Online poker winnings seized?

[RL3AO]

To say poker isn't a game of skill is an absolute joke and shows you've either never played or were drunk when you were playing.

Theres a reason why there are thousands of poker players are making a very good living playing the game. On the other hand, I've yet to see a professional roulette player.

That is all.

[CajunMama]

It's getting a little testy in here!

My view? Any card game is a game of chance. So there!

[OpieStorm]

Just because you wear those intimidating shades at the table doesn't mean your anymore skilled than the average joe. lol

[Dionne]

Playing online vs in person is definitely different. You do not have a physical tell to watch for. You only have betting mannerisms, providing your opponent has been in the game long enough. There is also the program. Yahoo has a tendency to throw an ace on the river frequently. Even with this knowledge, two aces in the hole can be a killer......not for the opponent, but for you. A majority of my wins come with a flush. That is why playing for the river can be so rewarding. I would prefer a suited ace/king over two aces in the hole anytime.

[Derek Ortt]

So explain how a random shuffle of cards distributed to X number of people is skill? I view it with about as much skill as picking your nose. A more skillful picker can get a bigger bugger perhaps? And, I guess it is skill when a player bluffs another too?.....MGC

yes, it is MGC. Your post shows you know NOTHING about how to make bluffs and read your opponents. I'd love to have you at a table I am at as you'd be an ATM machine for the rest of us

[Derek Ortt]

Playing online vs in person is definitely different. You do not have a physical tell to watch for. You only have betting mannerisms, providing your opponent has been in the game long enough. There is also the program. Yahoo has a tendency to throw an ace on the river frequently. Even with this knowledge, two aces in the hole can be a killer......not for the opponent, but for you. A majority of my wins come with a flush. That is why playing for the river can be so rewarding. I would prefer a suited ace/king over two aces in the hole anytime.

I'd like to play you as well, since you prefer the 3rd best starting hand over the best

I'd just shove all in on you and win 70% of the time

[Dionne]

Playing online vs in person is definitely different. You do not have a physical tell to watch for. You only have betting mannerisms, providing your opponent has been in the game long enough. There is also the program. Yahoo has a tendency to throw an ace on the river frequently. Even with this knowledge, two aces in the hole can be a killer......not for the opponent, but for you. A majority of my wins come with a flush. That is why playing for the river can be so rewarding. I would prefer a suited ace/king over two aces in the hole anytime.

I'd like to play you as well, since you prefer the 3rd best starting hand over the best

I'd just shove all in on you and win 70% of the time

Derek....I was referring to playing in Yahoo. If you will read my post again I did mention that playing in person is "definitely different". BTW.....irregardless of whether it's online or sitting at a table.....NOBODY wins 70% of the time. I started playing poker in the Army.....40 years ago. It's not the percentage of wins that counts.....it's the amounts of each win. The only reason I am ahead is the result of a large win back in '95 at The Grand in Gulfport. The casinos were not built around odds that even remotely approach 70%......unless of course you hang out at the nickel slots.

[Derek Ortt]

Playing online vs in person is definitely different. You do not have a physical tell to watch for. You only have betting mannerisms, providing your opponent has been in the game long enough. There is also the program. Yahoo has a tendency to throw an ace on the river frequently. Even with this knowledge, two aces in the hole can be a killer......not for the opponent, but for you. A majority of my wins come with a flush. That is why playing for the river can be so rewarding. I would prefer a suited ace/king over two aces in the hole anytime.

I'd like to play you as well, since you prefer the 3rd best starting hand over the best

I'd just shove all in on you and win 70% of the time

Derek....I was referring to playing in Yahoo. If you will read my post again I did mention that playing in person is "definitely different". BTW.....irregardless of whether it's online or sitting at a table.....NOBODY wins 70% of the time. I started playing poker in the Army.....40 years ago. It's not the percentage of wins that counts.....it's the amounts of each win. The only reason I am ahead is the result of a large win back in '95 at The Grand in Gulfport. The casinos were not built around odds that even remotely approach 70%......unless of course you hang out at the nickel slots.

I was talking about all in shoves with AA vs AK suited

you can win more than half of your hands played... if you only play the strongest starting hands (I am only referring to Texas Hold'em)

[Squarethecircle]

By the Law of Large Numbers, any advantage in probability tactic will, over a long period of time, produce a much higher yield against an opponent with even an ever so slightly smaller ability in discerning correct moves based on probability. If the subjective probability of winning is x, then as n (the number of total rounds with this probability) approaches infinity, the amount of money won where t = total amount spent is t(2x-1). If x > .5, then the 2x > 1 and the player stands to win money. Assuming that one player makes moves that are more likely to yield wins that other players, then as n approaches infinity x approaches a value such that .5 < x < 1. Therefore, as n approaches infinity, total winnings increases at an unbounded rate. Or, the player with the greatest knowledge of probability, as n approaches infinity, will win money.

We can see clearly that the introduction of large amounts of rounds (i.e. long amounts of time spent playing) increases the importance of skill until, as n approaches infinity, skill approaches complete domination of playing result. If we lock two people in a room to play poker forever, the one with the greater ability to make moves based on probability, given that "tells", etc. are non-factors, will have more money with probability 100% (see the article Almost Surely for the implications of 100% probability in this regards). Betting introduces the "move-making" into poker in such a way that it becomes nearly impossible (especially for a human) to "beat poker", or to play at the level with the highest probability of winning net money. If two opponents playing perfectly WERE to face off against each other, as n approaches infinity total winnings would equal zero, and this game of poker would not be a game of skill in any way.

[Dionne]

By the Law of Large Numbers, any advantage in probability tactic will, over a long period of time, produce a much higher yield against an opponent with even an ever so slightly smaller ability in discerning correct moves based on probability. If the subjective probability of winning is x, then as n (the number of total rounds with this probability) approaches infinity, the amount of money won where t = total amount spent is t(2x-1). If x > .5, then the 2x > 1 and the player stands to win money. Assuming that one player makes moves that are more likely to yield wins that other players, then as n approaches infinity x approaches a value such that .5 < x < 1. Therefore, as n approaches infinity, total winnings increases at an unbounded rate. Or, the player with the greatest knowledge of probability, as n approaches infinity, will win money.

We can see clearly that the introduction of large amounts of rounds (i.e. long amounts of time spent playing) increases the importance of skill until, as n approaches infinity, skill approaches complete domination of playing result. If we lock two people in a room to play poker forever, the one with the greater ability to make moves based on probability, given that "tells", etc. are non-factors, will have more money with probability 100% (see the article Almost Surely for the implications of 100% probability in this regards). Betting introduces the "move-making" into poker in such a way that it becomes nearly impossible (especially for a human) to "beat poker", or to play at the level with the highest probability of winning net money. If two opponents playing perfectly WERE to face off against each other, as n approaches infinity total winnings would equal zero, and this game of poker would not be a game of skill in any way.

Square may very well be correct. After several months of betting online .....I began to bet max at each opportunity. What I call STOOPID bets....mostly to check out the rhythm of the numbers. I broke even. Every time. It was like playing one on one without a casino take.