You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Really any point?
Not especially a bad beat post, or a rigged post, but going round in circles with poker makes me always question the point.
You play great get a little ahead, few bad beats back to even.
Rinse and repeat over 100 games.
Do it all again next 100 games - time is precious. Is Poker as precious?
Really fecked off with bothering.
Comments
Happens in cash games too...
There is a theory that it is all designed to generate rake.. no one wins a huge amount.. and no one loses a huge amount... but while we play, everyone loses rake..
Is the software clever enough to script this? I guess we will never know.......
The whole idea for me is to increase your bankroll..
I do enjoy learning about poker.. playing poker, and reading tips from yourself.. but there really is no point unless your bankroll increases..
It's - to them - a fun hobby, which costs them a little money, in the same way that drinking, crown-green bowling, fishing & pylon-spotting are recreations which cost money.
People WANT to increase their bankroll, yes, of course, that's what poker does, it gives us hope, expectation, optimism, & a buzz. In reality though it is simply a recreation to the vast majority. I'd say 90% play it recreationally.
For most of us, no, we don't have an edge over large samples. But for those who are good enough, there IS an edge (proven) over a large sample.
Have a look at the thread I am going to link you to.
It analyses every KPI of MTT's over large samples. 1 year, 3 years, even 5 years.
It concludes with a sample size of 93,914 different players over 10,750 MTT's. That seems a reasonable sample size to me.
If you peruse it, you will see something very interesting - the SAME names keep cropping up, whether we look at the 1 month, 1 year, or 5 year sample size.
Because they have an edge.
The thread is HERE
Same thing applies.
There ARE players with an edge, who, somehow, keep getting it done.
Because they have an edge.
They get the same distribution of cards, hands & opponents as you & me. They just manage to play them better.
Go to Sharkscope, & the "SNG" Dropdown, & look at these 5 players. There are hundreds like this, I just chose these 5 because I happen to know all of them. (and a good bit of their profit comes from me, lol.....).
Nutter5932
hotwheals
macacgirl1
Jac35
EvilPingu
Between those 5, they have AVERAGED 20,000 SNG's each for a combined profit of some £80,000. Their graphs show the story, really.
It's a painful truth for us mere mortals, but we must not fool ourselves - there IS an edge if we are good enough.
well i cant speak for all of them, but i recognise two who's "edge" is to fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, now i have an ace ALL IN........
Obviously this braindead and boring style works for them, and they know that sky will always drop an ace on the board, so they're quids in with little effort..
Maybe we should all play like this and remove the skill edge completely..
I don't lose money, & I don't make much, either.
In the last year, I've made around £1,300 (I have a "Challenge Thread" in Poker Chat where I took £200 to it's current £1,452.17).
I've not deposited in about 6 years, that I recall. Lifetime on Sky Poker I'm about break even, including cash games.
I try to improve all the time, & I change games & formats about once a year, to try & stay competitive. I gave up NLH about 2 years ago, as I could no longer beat it.
I just play because I love the game, & the people who I play with. I don't even withdraw the winnings. Money is only a part of it - I relish the challenge. As someone who is well past it, & in my late sixties, I love pitting my wits against the youngsters. They usually get me in the end, though......
I just love spending an evening playing low-ball poker with nice people, really. There are worse ways to spend an evening - watching TV, for example.
I've never described myself as a Pro since.
I was never employed by Sky Poker as a "Pro".
I was an Ambassador with Sporting Bet & Wm Hill between 2003 & 2005, & Chairman & Co-Founder of APAT for 6 years, where the whole idea was to help & encourage recretional players, & get them a better deal.
I could not make a living at poker. I'm still a profitable player "Live", or have been the last 4 years. All my results are visible to all on the various databases.
I don't have an exclusive Avatar when playing on the site, I don't even have an Avatar, just the plain "default".
Much of my role at Sky Poker is to help newbies & inexperienced players. I rarely chest thump, but I do that very well. I also help design, formulate & help run the UKPC Events, & prior to that SPT Events. I also try to be a bridge between the Business & the Players as to various matters on the Community.
Beyond newbies & inexperienced players, I rarely dispense advice, unless answering a specific question, as I don't have the ability, & have never claimed to.
I have never ever described myself as a Pro.
but i'm begining to wonder if the advise on here is impartial, or to keep newbies playing..
Phil Galfond said in his seminar that AA 3 9 unsuited is not a great hand in PLO, but he RARELY ever folds it..
best to call a small raise and see a cheap flop...
I do find the bold part is consistent with those who prefer to blame the RNG as opposed to look at their own game and understand odds of different hands/push/fold ranges etc so I would probably look at your own game before going down that route.