Poker allows you to gamble for as little or as much as you want; Poker Stars has games where the stakes are $0.01/$0.02 and no one sits down with more than a dollar, and the game is low quality but real. Most sites have very low stakes games that are similar. If you want to experiment with little risk, that is one good way to do it.
Where did that belief that you would go broke very quickly come from? It seems, if you’ll forgive me, a little irrational. If you improve your rationality and knowledge of basic probability to the point where it exceeds that of the average at the table you are playing at, you will (on average) make money.
Unlike sports. where height, reflexes and hand-eye coordination play such a huge factor, there is no intrinsic poker ability. Those who are “naturally” good at poker are simply those who are already more rational, at least in their playing of poker, and have a better prior knowledge (understanding may be a better word than knowledge, as most people do not take time to actually do the calculations) of the probabilities.
I think this is a great idea, though I do caution that people spend a little time practising with free games, or low stakes ones at least, as it can take a few games to get the hang of betting, and to get an intuitive understanding of the probabilities, as you will most likely not have time to calculate them while the game is being played.
The chance (pun intended) to make money off of rationality while doing something enjoyable and practising that rationality is simply too good to pass up.
I am bad at quick mental arithmetic, especially if the numbers are big. Yes, I could work on that—but it’s honestly not worth losing large sums of money to improve.
I also have a very hard time with self-interested strategy. It’s not a mode of thought that I understand easily—to the point that I get confused by novels that involve plotting or strategizing. (HP:MOR included!)
Finally, I am loss averse when it comes to money, and I think it makes sense in my case. Not making any money above my stipend means I still have a perfectly happy life. Losing too much money means I risk not being able to pay my rent/bills/taxes, which is disastrous. Losing is worse than not winning.
Also, most of the time you’re doing the same calculation over and over. People who can’t do math are fine most of the time (but not all, and that matters) because they have the odds memorized.
That’s true. When I first started playing, I ran a live screen scraping odds calculator on top of my poker tables, and five years later I don’t use a calculator and I have the odds precomputed.
(I should actually check and make sure my precomputed odds are still right… I suspect they are off in certain cases)
I wouldn’t bother with that. I tried it and the latest version is incompatible with the current batch of poker software, they haven’t updated it in years. You’re better off looking at review sites for a more up to date application.
“If you improve your rationality and knowledge of basic probability to the point where it exceeds that of the average at the table you are playing at, you will (on average) make money.”
Only if you are playing in an unraked home game.
In venues where you play for significant amounts of money versus strangers, there will be a house guaranteeing the fairness of the game and providing insurance against stealing, etc. and they collect a lot of money for this service relative to what a good player can expect to win. Unless you play nosebleed stakes (where the house can make a lot of money by taking a very small percentage of the pot), the rake will make somewhat above average players losers, and below average players big losers.
In a typical low-limit game, the very best players will net on average about as much as the house is taking from each player. So you have to be about halfway from average to the best to break even.
This is a great idea. Congrats!
Personally, I don’t gamble for money, because I would go broke very quickly, but this is such a great idea that I’m almost tempted.
Poker allows you to gamble for as little or as much as you want; Poker Stars has games where the stakes are $0.01/$0.02 and no one sits down with more than a dollar, and the game is low quality but real. Most sites have very low stakes games that are similar. If you want to experiment with little risk, that is one good way to do it.
Where did that belief that you would go broke very quickly come from? It seems, if you’ll forgive me, a little irrational. If you improve your rationality and knowledge of basic probability to the point where it exceeds that of the average at the table you are playing at, you will (on average) make money.
Unlike sports. where height, reflexes and hand-eye coordination play such a huge factor, there is no intrinsic poker ability. Those who are “naturally” good at poker are simply those who are already more rational, at least in their playing of poker, and have a better prior knowledge (understanding may be a better word than knowledge, as most people do not take time to actually do the calculations) of the probabilities.
I think this is a great idea, though I do caution that people spend a little time practising with free games, or low stakes ones at least, as it can take a few games to get the hang of betting, and to get an intuitive understanding of the probabilities, as you will most likely not have time to calculate them while the game is being played.
The chance (pun intended) to make money off of rationality while doing something enjoyable and practising that rationality is simply too good to pass up.
I am bad at quick mental arithmetic, especially if the numbers are big. Yes, I could work on that—but it’s honestly not worth losing large sums of money to improve.
I also have a very hard time with self-interested strategy. It’s not a mode of thought that I understand easily—to the point that I get confused by novels that involve plotting or strategizing. (HP:MOR included!)
Finally, I am loss averse when it comes to money, and I think it makes sense in my case. Not making any money above my stipend means I still have a perfectly happy life. Losing too much money means I risk not being able to pay my rent/bills/taxes, which is disastrous. Losing is worse than not winning.
One of the reasons Hold’Em is popular is that it is easy to do the probability calculations in your head. We should probably post about that...
Hell yes.
Also, most of the time you’re doing the same calculation over and over. People who can’t do math are fine most of the time (but not all, and that matters) because they have the odds memorized.
That’s true. When I first started playing, I ran a live screen scraping odds calculator on top of my poker tables, and five years later I don’t use a calculator and I have the odds precomputed.
(I should actually check and make sure my precomputed odds are still right… I suspect they are off in certain cases)
do you have a link to this program?
http://www.calculatem.com/
I wouldn’t bother with that. I tried it and the latest version is incompatible with the current batch of poker software, they haven’t updated it in years. You’re better off looking at review sites for a more up to date application.
“If you improve your rationality and knowledge of basic probability to the point where it exceeds that of the average at the table you are playing at, you will (on average) make money.”
Only if you are playing in an unraked home game.
In venues where you play for significant amounts of money versus strangers, there will be a house guaranteeing the fairness of the game and providing insurance against stealing, etc. and they collect a lot of money for this service relative to what a good player can expect to win. Unless you play nosebleed stakes (where the house can make a lot of money by taking a very small percentage of the pot), the rake will make somewhat above average players losers, and below average players big losers.
In a typical low-limit game, the very best players will net on average about as much as the house is taking from each player. So you have to be about halfway from average to the best to break even.