5 ms·
Math in poker is a little overrated. It's often listed as an advantage of the game by less experienced players. Once you have the basics nailed (mainly expect
by TomGullen 14y ago
Math in poker is a little overrated. It's often listed as an advantage of the game by less experienced players.
Once you have the basics nailed (mainly expected value calculations) there really isn't much more to it, the rest of the skill then comes from estimating opponents hand ranges. And past that, meta game, hand range balancing, deception etc become increasingly important.
Poker is an amazing game when you're playing people who also understand the game. When you're scrapping at the free games it's a pretty dismally inefficient learning tool. If you want to play good people, you need to play with money.
If you get to a reasonable level at poker, it does have a lot of advantages. Here's a blog post I wrote comparing running a startup to playing poker:
http://www.scirra.com/blog/80/why-running-a-startup-is-like-playing-poker http://www.scirra.com/blog/80/why-running-a-startup-is-like-...
Poker also has a big potential downside, which is obsession, outright misery and despair which can slowly creep into your life. Distinguishing between addiction and a pursuit you are thoroughly interested in and enjoy is often difficult to pinpoint.
Poker also has other downsides which I've observed many times, even with close friends. Illusions of grandeur are common, and can be destructive in your life in a larger way than you are prepared to admit. For example, many players who have been playing for many years still believe they can go pro. These players don't study the game, they just play it and often bemoan their bad luck. For years. In an alternative Universe they might have perused a career, yet they are still playing small stakes games and bleeding off their money at a very slow pace, slow enough to kid themselves that they are simply suffering a bad run of luck.
Perseverance and self belief really aren't virtuous qualities in poker for most people.
Harrington on Holdem are the best strategy books on poker in my opinion. If anyone is interested in seeing how poker players should be thinking as they play I highly recommend those books!
As for recommending people go into poker, I actively tell people to steer well clear of it. Money flows upwards, addicts keep on self destructing and the winning players will justify it with ethically dubious statements like "if I don't take their money, someone else will", or with blinders on with statements such as "all the losing players are probably just casual and playing for fun" to appease their own ethics.
A lot of winning players do not understand or empathise the torture that some losing players have to endure.
There is a real pleasure playing poker on a table with people who are equal, or above you in skill level. The level of thought, the challenge, the tactics are thoroughly thoroughly enjoyable. I was never especially good at poker, but I did touch upon these sorts of experiences. To get there though will take most people a lot of time, probably time better spent elsewhere.
- mmcnickle 14y agoI would also recommend the Harrington books for beginners looking to improve their tournament play. They are widely read, however, and the strategy is exploitable by someone who knows you're playing it. But it's still much better than your own strategy at the start. Edit: I would say, in my anecdotal experience, you don't encounter the same number of addicts in poker as you do in other games. You're more likely to see them at the roulette or blackjack table looking for a quick bet. The adrenaline moments in poker, tournaments especially, are quite widely spaced out.
- incision 14y ago>They are widely read, however, and the strategy is exploitable by someone who knows you're playing it. So true. I've had some great success exploiting people who play Omaha to the letter of one of the more popular books. >I would say, in my anecdotal experience, you don't encounter the same number of addicts in poker as you do in other games. My anecdotal experience says that the worst addicts "play" the stock market. I think it works well with your observation about adrenaline moments as every tick makes for one.
- qznc 14y agoTo prevent obsession, you should start with an initial budget (e.g. 50$) and never pay more. Force yourself to get more money from the tables. Also restrict your maximum buy-in to something like 1/25 of you budget. For 50$, this means tables with 2$ buy-in. The buy-in restriction keeps you at a comfortable level, because tables with higher buy-ins have better players. Using this strategy I played from 50$ up to 300$ over a year or something. At that point I quit, because I got bored.
- Peroni 14y agoYour advice is pretty much spot on however I believe the downvotes are attributed to the fact that reasonable budgetting doesn't prevent obsession. It may help prevent you from overspending initially but using moderation to prevent an addiction is a bit of an oxymoron.
- 14y ago