a complete absence of the understanding of the game.
If you’d like to know more about the intricacies of poker, I strongly recommend any of the books by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, primarily “Theory of Poker” and “Texas Hold’em For Advanced Players”.
It is a wonderful, complex game, although like all forms of poker luck of course plays a significant role.
Re: Re: Re: No Subject Given
What exactly is the degree of difference between “luck plays a significant role” (what you said) and “It’s mostly about luck?” (what I said)
I guess if I had said “It’s significantly about luck” I’d be right 😉
Re: Re: Re:2 No Subject Given
It perhaps is a small point, but if being a winning poker player were mostly about luck there wouldn’t be a large pool of professional players and a much larger pool of consistent losers.
While winning a single tournament requires luck in addition to skill, being able to win consistently enough to play professionally is a question of skill. Look at http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=poy for a list of the top tournament players in the world. Of the top 20 in that list, at least 15 of those make the list or close to it every year.
I interpreted your statement to mean that being a winning poker player is mostly about getting lucky; perhaps I misunderstood you. But I do really believe that being a winning poker player is mostly about being a skillful player. Luck comes into play in single hands, and single events, but winning at poker over the long run requires a great deal of skill, judgment and perseverance.
Re: Re: Re:3 No Subject Given
I was referring to winning a single tournamnet – following on what Mike was pointing out about newcowers winning the World Series of Poker. The same thing applies to many or most games actually.
Being in a position to win takes skill, practice etc. The outcome of any one game or series, even when it is the “championship gane” is usually fairly random. The old “any team can beat you on a given day” philosophy.
No Subject Given
” The one thing that’s missing – being able to “read” the players – is highly overrated anyway. … Everyone is more or less equal, and the winner is left up to chance.”
I have to say I find reading this quite sad Mike, don’t you think it takes away some of the poker “mystique”? To me it reduces it to a basic slot machine…you put your money in, press a button.
Ok ok, maybe not quite that bad since you still have to have SOME strategy…but still…
Re: No Subject Given
I, for one, strongly disagree with that statement. While players like Robert Varkonyi and Chris Moneymaker have hit the bigtime while being relative amateurs, the edge gained by being able to read and control opponents is very significant in no-limit hold’em. Stu Ungar, the master of the game, left behind a legacy of some of the greatest raises and folds of all time because of his ability to stone-cold read an opponent. Ask anyone who ever played with him. And most other greats like Erik Seidel and T.J. Cloutier have shown great abilities to read and control opponents too.
Re: Re: No Subject Given
Finally someone with sense …the ability of players like Ungar etc. are what seperate the learned “book” players from the repeat champions.
the oft repeated comment that its all luck is absurd. There is not enough luck in the world to get you thru 2days of play let alone 4 or 5
No skill huh?
From the University of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group FAQ:
Q: How good is Poki?
A: The older version of Poki that plays in full 10-player games is better than a typical low-limit casino player, and wins consistently against average opponents; but it is not as good as most expert players. The newer programs being developed for the 2-player game are quite a bit better, and we believe they will eventually surpass all human players, perhaps within a few years, or less.
http://games.cs.ualberta.ca/poker/
Re: No skill huh?
which file in the downloaded windows file allows one to log onto the poki site?