How much of Tournament poker is skill?

[Spikey]

I never heard how much Stu Unger owed when he died. Please tell us.

A one-liner of Stu's used to be "Show me a happy loser and I'll show you a loser".

Very ironic the man died of a drug overdose owing money. Sounds like a loser to me!

Even so, the man had a lot of talent that I doubt will ever be repeated.

[barry_gallagher]

Barry,you are so right.Ivey is a sort of bloke who would sell 400% of himself and lose at all cost.He is a crook.
I hate to even see his name inprint.It is like we want to glorify a cheat and a crook.
He plays with stolen money and he plays in "pretend games".

Except for the drugs,he is much like Stewy Unger.It was not until Stewy died that it was revealed just how much he owed.
At least Stewy played in "real" games ,not self promoting pretend games,like Full Tilt used to hold.

Hi JK I was most certainly not saying Ivey is a crook. I was talking about selling pieces of yourself in a tournament at a markup which is something many many players do.

[Yorkshire Pudding]

Hi JK I was most certainly not saying Ivey is a crook. I was talking about selling pieces of yourself in a tournament at a markup which is something many many players do.

Yeah. The going rate for the regulars on say the European Poker Tour is to sell at a rate of 1.3 as they feel they have an edge.

[JK.]

Every poker player feels they have an edge in tournaments.Delusional.
Many pros go a step further.Many sell so much of themselves,if they win they are in trouble.
Players were even doing it in litle Adelaide,so just imagine what the Las Vegas pros do.
Reminds me of the film where a guy did a play about Hitler.He was certain it would be a failure and he sold so many shares to cover expenses.If the play was to go well it would be a disaster.You can guess what happened in the film.A great film.
A poker pro has more control.He can just play dead.

Nobod knows exactly how much Stui ended up owing but the Mafia was not happy with him.
I read his biography but I don't believe half of the stuff written about his achievements.
Most of the playrs who refused to play him did so not because he was a champion.They refused to play him because he could not guarantee to pay if he lost.
He often played Gin with empty pockets.Took the money when he won and gave IOU when he lost.
People got wise after a while.

[SwoopAE]

In the short term, very little of it is skill. In the long term, all of it is skill. The thing is, it takes years to get to the long term playing online and more than a lifetime to get to the long term playing live, due to the inherent variance of MTTs.

[JK.]

I agree with you Swoop about the skill short term.
Not sure about the skill long term.
Why are there so few winners long term?Is it because there are so few talented players or is it because in the long run luck runs out
for everyone?Curious.
In my opinion,which may be faulty,the rake takes the lot in the long run.

[SwoopAE]

Something like 92% of poker players lose, and 7% win an insignificant amount, and an additional 0.8% or so don't win enough to play professionally, and of the 0.2%, only about half or so are smart enough with their bankroll to actually make it as a pro, and of that 0.1%, only maybe a quarter of that number are truly elite players who will make six figures plus every year (i'm not among that, fwiw, i'm grinding out my 40-65k a year quietly with the occasional close call to a six figure score)

Basically, it takes such a huge sample size to get to the 'long term' in large field MTTs that no live pro will ever attain a sufficient sample to know their true ROI, and few online pros will either. I've played ~10k mtts (around 100-120 live, and the rest online) and my sample size is insufficient, my true roi could easily be either double or half of what i've achieved results wise, although I have a feeling i'm within the margin of error in saying i'm +15-50% roi in a midstakes online mtt. Live I have no idea, my sample size is ridiculously small, I would have to play at least 10 times the sample I have live to have any idea of what my expectation is.

A lot of the degens run hot for six months, assume they're amazing at poker and then disappear and/or start scamming/being perma busto etc. and blame it on 'running bad'. I learned a cheap lesson for $1500 never to trust a random live pro even if they appear to be successful. That said, there are plenty of successful, trustworthy people in the poker community that i've entrusted large percentages of my net worth to, they're just hard to find. Fortunately i'm friends with a few of them. Basically, be a good judge of character, and don't trust anyone with money unless you know the details of their finances properly.

[JK.]

Good post Swoop.Good advice in the last paragraph.

[Ace Fire]

Something like 92% of poker players lose, and 7% win an insignificant amount, and an additional 0.8% or so don't win enough to play professionally, and of the 0.2%, only about half or so are smart enough with their bankroll to actually make it as a pro, and of that 0.1%, only maybe a quarter of that number are truly elite players who will make six figures plus every year (i'm not among that, fwiw, i'm grinding out my 40-65k a year quietly with the occasional close call to a six figure score)

Basically, it takes such a huge sample size to get to the 'long term' in large field MTTs that no live pro will ever attain a sufficient sample to know their true ROI, and few online pros will either. I've played ~10k mtts (around 100-120 live, and the rest online) and my sample size is insufficient, my true roi could easily be either double or half of what i've achieved results wise, although I have a feeling i'm within the margin of error in saying i'm +15-50% roi in a midstakes online mtt. Live I have no idea, my sample size is ridiculously small, I would have to play at least 10 times the sample I have live to have any idea of what my expectation is.

A lot of the degens run hot for six months, assume they're amazing at poker and then disappear and/or start scamming/being perma busto etc. and blame it on 'running bad'. I learned a cheap lesson for $1500 never to trust a random live pro even if they appear to be successful. That said, there are plenty of successful, trustworthy people in the poker community that i've entrusted large percentages of my net worth to, they're just hard to find. Fortunately i'm friends with a few of them. Basically, be a good judge of character, and don't trust anyone with money unless you know the details of their finances properly.

SwoopAE I am impressed at your post.
I thought all tournament players had their heads in the sand.
I agree totally with your post and young poker players should listen to your advice.
A live 5/10 cash game pro playing 40 hrs a week seeing 25 hands an hour plays 50000 hands a year, with 2 weeks off.
That sample size is ridiculously small and even if she was a 3PTBB/100 winner and made $30000 she could also be a loser in the long run.
It takes an awfully long time to get a true win rate and I agree that most tournament players will never know there true ROI.
That said I have played close to 3 million hands of FR cash online, 1 million+ of those at mid stakes (2/4, 3/6) and I maybe getting close to a real winrate. It would take a live pro 60 years to play that many hands. So I try to avoid the variance of tournament poker (God knows how you do it SwoopAE) and I will stick to cash as the variance there is wild enough for me.
Variance is the God to poker and The Jeff Madsen's in this world come and go riding the sweet end of the bell curve.
Good luck to you SwoopAE and I respect you more for your realist view about this game.

Regards
Ace Fire