[Closed] travis whites 25% 15% 60% theory

i propose 60% Strategy + BRM, 25% Patience or Psychology, 15% Luck

Hi!

You could tell us a bit about your poker story! How long you play what limits etc.

About 25 15 60 i could agree a bit with this theory only for MMTs. There indeed without cards you can hardly do much.

deffinately not 60% luck luck might be a factor which for 60% defines wether or not 1 session will be a winning one or not, but when you're talking about 10000's hands sample sizes, luck is a very small factor. 15% is probably closer.

0.00000001% luck imo. In that 0.00000001% luck fall the people that get all off the negative variance in such a big bundle that they die before getting it leveled out or the other way around. It's theoretically possible imo. But that goes for skilled players, for fish it's 100% luck.

MTTs are more luck based becouse you can get the variance leveled in the negative way in all of the important points and in the non important points you can get all of the cards you want. So I think that you can be really good and not win any turneys, in theory of course

Make sense?

10% luck, 30% skill
20% concentrated power of will
30% pleasure, 10% pain
100% reason to be playing the game

I made that poetry for you... Or well originally almost by mike shinoda but I made some changes you know... and yeah it almost rhymes you know...

but seriously there is no such thing as luck... only odds...
I think it was Gus that said in a interview "Everytime you sit down at a table it's gonna be 70% luck if you stand up as a winner or a looser...
If you play for a whole week it's gonna drop down to 50% luck...
In the end of the year... luck is only a tiny factor"...
not in these words... but this is kinda what he meant... not even sure if it was gus... so just act like I was the first who said this famous quote... aiiight...

Play/learn more poker Travis and talk about your poker theories again in two years.

0% luck
0% skill
100% lol

This really is kind of a beginner theory. Assuming a blanket statement like 15% of people know what they are doing is pretty lol. Depends on many other factors: stakes, live or online, site, etc. Even then it's not a blanket % of people who just "know" what they are doing and a % who are clueless. Most people actually have some understanding, and it's about exploiting what they don't understand. Unless you play 10NL online, then you will be sitting with almost all bad players.

Also, 60% luck is wayyy too much. Sure for a 1,000 hand sample it might be, but once you get up to about 100,000 or so luck gets to be very small. Same way casinos survive.

As for the patience, I don't know where you came up with a % because it really depends on the game. Some cash games require almost no patience, and some require a lot to be profitable. Poker is varient in so many ways it's hard to put "overall" % for things like these.

Hey stballer123,

I really like your conclusion!!!
And I totally agree with you! Solid post!
Just wanted to say that ♦

Originally posted by Chiller3k
Hey stballer123,

I really like your conclusion!!!
And I totally agree with you! Solid post!
Just wanted to say that ♦

lol well thank you

You are going to be sharing a million stories at one per week? That will be quite an achievement in itself.

As someone pointed out, the luck factor is highest in MTTs - and it may never really even out as it does in cashgames, because people tend to play so many different levels throughout their career. In cashgames you can play 100,000 hands at the highest level and luck will be close to 0% - but MTT players may get one or two shots at glory in their whole lives, and luck alone dictates wether or not they take that opportunity.

As a cashgame player you need math skills, patience, discipline, determination and composure - you cant put a % on each of them because without one of those things the rest fall over. If you have four of those things but lack one, you wont be 80% of a complete player - you need all five.

Originally posted by redskwerl
0% luck
0% skill
100% lol

agree

IN a test sample for NL holdem cash game with 3 different computer algorithms:

Easy : Novice Algorithm
Medium: Intermediate Algorithm
Hard: Expert Algorithm

Computers playing against each other at a 9 person table seated:

E M H E M H E M H (wraps around) so seating is symmetric.

Even after 5,000,000 hands, there were significant differences between the players at the same skill level.

So yes, in the long run luck is irrelevant, but the long run might be more hands than you end up playing in your life time so luck is actually somewhat relevant.

Interesting but what is significant? Is there a link you can provide?

60% BRM
40% Skill

No luck. It's just a math...

Originally posted by SadisticNature
So yes, in the long run luck is irrelevant, but the long run might be more hands than you end up playing in your life time so luck is actually somewhat relevant.

That's why you hunt for fish at higher stakes If you would play against regulars there you would need a huge sample size just to find out if you have an edge. At lower stakes your edge is so big that the luck factor only influences how much you win, not if you win.