I would like to open a discussion here.i came to the conclusion,after playing for a few years that nlhe is no different from baccarat,blackjack,punto banco,etc.
If someone can prove to me that skill has anything to do with it,then please,i am waiting,Only people with all their teeth and at least 2 brain cells in good condition,if you play nl2 for 2 months then your opinion will be worth as much as the average pot at those tables,and keep it classy i'm not having a go at anyone or anything,for fuck sakes
Notifications
Clear all
General Poker Discussion
131
Posts
60
Users
0
Reactions
20.6 K
Views
130 replies
Originally posted by fenelonpoker
I would like to open a discussion here.i came to the conclusion,after playing for a few years that nlhe is no different from baccarat,blackjack,punto banco,etc.
If someone can prove to me that skill has anything to do with it,then please,i am waiting,Only people with all their teeth and at least 2 brain cells in good condition,if you play nl2 for 2 months then your opinion will be worth as much as the average pot at those tables,and keep it classy i'm not having a go at anyone or anything,for fuck sakes
You should read the story about Stu Ungar, if you keep believing that it's a game of luck, I rest my case
Originally posted by fenelonpoker
If someone can prove to me that skill has anything to do with it,then please,i am waiting,
I'm sure many people can but nobody wants to.
Originally posted by fuzzyfish
Originally posted by fenelonpoker
If someone can prove to me that skill has anything to do with it,then please,i am waiting,I'm sure many people can but nobody wants to.
Quoted for truth. My graph isn't over enough hands, so I'll let others do it.
chess is a game of skill. just saying that poker is does not prove it.
same of saying if you play a million hands of baccarat you are a gambler,but if you play a million hands of poker you are just putting volume??
I would like to see proof,please
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gambling
gam·ble (gmbl)
v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles
v.intr.
1.
a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
b. To play a game of chance for stakes.
2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.
3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.
v.tr.
1. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager.
2. To expose to hazard; risk: gambled their lives in a dangerous rescue mission.
n.
1. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture.
2. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk: I took a gamble that stock prices would rise.
I suppose exactly whether a certain activity in life is gambling is objective. The stock markets for instance. However, it is much less gambling than playing roulette. I think the point is that while poker is essentially gambling because it meets the above parameters in order to define it as such, it is actually much less gambling because the outcome is not always uncertain.
Yes if we get all-in preflop for a 100bb with AA vs 72o we might lose some of the time. But in the long run we win lots of $$$$.
It is less risky IMO. I would rather put £100 on the poker felt than £50 on roulette.
Originally posted by Riverdiver
Originally posted by fenelonpoker
I would like to open a discussion here.i came to the conclusion,after playing for a few years that nlhe is no different from baccarat,blackjack,punto banco,etc.
If someone can prove to me that skill has anything to do with it,then please,i am waiting,Only people with all their teeth and at least 2 brain cells in good condition,if you play nl2 for 2 months then your opinion will be worth as much as the average pot at those tables,and keep it classy i'm not having a go at anyone or anything,for fuck sakes
You should read the story about Stu Ungar, if you keep believing that it's a game of luck, I rest my case
then you should read the story about archie karas,to re open your case 
It's one thing to see a basic guy open a thread like this, but a gold member (so someone who's played at least some poker, and has access to all the basic, bronze, silver and gold articles+videos here) is really sad.
If nothing you've read/watched on this site has proven that poker is a game of skill, then nothing anyone can write in this thread will change your mind.
If this is a troll, piss off 
Originally posted by fenelonpoker
chess is a game of skill. just saying that poker is does not prove it.
same of saying if you play a million hands of baccarat you are a gambler,but if you play a million hands of poker you are just putting volume??
I would like to see proof,please
Mate, Phil Hellmuth has 13 bracelets. Pretty lucky gambler huh...
Poker IS skill game in long term.
It is gambling if you play a hundred or thousand hands. There are large luck factor there.
Still if it goes further, over 10k hands and more - skill takes control. Every misplay or fault of yours are counting, or every skill in PREflop, Postflop, bluffing or semibluffing - counts. No fortune anymore...
My Blog: Challenge for Change
Originally posted by muel294
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gamblinggam·ble (gmbl)
v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles
v.intr.
1.
a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
b. To play a game of chance for stakes.
2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.
3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.
v.tr.
1. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager.
2. To expose to hazard; risk: gambled their lives in a dangerous rescue mission.
n.
1. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture.
2. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk: I took a gamble that stock prices would rise.I suppose exactly whether a certain activity in life is gambling is objective. The stock markets for instance. However, it is much less gambling than playing roulette. I think the point is that while poker is essentially gambling because it meets the above parameters in order to define it as such, it is actually much less gambling because the outcome is not always uncertain.
Yes if we get all-in preflop for a 100bb with AA vs 72o we might lose some of the time. But in the long run we win lots of $$$$.
It is less risky IMO. I would rather put £100 on the poker felt than £50 on roulette.
yeah,but at the same time,the fact that poker only works after years and years of gambling (by putting heavy volume) doesn't make it more dangerous? imagine if people started to say "oh,well,after a million hands of blackjack if you follow this strategy you will be a winner"? we all know that is a lie,and we all know that AA beats 72o in the long run,but poker is not made of playing aces and kings only that is just the easy way of trying to win an argument. anyone that played enough will tell you that the vast majority of play happens with marginal holdings and if you put marginal vs marginal the outcome is always unpredictable...btw you are the only one that gets it,very good reply
If nothing you've read/watched on this site has proven that poker is a game of skill, then nothing anyone can write in this thread will change your mind.
+1
Thread ender.
Variance.
Now close down your browser, take couple of days off and you will back on track. Don't the factors of the game too close to your heart if you don't want to become a gambler. 
Originally posted by Rihard4a
Originally posted by fenelonpoker
chess is a game of skill. just saying that poker is does not prove it.
same of saying if you play a million hands of baccarat you are a gambler,but if you play a million hands of poker you are just putting volume??
I would like to see proof,pleaseMate, Phil Hellmuth has 13 bracelets. Pretty lucky gambler huh...
he plays virtually every tournament,it is only natural he will win more than you and me(wich is why that argument people use "oh you always see the same people at the final table" is bogus too. they are just the only people playing every single tournament,Hellmuth,Ivey,Matusow,etc are also notorious gamblers as well
Originally posted by fenelonpoker
yeah,but at the same time,the fact that poker only works after years and years of gambling (by putting heavy volume) doesn't make it more dangerous? imagine if people started to say "oh,well,after a million hands of blackjack if you follow this strategy you will be a winner"? we all know that is a lie,and we all know that AA beats 72o in the long run,but poker is not made of playing aces and kings only that is just the easy way of trying to win an argument. anyone that played enough will tell you that the vast majority of play happens with marginal holdings and if you put marginal vs marginal the outcome is always unpredictable...btw you are the only one that gets it,very good reply
Comparison to blackjack is crap. Blackjack is a game against the house and house always plays perfectly. Poker is a game against other people who make mistakes.
Learn a lot = increase your edge = you won't need a million hands to show profit.
Originally posted by bjela
If nothing you've read/watched on this site has proven that poker is a game of skill, then nothing anyone can write in this thread will change your mind.If this is a troll, piss off
I totally agree.
Originally posted by fenelonpoker
chess is a game of skill. just saying that poker is does not prove it.
same of saying if you play a million hands of baccarat you are a gambler,but if you play a million hands of poker you are just putting volume??
I would like to see proof,please
you can't just assert that chess is a game of skill if you want ppl to prove to you why poker is one as well.
if you prove to us why chess is a game of skill, we'll do the same for poker...