[Poker]
 

There is now the ability to play invite tables on laddies.

Does anyone want to set up a table for PAGD?

If enough interest is availaible we can do it nightly or weekly or whatever (monthly = gay option).

What kinda buy in would people want too?

Just say below if and when and what you wanna/can play.

Re: [Poker]
 

I guess I would be interested in a weekly low buy in event.

Low being £5ish I guess, being poor etc.

Re: [Poker]
 

Im in of course, interested in buyins of £5-£10.

By the way thanks to dace, I came tenth in a tourney tonight \o/

Re: [Poker]
 

£5 is $10 dude which is quite reasonable (/cool).

Re: [Poker]
 

BTW everyone should read this:

With blinds at 50 magik7 calls a pre flop raise and re raise with 67 and on a flop of K35 ( with a player all in ) moves all in , gets called and misses his inside straight losing a 13000 pot . Now I am trying to be objective here , but in his profile magik7 rates himself as 9/10 and his occupation is described as “poker player” , I cannot help but think that if it was possible to sue oneself for libel he could make a fortune.

Who'd have thought AJ was a funny bugger :confused:

Re: [Poker]
 

This could work. £10-ish buy-in would be OK.

Some evening in the week could be good.

Re: [Poker]
 

I'd be interested for most nights, £10 buy in or so.

Re: [Poker]
 

I have no net access at uni but when i'm home over the summer i'd definitely be up for this if people are still playing then and some new crazy fad hasn't taken over.

Re: [Poker]
 

is this where dace starts winning money of GD :(

I would play, but i'm too stingy to part with a fiver when i have no realistic chance of winning...

Re: [Poker]
 

I'd play but as i'm inherently bad at most gambling games i may aswell just give my money to you.

Re: [Poker]
 

give me a couple of months as im meant to be learing to play via going to a mates house on a saturday night and i will be up for buying in :)

Re: [Poker]
 

I would be up for a weekly/two-weekly game, at a buy-in of £5-£10.

Remember the golden rule of gambling: You should only bet what you can afford to lose.

Re: [Poker]
 

I'm not very good at poker.
I do however play Carribean poker in casinos.
I made £160 profit last Friday :cool: but lost £60 on Sunday :(

Re: [Poker]
 

im interested but right now funds are 'tight' being a student and as such i suggest you all give me money so i can grace you with my presence.


only joking

but seriously

donate.

Re: [Poker]
 

yes, Mr. Raybans can't afford a £5 buy in?

lying heathen!

Re: [Poker]
 

i i i i i
dont
i dont believ

i dont believe you can make such
such
accusations!

Re: [Poker]
 

well, he can.

Re: [Poker]
 

I'd be willing to give it a go, £5 - £10 buy-in seems reasonable. A weekly game would be good and I can play pretty much any night.

Re: [Poker]
 

Maybe 1-X could draw up a league table and all those who suck at poker could bet on how well the others do ;)

Re: [Poker]
 

yeh im good for 5 - 10£ games

Re: [Poker]
 

I'm in too, though probably will have to give a couple of games a miss until my exams are over.

Re: [Poker]
 

What ever happened to good ole' fashioned poker :/ .. I'm not in with all these fancy terms they use nowadays. Texas hold 'em is about as fancy as I've ever gotten with Poker, and I had hard enough time understanding that.

Re: [Poker]
 

lol skill not luck

Re: [Poker]
 

Im up for some weekly action.

Re: [Poker]
 

hmm...

provided its v. cheap, and someone tells me how to play i think i could have a go

Re: [Poker]
 

yeah id be up for that, anything around £5-£10 would be good.I presume its hold 'em?

Re: [Poker]
 

My money is on Dace.

Re: [Poker]
 

Why am I so under-rated by GD? Should I attention whore more about my victories or something? Please let me know guys!


I'll play once my exams are over.

Re: [Poker]
 

If it makes you feel any better I will bet on you, on the weeks I can't turn up anyway :)

Re: [Poker]
 

Because I knew you'd say:
*Phew, got out of that one*

Re: [Poker]
 

why not whine about it like a little girl until people's opinions change.

Re: [Poker]
 

Yeh , a $10 buy in once a week tourney would work for me.

Re: [Poker]
 

What did you think I was doing :confused:

Re: [Poker]
 

So I presume the general consensus is yes then?

Re: [Poker]
 

your complaining?

Re: [Poker]
 

the party poker tournament proved conclusively that poker is at least 50% luck. I havent actually played in a month i dont think, but im not sure whether i can be bothered playing much any more. People have such a ****ing boner over their "poker madskillz", its a load of trollop.

Re: [Poker]
 

i might be interested, but quite possibly not as it seems that there is going to be a regular poker night with some of my mates in manchester now after a pilot this week \o/ \o/ \o/

like sex, poker is 100x better irl.

although i have to relate my tale of woe now that ive mentioned it... We played 2 games, each with a buy in of 5 quid, i played "ok" but not great in the first one, and went out fairly early. The second one i was playing very well and was chip leader for most of it. Then i misread one guy and went down as 2nd to him. A few hands later i got dealt AA in the hole, and there was pre flop betting that i wasnt even involved in, so i went all in.

got called by the only guy who could have covered me, he had QQ, and flopped trips.

boo :(

Re: [Poker]
 

Ok, at least 50% luck. Accepting that as fact, still leaves a significant portion of skill. As the luck factor is, on average, the same for all players, the only distinguishing factor is skill. Ergo, it is effectively all skill.

Re: [Poker]
 

umm. You haven't got the hang of averaging have you?

Re: [Poker]
 

What he's saying is basically correct though.

Re: [Poker]
 

If you play enough games of poker, each player will face the same situations - i.e. the luck of good/bad hands will cancel out. It is then the skill of the player that determines the total outcome.

Re: [Poker]
 

I will conceed that I was using the term "on average" in a loose manner, not statistically.

(apologies for double post)

Re: [Poker]
 

well, yeh, the more games you play then it will theoretically even out.

But saying it is essentially all skill is a bit of a strange conclusion when you've just said it's 50% luck...
Also, luck means more if you have it at different points in the game. So you can be lucky or unlucky with your luck.

Anyway, it is down to skill as well of course like you say.
Is there any game/sport that is all skill and no luck? I guess one on one games like chess or go can be...

Re: [Poker]
 

I have a moral objection to gambling.

Re: [Poker]
 

I'm in.

How do you play?

Re: [Poker]
 

i watched all 12 heats of the party poker tournament, the semis, and the final

it just confirmed my "its luck" theory. Many of the players were very similarly skilled. As soon as you "get" poker, theres nothing between you and your opponent but luck, bottle, and the position of the button. True, a lot of it is in how you represent whatever, etc etc, but very often it doesnt work.

For example, when Dave "the Devilfish" Ulliot went out of the tournament to an Internet qualifier (!), he complained "these damn internet players dont play properly, what was he thinking calling me there (the final hand) ?" And i sat and thought, what, because he played on face value, and didnt call your bluff, and didnt buy into you having a good hand like a supposedly "better" player would have?

I saw straights come out on the turn and river, i saw A/K lose to A/8, KK lose to 77, etc etc. There was no justice for large parts of the tournament. If youd had offered the KK vs 77 guy the pockets and flop he would have said "thanks a lot!", and suckered the 77 boy in, but he still lost. Sometimes it was possible to tell a good player apart from a bad one, but in the end, the only thing that seperated them out was luck. (Lee Nelson, the winner, apparently came last in like a 72 man in australia 2 week previous or something).

Re: [Poker]
 

I agree with deffeh.

I can see that yes, there is a degree of skill in it.
But you can't win on skill. There is too much luck involved.

Likewise though, you can't win on luck, there is a degree of skill involved in knowing when to play.

The 50 skill - 50 luck isn't exact, I'd imagine. But it's how I view it.

Re: [Poker]
 

no

your RONG


Skill means over a long period of time you will win. Presuming you play the odds correctly and know what your doing

Luck will give you short term gains.


Overall the patterns seem to suggest that skill really does win casheroo.
This does presume your not winning littls amounts and losing big tho (altho this comes into the skill thing too)

Re: [Poker]
 

And he's probably down money/not up as much as the devilfish. Individual games are about luck man.

Re: [Poker]
 

luck is always a random factor. However with poker you give yourself a probability chance against a random set of luck.

50/50 shot give you a 1/2 chance of winning if you dealt over an infinite amount of times.

If you draw someone in with however say, an 80/20 draw, it would mean that if you played an infinite amount of times your winnings would converge to 80% while theirs to 20%.

The skill element is the setting up of those odds. Agreed 20% of the time i might get unlucky, but 80% of the time i won't.

If there was no skilled involved every draw would give you a 50% chance to win (assuming heads up). Through skill you aim to manipulate the game into improving your own perceived odds against the other player, and thus assume that in the long run if you are more skilled the other player, luck will converge towards 50% while the skill element will end up converging towards that 80% draw you went in with in the first place. The skill gives you that added bonus over luck.