Is Poker A Game Of Skill? | Only Friends Podcast with Matt Berkey Ep

[@filipfilipovic1566]

Berky looks like a retired powerlifter

[@biinja]

Great episode. Watching the ocean roll by was hella relaxing too 🌊

[@Adam27X]

7:45 this is like the pre-recorded call in show sketch from Mr. Show

[@kzkilla808]

I'm 24 mins in and all I can say is this is the most I've laughed at an in the muck segment 😂

[@myCuzinVinny]

The cuz episode is still the best pod yet

[@richardc3693]

Facts

[@virtualjoker9036]

If there was. 100 player tournament, 50 pros and 50 joes rec/amateur. Making the final table won't always be the pros, yes skill comes into play what hands to play and how to play them, but you can't control the card outcomes and this is why poker will always strive and we will always play the game no matter what. Yes I get jealous when this local reg keeps making final tables and wins a bunch and I cash every so often but I don't quit, I keep thinking I can make a run too..

[@DanielRodriguez-zr9bc]

Def Living vicariously through u guys on this one. Fuck that looks nice 💯 Enjoy!

[@SlingtownOG]

Can I suggest a Walk the Plank segment for Friday's pod?

[@Joshezellentrepreneur]

This also illustrates the flaw with only tracking money on the list. The winner of the WSOP main Event often just sun runs for the week and makes millions. Meanwhile a great player may never sun run that week and maybe "only" make $10,000,000 in their lifetime. Luck and Skill need to align.

[@grutopsy]

The meaning of Apropos is with regard to (something) : concerning something

[@joevolpe512]

New merch to go along with the Fantastic Four T-shirt. S4Y temporary tattoos!!

[@42Payday]

Nice meeting Nikki in Jacksonville 😊

[@danielmahusky5780]

Can somebody simply explain what it means to win X amount of BBs per 100

[@elasticharmony]

There is two ways to look at that question. One it is skill, the skill of gambling the other it is all luck but you can beat luck 's negative aspect with simple math , then you see back and get your due reward from the natural cycles of good luck.aja not a skill.

[@ericcomp7032]

Yay guapo did it 🥳

[@LRocketz]

Lamana on that KK!!

[@peterboels]

And the Oscar for most horrible shirt goes to... 😵‍💫

[@hermano5236]

Ecclesiastes 7:14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.

[@KenpachiPoker]

Bs book that's caused war n famine. Don't need it to be a good person

[@guyfrommontana2861]

#discord #s4y #twitter Did i do it right.

[@BrumaSears]

never trust someone with only one tattoo

[@legenden101]

Yes or no?:)

[@mrjoshharvey7017]

Tyson bagent greater than justin fields and russel wilson combined. Thats who the steelers should have went after. Steelers gon be hot garbage

[@borg972]

If I ever go on a cruise ship I hope to leave my depressing thoughts about winrates and variance on shore 😹

[@rockybullshite927]

People gamble, poker included, on ships..🤷🏻‍♂️

[@csucameli]

LFG

[@JT-kv4oi]

Blah blah blah. Good players have an advantage over bad players. Full stop. Stop complicating simple things

[@blakeclemons6665]

I don’t think the point is to argue against the existence of theoretical winrates. The point is that it’s impossible to quantify that theoretical winrate based on results, even a lifetime of results. And even if you could quantify it, true results vary so much from expectation that it’d be foolish to chase that theoretical edge. Your time is better spent elsewhere.

[@FunDumb]

Torty yuga

[@wallstreetwindow]

The study is flawed because human beings are not bots. You can't compared six bot players to six humans. It's no different than saying we got six coin flippers who is going to win a million flips of the coin. It's created by some GTO internet boy that needs to get off the computer and into the real world. Brian nailed it - this study is like studying six people rolling dice.

[@loganehewett9807]

I'm 94% of a bot tho and I'm not even good these days

[@blakeclemons6665]

You’re missing the point. If you flip coins or roll a die, you’re going to converge to the expected outcome relatively quickly (it won’t take millions of trials). The point is that the variance of poker makes it nearly impossible to determine the expected outcome (winrate) just by observing results, even over a lifetime. In short, live players don’t know whether their results are the product of skill or chance. So yes Brian nailed it, poker is like watching six people roll 10,000-sided dice.

[@wallstreetwindow]

@@blakeclemons6665 the problem is every bot in his example has the exact same win rate already so luck is going to be the only generator of the results. That's not the real world. Luck is the ONLY variable in his study. This is an example of why GTO thinking can lead people to wild conclusions when taken to an extreme. What it shows is if you play a game where everyone has same skill it is a waste of time. The danger in his study is that people who are losers in poker take it as a reason to convince themselves that results don't matter.

[@blakeclemons6665]

I agree that luck is the only variable, that is kind of the point. Isolating for just luck, the variance of poker is so high that it is not realistic to expect that your results are reflective of a theoretical winrate. The variance does decrease as winrates moves further from zero, but even with generous winrates, it takes over a lifetime of live poker to see results converge to winrate in any meaningful way.

[@TomasRay]

Flawed how? How hard is it for you to understand that variance has literally nothing to do with the play style or who's playing the cards, it's irrelevant. It only shows mean-deviation expectations x sample size and how large it is.