Poker vs. Go

[Bantari]

Poker and Go seem so different.

Yet, out of all the strong players whose profile I barely understand, there are 3 who seem to be pretty good with poker: Jimmy Cha, Cornel, and his bro who's 2d (but more focused on poker). With chess, I've heard that a pro chess player switched sides in order to become a pro go player. There isn't much else.

The only thing that I could understand is the patience it takes.

What do you guys think?

in poker you can be a beginner but can have some winning streak.
go...there is very little luck involved. its either you read or dont know how to read.

Of course there is luck in Go.
You wil every time you are lucky enough... to get a weaker opponent.

[heather]

I was actually thinking about poker and go the other day. Specifically, in relation to John F. Kennedy's statement regarding the Soviets: "We play poker, they play chess." Today, with the rising global dominance of the Chinese economy, we find that a much more frightening position has become applicable for the US: We play poker, they play go.

[BobC]

The thing is that Americans don't play poker online. The government put in place laws (starting with the "wire act" and then extending to transfer of funds to gambling sites) which now effectively stop American playing poker anywhere but in real casinos. The effect of this was to decrease the player base by about 80% and you now only get the die hards and Europeans playing poker online. In fact I seem to remember that even some European countries tried to outlaw poker although that went to the European court and was overturned. One of our big gambling companies (I think Ladbrooks or William Hill) argued that the position taken by the Italians was "regulation".

In many respects this is probably a good thing. My databases (I used "Pokertracker" to monitor all my hands) indicated that only 2% of players were winning players and the amount of money lost was horrific. The rake taken by the poker houses was immoral. The rake is the reason that no serious player will play without "rakeback" (a deal struck between the poker house and the player to get a cut of the profits). John Doe player was blissfully unaware of things like rakeback.

Recently you have the Scandanvians playing a lot (and they are vicious players) and there are rumours of far East countries "mining" the lower limits. Poker has become horribly tight.

Even by dropping limits and extensive multitabling ( I used to play ten tables on two screens at the same time - don't let anyone tell you it's a deep game ) I think now you'd make more by stacking shelves in a supermarket

[daal]

One similarity between the two games appears to be the ability of strong players to stay cool under pressure during a game, but also the ability to keep the broader picture in mind when games are lost.

@BobC Thanks for sharing your insights. I've never been particularly interested in poker, but your reports are nonetheless quite interesting.

[danielm]

One similarity between the two games appears to be the ability of strong players to stay cool under pressure during a game, but also the ability to keep the broader picture in mind when games are lost.

Indeed, both in Go and in Poker it is important to realize that it is not about winning the local fight.

In contrast to a game like Chess, where basically the whole game is a local fight (this may be debatable, but I think it's true ).

[xDragon]

ok now lets talk to someone who actually has been involved in the poker world for a long time

The thing is that Americans don't play poker online. The government put in place laws (starting with the "wire act" and then extending to transfer of funds to gambling sites) which now effectively stop American playing poker anywhere but in real casinos. The effect of this was to decrease the player base by about 80% and you now only get the die hards and Europeans playing poker online. In fact I seem to remember that even some European countries tried to outlaw poker although that went to the European court and was overturned. One of our big gambling companies (I think Ladbrooks or William Hill) argued that the position taken by the Italians was "regulation".

its not that americans dont play poker online, they cant. the wire act was passed in 1961 and never considered the internet obviously, not to mention if you read the act carefully it says int he act that the bill shouldnt be used to stop overseats bets (playing poker online on off shore sites). in 2006 the UIGEA was hidden in a must-pass defense bill which pfretty much banned most banks and payment processors from working with poker sites. poker took a hit then because it became harder to deposit, but it came through and started building back up, then on april 15th the DOJ basically made it so that americans can no longer play online by seizing american accounts. a lot of the american poker pros are either moving out of country (mostly to canada) or are forced to play in casinos now. its pretty crappy because for years republicans spoke out against online poker talking about immorality, addiction, etc. but now that this has happened, theyre all set to legalize it again so that winnings can be directly taxed to them. hypocrites.

In many respects this is probably a good thing. My databases (I used "Pokertracker" to monitor all my hands) indicated that only 2% of players were winning players and the amount of money lost was horrific. The rake taken by the poker houses was immoral. The rake is the reason that no serious player will play without "rakeback" (a deal struck between the poker house and the player to get a cut of the profits). John Doe player was blissfully unaware of things like rakeback.

can you show the statistics on your databases? because mine has a much higher percent of winning players than your 2%. youre either exaggerating or have a big anomaly.

the rake taken is not bad at all and it shouldnt have a big difference on your win rate if youre any good. compare it to any casino and its not even close. rakeback was usually about 27-30% and yes serious players had rakeback to help the win rate, but again rake isnt that big a determinant.

Recently you have the Scandanvians playing a lot (and they are vicious players) and there are rumours of far East countries "mining" the lower limits. Poker has become horribly tight.

Even by dropping limits and extensive multitabling ( I used to play ten tables on two screens at the same time - don't let anyone tell you it's a deep game ) I think now you'd make more by stacking shelves in a supermarket

online poker has gotten harder compared to years ago yes, but unless youre playing the 1 cent 2 cent games you should still easily be able to make more than minimum wage playing 10 tables. given your last sentence it sounds like you were a breakeven player at best. which shows that theres still profit to be made

[LocoRon]

The thing is that Americans don't play poker online. The government put in place laws (starting with the "wire act" and then extending to transfer of funds to gambling sites) which now effectively stop American playing poker anywhere but in real casinos.

Well, there is still online poker that doesn't involve actual money (although, I suppose it could be argued that this isn't really poker).

[BobC]

Stats on databases.

If you have pokertracker http://www.pokertracker.com/ then how you carve up the stats is up to you. I don't care if its 2% or 5%. At one point I cared that my opponents believed that the figure was as high as 50%. At typically 20000 hands a month over a couple of years my stats were robust I feel.

"Gamblers" like to believe it is easier to win than it actually is and the evidence they look for is the number of other winners and the big winners. They also look at he guy they know down the bar who made $1000 last week on the tables and was buying everyone drinks).. He forgets to mention that over the last six months he lost $10000. The reality of poker is a grind for blinds and the minimisation of losses. Gamblers remember their big wins and know they are a winning player.

xDragonx if you believe you are a winning player I would say build your roll, use good BR management and exploit. In poker, your biggest opponent is yourself - it is never those around the table and it certainly isn't me.

My experience of running PT for about three years was that you tended to get a lot of players who deposited and lost very quickly - never to be seen again. This does drive that figure down. This is not go. Players can NOT create multiple accounts because poker account are tied into your bank account and you need id to withdraw. Poker isn't like blackjack - it doesn't seem to appeal to many gamblers as you tend to "bleed to death" very slowly and you don't get the rushes.

My experience was mostly ring games. I'm content that I was a winning player at 4bb/100 up to $1/$2 NL $200 dollar buy ins for the unintiated) . If I multitabled this tended to drop to 2-3 bb/100 - you need to watch the table a bit more carefully if you want to go LAG. At $2/$4 ($400 buy in) and $5/10 ($1000 buyin). I briefly played $10/$20 ($2000 buy in) but it was an accident:). By happy coincidence I am a winning player of 50 bb/100 at $10/$20 but that was pure dumb luck and I only played 30 hands!!.

I never got the player base to make it worth upping the game.

I've just opened "24 hour poker" (a scandanvian site) It has a large player base but there is only one table at 0.5/1 euro level. That's two limits below mt comfort zone.


My stats tell me there were better players at my limits over a prolonged period (and yes I avoided them). BUT, out of thousands of players these guys could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

You may quibble about the wire act. It seemed at the time that it was invoked by the big American casinos to suppress competition and by the government who didn't like the billions of dollars being lost by American citizens to companies that were "offshore". It certainly made it hard for Americans to play and the loss of player base has resulted in consolidation of the poker houses and loss of profits.

"the rake taken is not bad at all"

I respectively disagree. Again it depends how you cut it up and what the caps are on rake but as a simple example the house takes 5% for every pot (OK many house have no flop no rake but to a first approx). This means that for every 20 active hands the house is claiming a pot. On some SnG's the house charges 10% (usually 5%). These hands happen very quickly 5% may seem like a small number but it adds up very rapidly. Poker tracker has rake calculation built in... check the biggest winner over all hands on your database - it's the house. Importantly, the person you have to make believe this to be the case is yourself. Look at your numbers.

Yes... I can make more than the minimum wage by playing poker even now and it is tax free with no overhead. BUT.. how much do you think a highly qualified professional in his 50's makes every hour? My time has a value well beyond $25 an hour... life is too short.

[BobC]

online poker has gotten harder compared to years ago yes, but unless youre playing the 1 cent 2 cent games you should still easily be able to make more than minimum wage playing 10 tables. given your last sentence it sounds like you were a breakeven player at best. which shows that theres still profit to be made

I'm not sure I follow the logic. Even the very best players don't claim more than 6bb/100 (and I wasn't that good). There simply are not the number of higher limit tables available anymore. If you were making 5bb/100 (which s a very strong game) even on Pokerstars (no rakeback allowed) you'd be lucky to get 4 ($1/$2) tables open throughout the day on average.

Even with convoluted logic, what you want to be shown is irrelevant. The bottom line is win rate/hour. If your WR is good then go for it. However, if you believe that online poker offers a good way of earning money and represents a good career development opportunity in your twenties or thirties I would disagree...

[tapir]

you should still easily be able to make more than minimum wage playing 10 tables.

this sentence is quite revealing in itself. the dream of income w/o regular work must be tempting for quite a number of young go players for the same reason as becoming a go professional looks attractive at first sight (however out of reach for most). in both cases it isn't easy money and wishful thinking won't help you in either endeavour. ("rake doesn't matter" is a strong indication for wishful thinking.)

the disturbing side of this is to see some players trying poker upon realising that they won't turn professional in go. it would not surprise me if an impressive percentage of younger mid-dan upwards players who dreamt this dream also play poker or even more poker than go these days. (based on anecdotal evidence).

[hyperpape]

you should still easily be able to make more than minimum wage playing 10 tables.

this sentence is quite revealing in itself. the dream of income w/o regular work must be tempting for quite a number of young go players for the same reason as becoming a go professional looks attractive at first sight (however out of reach for most). in both cases it isn't easy money and wishful thinking won't help you in either endeavour. ("rake doesn't matter" is a strong indication for wishful thinking.)

Eventually you realize that it is painful dull work (for the grinders, at least).

[tj86430]

Just a side note: when talking about bb/100, one should tell whether one is talking about big blinds or big bets (2xbig blind, a measure coming from limit betting structure and used by many trackers)

Edit, more relevant to recent discussion: When one talks about earning money with poker and compares it to a job, one frequently forgets things like paid vacation, paid sick-leave, healthcare, pensions etc (of course the effect of these varies by country and legislation, in Finland it means a coefficient of 1,5-1,6)

[BobC]

Janice Kim

just rekindling my affair with poker.. I looked up Kim.. see here:

http://www.sharkscope.com/?username=Jan ... ive#graphs

She came fourth at a WPT a few years back (winning $11k). But is now down -sharkscope has hew down as -$15k for her major site. She's a lot better at go.......

[BobC]

Just a side note: when talking about bb/100, one should tell whether one is talking about big blinds or big bets (2xbig blind, a measure coming from limit betting structure and used by many trackers)

Edit, more relevant to recent discussion: When one talks about earning money with poker and compares it to a job, one frequently forgets things like paid vacation, paid sick-leave, healthcare, pensions etc (of course the effect of these varies by country and legislation, in Finland it means a coefficient of 1,5-1,6)

Well spotted. I'm talking about No limit and you're right, PT, BB does work off the limit betting structure.

The first few years (2002-2006) were clearly lucrative. By bonus whoring alone you could make $1000 a month and people had little idea how to play. I remember Party Poker one Christmas declaring a bonus of something like $800 for 5k hands. So after a week - just doing three hours a night - with winnings I'd cleared the cost of a holiday.

Now.. you just have to grind and grind and grind... and I don't believe the hourly rate is there any more..

[xDragon]

Stats on databases.

If you have pokertracker http://www.pokertracker.com/ then how you carve up the stats is up to you. I don't care if its 2% or 5%. At one point I cared that my opponents believed that the figure was as high as 50%. At typically 20000 hands a month over a couple of years my stats were robust I feel.

"Gamblers" like to believe it is easier to win than it actually is and the evidence they look for is the number of other winners and the big winners. They also look at he guy they know down the bar who made $1000 last week on the tables and was buying everyone drinks).. He forgets to mention that over the last six months he lost $10000. The reality of poker is a grind for blinds and the minimisation of losses. Gamblers remember their big wins and know they are a winning player.

5%? i cant access my db right now but i can guarantee that at least 20-30% were pretty good winners in my db, probably more. i also have to ask why youre trying to compare poker, a game not played against the house thus can be beaten (rake isnt a take), against a game played against the house and cant be beaten in the long run legally.

xDragonx if you believe you are a winning player I would say build your roll, use good BR management and exploit. In poker, your biggest opponent is yourself - it is never those around the table and it certainly isn't me.

My experience of running PT for about three years was that you tended to get a lot of players who deposited and lost very quickly - never to be seen again. This does drive that figure down. This is not go. Players can NOT create multiple accounts because poker account are tied into your bank account and you need id to withdraw. Poker isn't like blackjack - it doesn't seem to appeal to many gamblers as you tend to "bleed to death" very slowly and you don't get the rushes.

you can easily get rushes if you go on a heater (a string of good fortune). that drives the figure down, yes but it does not make it as low as 5%

My experience was mostly ring games. I'm content that I was a winning player at 4bb/100 up to $1/$2 NL $200 dollar buy ins for the unintiated) . If I multitabled this tended to drop to 2-3 bb/100 - you need to watch the table a bit more carefully if you want to go LAG. At $2/$4 ($400 buy in) and $5/10 ($1000 buyin). I briefly played $10/$20 ($2000 buy in) but it was an accident:). By happy coincidence I am a winning player of 50 bb/100 at $10/$20 but that was pure dumb luck and I only played 30 hands!!.

given how youve spoken, i have a hard time believing those figures. nevertheless, it is still very possible to win at those rates, and youd still be looking at 40-60/hr with 10 tables. not that bad.

You may quibble about the wire act. It seemed at the time that it was invoked by the big American casinos to suppress competition and by the government who didn't like the billions of dollars being lost by American citizens to companies that were "offshore". It certainly made it hard for Americans to play and the loss of player base has resulted in consolidation of the poker houses and loss of profits.

yes, it appears pretty obvious that caesars paid off the DOJ to go after the offshore sites.

I respectively disagree. Again it depends how you cut it up and what the caps are on rake but as a simple example the house takes 5% for every pot (OK many house have no flop no rake but to a first approx). This means that for every 20 active hands the house is claiming a pot. On some SnG's the house charges 10% (usually 5%). These hands happen very quickly 5% may seem like a small number but it adds up very rapidly. Poker tracker has rake calculation built in... check the biggest winner over all hands on your database - it's the house. Importantly, the person you have to make believe this to be the case is yourself. Look at your numbers.

that is a huge exaggeration. lets look at a site that was popular up to april 15th, full tilt poker. their rake system was pretty simple. any reputable site will not take a rake if the pot doesnt reach pf, and even any reputable casino wouldnt do that either. anyway, for HU tables, the rake capped at 50 cents no matter what limit, 2 for 6 max, and 3 for full ring. however, if youre playing lower stakes, you will have to play a pretty large pot relative to the stakes to reach this rake max, and then by the time you reach stakes that the max is reached easy, the dollar amount is inconsequential. compare this to a casino that will either have a time rake (none taken during hands but every player pays 6-7 dollars every half hour) or a regular rake (10% per hand typically capped at 4-5 dollars). online poker rake is very reasonable. im not even considering the 27% rakeback offered on that site.

as for tournaments and sngs, yes that is more accurate. however, again compared to casinos its very reasonable. tournaments in casinos are usually not worth playing at smaller stakes because they can easily take 20-30% rake at least.

online poker sites have to make money too, and their rake is lower than youll find at any casino. so deal with it or stop crying...

also when looking up stats dont act like tournaments are the only type of poker like sharkscope does.