I used to play with Phil Ivey in Atlantic City. We played 1/3 seven card stud. We then both switched to Holdem and began moving up. Phil had almost no money back then. Fast forward to 2018. Phil is playing 500/1000 no holdem and higher. He also plays all of the games. He will play anybody, any game any stake any time. Where did he get the money to do this? He earned it. What he did playing Baccarat was questionable as to calling it cheating. Times are a changing and many players have surfaced that with the help of computers are taking the game to the next level. However, without question, Phil has been the most feared dominating player in poker history.
Poker's far more analogous to golf than chess. Tiger woods is really really good but that doesn't mean he'll win every time and won't have really really poor shots every now and then. Magnus Carlson will almost NEVER make a "bad move".
I don't think so. First of all chess and poker are both GAMES rather than sports where things like physical coordination, stamina, etc start to play a role. The idea that Tiger woods "occassionally making a bad shot" means he's going to lose the tournament is just not true. All golf pros do this. If he doesn't win every tournament it's just because he's not THAT much better than his opponents. Magnus DOES make pretty serious mistakes more often then most people realize (I"m a titled player in Chess). Its just his opponents make more. And, no, he doesn't win every game or every tournament. I think the best comparison is probably backgammon since their is some luck there. It's just it's not as popular a game as the other two.
9 years later, this guy has played mostly low-buy in Seniors Events, has no Bracelets, and doesn't even show any results from the WSOP in recent years. Watch who you get your info from.
Also. Daniel Negreanu tried to imitate Chris Ferguson zero to 10k challenge with more liberal bankroll management of "taking shots" at cash games and mysteriously he stopped playing micros a few months later after this big publicized challenge. He clearly didn't crush it like he thought he would. Chris Ferguson moved up very slowly at first, then quite quickly, but it's not a given that a really good player knows how to beat micros. Phil Helmuth used to be known for playing really poorly against bad players by bluffing calling stations like an idiot but he quickly fixed that leak.
What's with the hate? Never heard a poker player who didn't think he was better than everyone and that everyone else was terrible. Does "I have to move up to where players are better and they respect my raises" sound familiar. Of course I was serious chess player and I understood where he was coming from. And I understand getting better in an activity through study. I guess the complaints were that everyone thinks the average pokerplayer is great.
Poker players like to compare it to chess for the skill aspects, but if they think it is comparable to chess in general is silly. What Ed is saying: get trained by his crew to be better. Me: fuck that, train yourself, keep going even if you don’t do well at first, keep learning. It pays off when you realize even pros can’t tangle with you. Yeah you get tougher by learning the hard way. Treat poker like Martial art, mentally, not chess. Sissy shit!
Chess and poker can't really be compared.If I played Phill Ivey heads up I could beat him in some games because luck plays a big part in any one game.I play chess a lot but would have no hope of beating the best players.
Poker does not typically involve headsup matches, unlike chess. If there are two or three really bad players at the table and the rest are regulars I do well enough against and one of the latter is replaced by the best player at the casino it doesn't change my win rate all that much. Best don't make much against pretty good. Both make their money against fairly bad and bad.
I love Ed Miller's ideas and how he articulate things so much. I've bought and read all of him poker books. Sadly he turned into sports betting. Hope he gets back to poker some day and write more books.
He is an abject failure. He barely cracks the top 5000 on Hendon Mob, over many years, amd is playing local, low buy in events only. (Atleast ones that show results). The guy isn't very good
@@garygwinn5818 It doesn't matter. Consider how many books he wrote, he just doesn't have long hours to play poker. Also, his books make a ton of sense and are very well written, that's all readers needed.
Chess is a pure skill game--there are no elements of luck except for the draw for who gets to go first. Poker has at least a 25%+ level of luck involved due to the uncertainty of what cards are drawn. Also, because of the money factor, people who have a lot of money and do not care about how much a call or a bluff costs them, they can sometimes wipe up the "pro's" if they get on a lucky streak. Of course in the long run you would expect the fish to lose all their money to the pro's, but I've seen plenty of times where the fish go on a hot streak and tilt the pro's in playing bingo, get lucky, and make the pro's leave the table. If you had an unlimited bankroll you would play differently, probably make more calls, and make more moves. You won't find that at a chess game where the master goes on tilt and goes on a rampage. The master chess player has too much time available to eliminate any lucky deceptive plays. Like in basketball--a team can have a great night shooting against a superior team and win a game but the better team should win out in a 7 game series.
it seems like EM is saying 2/5 player are mostly pretty bad. 1/2 players(my game of choice) can at times be pretty soft. That said, the 2/5 players are generally better and actually are there to try to win.
I disagree that more people play poker than chess. Every high school (in the UK at least) has a chess club. Growing up all my friends played chess or at least knew how to. Mind you, board games have declined ever since the first video games came along, so who knows? you might be right.
Poker boils down to does he have or not. (Chip Reese) Poker does have math. Simple math. (Doyle Brunson) Players suffer from fancy play syndrome. (Mike Caro) I'm not saying that there's no advantage of good players over bad. It's a small advantage that can be exploited over a period of time. Days, weeks, months for tournament players years. In chess a master with a clock will crush an average player in minutes. In poker average players win big tournaments all the time.
Not true that there aren't good poker players at club games! My club game has several pros (WSOP bracelet winners and ring winners) its usually a 5/5 Plo game with 2 maybe 3 soft spots, the rest are seasoned pro's. I have a way easier time going to a casino game than playing my home game!
I've read some of Miller's books and like them very much. However, this video is nonsense. There's absolutely no comparison possible between poker and chess. If the average chess player played a chess master for an eternity, the master would win every game played. That's not even remotely true of poker. There's a huge element of randomness in poker and it can take an awful long time to overcome that randomness. If I played Phil Ivey every day for a million years, no doubt he'd have won the majority of the sessions - but I'd have won a great many sessions also, just not as many as Ivey.
Love Ed Miller books but this is really bad lecture/ramble. It's not just about skill level it's far more about consistency and playing the A game. For example:Scott Fischman's A game in tournaments gave Doyle a run for his money but Scott Fischman's C game couldn't beat micro cash games.
If you played in a 15-30 game in California and were really good you could make $30,000 a year. You would beat the game for $60,000 but $ 30,000 would go to the rake. That same player won't make money in a small game because you can't beat a small game for over $30,000 a year.
+jonathan cutler False. A decent player at a cash game can pick up 5 big blinds per hour. This is considered a decent win rate for a solid player and takes into account those big swings up and down and the rake. This means a less skilled player can make $15 an hour (or 3 bigs/hr) at a relatively common $3/$5 game. This is a stake that has plenty of fish and recreational players. Let me emphasize, this win rate is very very attainable for a player who puts in a bit of time studying. So say conservatively that this dedicated player treats poker like any other job. and puts in 40 hours a week and takes off two weeks a year for vacation. ($15 x 40) x 50 weeks = $30k a year for a SLIGHTLY winning player playing a game at 1/6 the stakes you mentioned.
+Michael Leal Thanks for the reply. In a 4-8 game in S. Ca. the BB are $4. So if you could win $20 if you win 5/BB an hour. The drop per person is somewhere between $16 and $20 dollars an hr. If you were really good you might be able to break even. I've been around poker about 20 years and I've never meet anyone to beat the rake at the lower levels. The only professional poker players at the small limits are players that get the rake back.
+Michael Leal Good question. In S.CA. L.A. area. The game that's called 4-8 the small blind is 2. The big blind is 4. The bets pre-flop and on the flop are 4. Turn and river 8. The casino drops 5 for the rake and 1 for the jackpot. So if only the small and the BB call the 2 players are putting in 8 and playing for 2. So you can win the pot and still lose money if no other bets are made. That's the short version of why you can't beat a small casino game in L.A. W/O the casino giving you your share of the drop back.
wow. the most ridiculous bunch of nonsense I have ever listened to. I wish all of my poker opponents had the same mentality as the guy in this video....loser's mentality. In chess, you would see magnus carleson come out on top every year no matter how many players there were. But poker, being a game of incomplete information, is different. the incomplete nature of poker means that a professional will win over a large number of hands played but not win all the time. For this reason, less than pro players can do very well in the game and make a lot of money. I also do not believe there is necessarily a cap on progress in poker: the learning curve may become steeper the longer you study the game but by no means does it become completely insurmountable. The more you study the more you will learn. When you know 99% of the game and are now at the point where you are plugging leaks this is the most challenging aspect of the learning process because you are now trying to fix problems that are particular to your own psyche; changing "natural" behaviours is and should be expected to be one of the hardest endeavors in and of itself. So one may take a long time at this stage of the learning process but this does not mean that one has hit a proverbial brick wall. Nonsense I say. This entire video....
This comment is really stupid and doesn't even address what is "nonsense" about the video. But it goes to show the "Group think" he is talking about in the video.
Dude, phil ivey is a consistent loser in the highstakes nosebleeds. Most of the GTO reg crushes him and even he admits that (watch documentary nosebleed). For someone who writes about poker theory, Miller seems quite out of touch with current affairs. Secondly, poker is basically not comparable to chess in any way. Poker has a far lower skill cap. If you understand how difficult it is to be winning pre rb in midstakes online and the amount of knowledge it takes, you would know any of them probably has an edge over these "TV pros" e.g. Ivey
1.Chess is much harder than poker. 2.Theres not that big of a gap between bad players and good players in poker. The luck factor and the simplicity of the game lets bad players win all the time. 3. Only about 0.01% of poker players make money excluding house players were the rake is covered.The gap of talent between good players and bad is eaten up by the rake. My guess is that Ed makes more money doing other things than playing poker. If not he's probably an elite player. I've been playing poker for 15 plus years and i don't know anyone who makes money playing at the lower levels the rake is to high.
Well said. If a guy shoves with Q4 and you have AK and call and it comes 3-6-6 then a Q and a 8 your out if he has you covered. In chess if you shove with a Q4 equivalent you aren't going to be as lucky.
a. it depends how deep you are 200 bb stacks and deeper the gap between good and bad players can be huge. b. yah rake sucks live. online is quite nice and low :)
travis crow I agree the deeper the stacks the more complex the game becomes. Of all the poker that is played in California casinos I would estimate only 1% is played at 200bb.
travis crow Sounds great.Internet poker is illegal in California. The crooks of the state are trying to figure out how they want to split it up.(Horse Racing,Card casinos and Indian casinos.) They want to have a monopoly on it.
I love chess been playing for a few years and I've just started playing poker I plan online but I keep going broke :( but not with real money :D UNTIL IM OLDER
If phil ivey is so much greater then everyone then why is he down 6 million online over the last 2 years. Once you realize poker is a game of luck and the edges are not that big then you cna get used to all the bad beats you take way ahead onlie. Your going to lose and lose a lot no matter how good you think you are. If this guy so good whats his id name? I bet we can look him up and hes not profiting in cash games. All these guys that write books dont win at it. its why they write the book cause they are broke and need money.
How much volume has Ivey put into online games over those 2yrs though? When you are playing nosebleed stakes and small volume, the swings can be ginormous. The video maker's name is Ed Miller, one of the most respected poker authors. He plays live cash games in Vegas.
fliptthescript I don't know. I've been playing poker semi-pro for a couple of years and while I have wins and loses day to day, and some weeks I have big downswings and big upswings, ultimately I trend in a positive direction fairly consistently at around 1000/month. Hard to call that luck over tens of thousands of hands and years of playing.
Red Chip Poker I know a lot of respected poker authors and they are broke or been broke before through poker. Even doyle brunson went broke. Its why the ywrite books. You don't see Tom Dwan writing books. If i was broke he would.
Red Chip Poker Ivey put in aton of volume since making his poker website to create videos and bring more people to his site. He no longer makes money at poker thats why he made the website. Thats how you see a 6 million downswing. If your making millions at poker you have no need to teach anyone anything. A lot of these guys who write books are tournament players. They have no clue what they are doing. Isildur another great player plays almost every day down about 4 million over last 2 years. No profit in poker anymore except people writing books and running off to make poker training videos to get some sort of income.
What gets on my nerves this guy says phil ivey is really really much better then everyone else. Ivey scams games pays people off to give him an edge. He probablly done in texas holdem i seen him stare at the dealer and I think the dealer tips him off on hands. I seen him even wink at the dealer before the hand played out and he coolered the guy ace high flush over king high flush. Then he gets caught scamming casinos using some lady to read the cards. Hes the best cheater ever. All give him credit for that. Being down 6 mil doesn't surprise me if he can't cheat. When he won he was sponsored by fulltilt and they were scamming people. You think they didn't let him see the cards or give him some sort of edge to be part of the site?
I used to play 1/3 seven stud against Phil Ivey in Atlantic City. Today, Phil plays 1000/2000 no holdem. How did this happen? Luck? Phil Ivey crushed the online games for a few years. The game has changed, software is being used and I guess he has lost his edge online. The online players are by far the best in the world. Im sure Phil is still making big money in the nose bleed live cash games. He also has incredible success in tournaments, an endeavor he hardly has interest in as there is more money in cash games. Phil Ivey will play any player, any time, any game and at any stake. The bs about cheating is just that. He did the edge sorting thing and that does not mean he hasn't made money playing poker. I am a live witness to Phil being a next to broke 1/3 stud player to a multi millionaire nose bleed player.
fliptthescript . You are a fool. Phil Ivey started playing 1/3 stud. I played with him. We both got better and moved up. I played 20/40 limit and Ivey eventually is playing 500/1000 heads up no limit holdem. Where do you think he got the money to play those stakes? He got it from playing poker. He doesn't cheat. You have zero clue about poker or Phil Ivey.
Damn, what an AWFUL public speaker with all the umms, you know, ahhh, etc. Not for me this guy needs to take a serious public speaking for radio announcing course if he wants to have a future mentoring others.
u must be new to youtube. I hear worse every time I try and watch a new channel. people talk fast, mumble, use new found expressions that I have to look up. this guy is hella more professional.
Someone make a video "everyone is terrible at UA-cam"
Not everyone is but thank you for making me laugh outloud!!!! :-D
I used to play with Phil Ivey in Atlantic City. We played 1/3 seven card stud. We then both switched to Holdem and began moving up. Phil had almost no money back then. Fast forward to 2018. Phil is playing 500/1000 no holdem and higher. He also plays all of the games. He will play anybody, any game any stake any time. Where did he get the money to do this? He earned it. What he did playing Baccarat was questionable as to calling it cheating. Times are a changing and many players have surfaced that with the help of computers are taking the game to the next level. However, without question, Phil has been the most feared dominating player in poker history.
I love the way ed miller thinks. this guy is able to impart new knowledge by explaining them in a way only a true thinker can.
Poker's far more analogous to golf than chess. Tiger woods is really really good but that doesn't mean he'll win every time and won't have really really poor shots every now and then. Magnus Carlson will almost NEVER make a "bad move".
I don't think so. First of all chess and poker are both GAMES rather than sports where things like physical coordination, stamina, etc start to play a role. The idea that Tiger woods "occassionally making a bad shot" means he's going to lose the tournament is just not true. All golf pros do this. If he doesn't win every tournament it's just because he's not THAT much better than his opponents.
Magnus DOES make pretty serious mistakes more often then most people realize (I"m a titled player in Chess). Its just his opponents make more. And, no, he doesn't win every game or every tournament.
I think the best comparison is probably backgammon since their is some luck there. It's just it's not as popular a game as the other two.
I enjoyed this. It increased my incentive to improve my game.
Wish the full version would be released. Great info from my favorite poker authority.
Good idea Jeff, just added it!
9 years later, this guy has played mostly low-buy in Seniors Events, has no Bracelets, and doesn't even show any results from the WSOP in recent years. Watch who you get your info from.
Also. Daniel Negreanu tried to imitate Chris Ferguson zero to 10k challenge with more liberal bankroll management of "taking shots" at cash games and mysteriously he stopped playing micros a few months later after this big publicized challenge. He clearly didn't crush it like he thought he would.
Chris Ferguson moved up very slowly at first, then quite quickly, but it's not a given that a really good player knows how to beat micros.
Phil Helmuth used to be known for playing really poorly against bad players by bluffing calling stations like an idiot but he quickly fixed that leak.
What's with the hate? Never heard a poker player who didn't think he was better than everyone and that everyone else was terrible. Does "I have to move up to where players are better and they respect my raises" sound familiar. Of course I was serious chess player and I understood where he was coming from. And I understand getting better in an activity through study. I guess the complaints were that everyone thinks the average pokerplayer is great.
A player can run well and beat a better player but a worse player will NEVER beat a better chess player.
How many people in here have seen ivey getting stacked by ana amateur player , please raise your hands...
Poker players like to compare it to chess for the skill aspects, but if they think it is comparable to chess in general is silly.
What Ed is saying: get trained by his crew to be better. Me: fuck that, train yourself, keep going even if you don’t do well at first, keep learning. It pays off when you realize even pros can’t tangle with you. Yeah you get tougher by learning the hard way. Treat poker like Martial art, mentally, not chess. Sissy shit!
Dunning-Krugger
Chess and poker can't really be compared.If I played Phill Ivey heads up I could beat him in some games because luck plays a big part in any one game.I play chess a lot but would have no hope of beating the best players.
Poker does not typically involve headsup matches, unlike chess. If there are two or three really bad players at the table and the rest are regulars I do well enough against and one of the latter is replaced by the best player at the casino it doesn't change my win rate all that much. Best don't make much against pretty good. Both make their money against fairly bad and bad.
By two bands of ability does he mean two standard deviations?
I love Ed Miller's ideas and how he articulate things so much. I've bought and read all of him poker books. Sadly he turned into sports betting. Hope he gets back to poker some day and write more books.
He is an abject failure. He barely cracks the top 5000 on Hendon Mob, over many years, amd is playing local, low buy in events only. (Atleast ones that show results). The guy isn't very good
@@garygwinn5818 It doesn't matter. Consider how many books he wrote, he just doesn't have long hours to play poker. Also, his books make a ton of sense and are very well written, that's all readers needed.
I have really learned zero from this video
I learned that Phil Ivey is just sooo, sooo much better at poker than you or I
Jimmy Fats ftw
Chess is a pure skill game--there are no elements of luck except for the draw for who gets to go first.
Poker has at least a 25%+ level of luck involved due to the uncertainty of what cards are drawn. Also, because of the money factor, people who have a lot of money and do not care about how much a call or a bluff costs them, they can sometimes wipe up the "pro's" if they get on a lucky streak. Of course in the long run you would expect the fish to lose all their money to the pro's, but I've seen plenty of times where the fish go on a hot streak and tilt the pro's in playing bingo, get lucky, and make the pro's leave the table. If you had an unlimited bankroll you would play differently, probably make more calls, and make more moves.
You won't find that at a chess game where the master goes on tilt and goes on a rampage. The master chess player has too much time available to eliminate any lucky deceptive plays.
Like in basketball--a team can have a great night shooting against a superior team and win a game but the better team should win out in a 7 game series.
it seems like EM is saying 2/5 player are mostly pretty bad. 1/2 players(my game of choice) can at times be pretty soft. That said, the 2/5 players are generally better and actually are there to try to win.
Yet they still aren't that good.
I disagree that more people play poker than chess. Every high school (in the UK at least) has a chess club. Growing up all my friends played chess or at least knew how to. Mind you, board games have declined ever since the first video games came along, so who knows? you might be right.
A 'sneak peak' is a stealthy precipice. Peek?
Jimmy Fats is pretty sick tbf.
seriously, this could have been said in 5 minutes.
Might want to put a link to the site in the About section.
Poker boils down to does he have or not. (Chip Reese)
Poker does have math. Simple math. (Doyle Brunson)
Players suffer from fancy play syndrome. (Mike Caro)
I'm not saying that there's no advantage of good players over bad. It's a small advantage that can be exploited over a period of time. Days, weeks, months for tournament players years.
In chess a master with a clock will crush an average player in minutes.
In poker average players win big tournaments all the time.
This is the kind of group think Ed is talking about. It's completely wrong but a lot of people believe it.
Not true that there aren't good poker players at club games! My club game has several pros (WSOP bracelet winners and ring winners) its usually a 5/5 Plo game with 2 maybe 3 soft spots, the rest are seasoned pro's. I have a way easier time going to a casino game than playing my home game!
Also, some players, at least, dominate chess without much experience at all.
I've read some of Miller's books and like them very much. However, this video is nonsense. There's absolutely no comparison possible between poker and chess. If the average chess player played a chess master for an eternity, the master would win every game played. That's not even remotely true of poker. There's a huge element of randomness in poker and it can take an awful long time to overcome that randomness. If I played Phil Ivey every day for a million years, no doubt he'd have won the majority of the sessions - but I'd have won a great many sessions also, just not as many as Ivey.
Love Ed Miller books but this is really bad lecture/ramble.
It's not just about skill level it's far more about consistency and playing the A game.
For example:Scott Fischman's A game in tournaments gave Doyle a run for his money but Scott Fischman's C game couldn't beat micro cash games.
If you played in a 15-30 game in California and were really good you could make $30,000 a year. You would beat the game for $60,000 but $ 30,000 would go to the rake. That same player won't make money in a small game because you can't beat a small game for over $30,000 a year.
+jonathan cutler False. A decent player at a cash game can pick up 5 big blinds per hour. This is considered a decent win rate for a solid player and takes into account those big swings up and down and the rake. This means a less skilled player can make $15 an hour (or 3 bigs/hr) at a relatively common $3/$5 game. This is a stake that has plenty of fish and recreational players. Let me emphasize, this win rate is very very attainable for a player who puts in a bit of time studying. So say conservatively that this dedicated player treats poker like any other job. and puts in 40 hours a week and takes off two weeks a year for vacation. ($15 x 40) x 50 weeks = $30k a year for a SLIGHTLY winning player playing a game at 1/6 the stakes you mentioned.
+Michael Leal Thanks for the reply. In a 4-8 game in S. Ca. the BB are $4. So if you could win $20 if you win 5/BB an hour. The drop per person is somewhere between $16 and $20 dollars an hr. If you were really good you might be able to break even. I've been around poker about 20 years and I've never meet anyone to beat the rake at the lower levels. The only professional poker players at the small limits are players that get the rake back.
+jonathan cutler wouldn't the big blind in a 4/8 game be $8?
+Michael Leal Good question. In S.CA. L.A. area. The game that's called 4-8 the small blind is 2. The big blind is 4. The bets pre-flop and on the flop are 4. Turn and river 8. The casino drops 5 for the rake and 1 for the jackpot. So if only the small and the BB call the 2 players are putting in 8 and playing for 2. So you can win the pot and still lose money if no other bets are made. That's the short version of why you can't beat a small casino game in L.A. W/O the casino giving you your share of the drop back.
+jonathan cutler oh that's limit. totally different game.
How do we get the rest of this or the full length version? please advise.
Grab your free trial here: redchippoker.com/membership/ and once you do that watch the full-length video here: redchippoker.com/pro-video-miller001/
Thanks James, will do. Love your vids btw.
You're very welcome and thank you so much!
wow. the most ridiculous bunch of nonsense I have ever listened to. I wish all of my poker opponents had the same mentality as the guy in this video....loser's mentality. In chess, you would see magnus carleson come out on top every year no matter how many players there were. But poker, being a game of incomplete information, is different. the incomplete nature of poker means that a professional will win over a large number of hands played but not win all the time. For this reason, less than pro players can do very well in the game and make a lot of money.
I also do not believe there is necessarily a cap on progress in poker: the learning curve may become steeper the longer you study the game but by no means does it become completely insurmountable. The more you study the more you will learn. When you know 99% of the game and are now at the point where you are plugging leaks this is the most challenging aspect of the learning process because you are now trying to fix problems that are particular to your own psyche; changing "natural" behaviours is and should be expected to be one of the hardest endeavors in and of itself. So one may take a long time at this stage of the learning process but this does not mean that one has hit a proverbial brick wall.
Nonsense I say. This entire video....
This comment is really stupid and doesn't even address what is "nonsense" about the video. But it goes to show the "Group think" he is talking about in the video.
Dude, phil ivey is a consistent loser in the highstakes nosebleeds. Most of the GTO reg crushes him and even he admits that (watch documentary nosebleed). For someone who writes about poker theory, Miller seems quite out of touch with current affairs. Secondly, poker is basically not comparable to chess in any way. Poker has a far lower skill cap. If you understand how difficult it is to be winning pre rb in midstakes online and the amount of knowledge it takes, you would know any of them probably has an edge over these "TV pros" e.g. Ivey
Everyone is terrible at poker!
funny and good and good intro song
Thanks!
that was 20 mins of my life I'll never get back...........
1.Chess is much harder than poker. 2.Theres not that big of a gap between bad players and good players in poker. The luck factor and the simplicity of the game lets bad players win all the time. 3. Only about 0.01% of poker players make money excluding house players were the rake is covered.The gap of talent between good players and bad is eaten up by the rake. My guess is that Ed makes more money doing other things than playing poker. If not he's probably an elite player. I've been playing poker for 15 plus years and i don't know anyone who makes money playing at the lower levels the rake is to high.
Well said. If a guy shoves with Q4 and you have AK and call and it comes 3-6-6 then a Q and a 8 your out if he has you covered. In chess if you shove with a Q4 equivalent you aren't going to be as lucky.
a. it depends how deep you are 200 bb stacks and deeper the gap between good and bad players can be huge. b. yah rake sucks live. online is quite nice and low :)
travis crow I agree the deeper the stacks the more complex the game becomes.
Of all the poker that is played in California casinos I would estimate only 1% is played at 200bb.
dude live poker sucks balls. get into online you can play on carbon or bovada 10 dollar tourny like a quarter rake and 20 k prize pool
travis crow Sounds great.Internet poker is illegal in California. The crooks of the state are trying to figure out how they want to split it up.(Horse Racing,Card casinos and Indian casinos.) They want to have a monopoly on it.
poker is checkers not chess.
Players that view poker like chess will inherently gain huge edges over players that view poker like checkers.
This post pretty much shows your understanding of game theory
I love chess been playing for a few years and I've just started playing poker I plan online but I keep going broke :( but not with real money :D UNTIL IM OLDER
If phil ivey is so much greater then everyone then why is he down 6 million online over the last 2 years. Once you realize poker is a game of luck and the edges are not that big then you cna get used to all the bad beats you take way ahead onlie. Your going to lose and lose a lot no matter how good you think you are. If this guy so good whats his id name? I bet we can look him up and hes not profiting in cash games. All these guys that write books dont win at it. its why they write the book cause they are broke and need money.
How much volume has Ivey put into online games over those 2yrs though? When you are playing nosebleed stakes and small volume, the swings can be ginormous.
The video maker's name is Ed Miller, one of the most respected poker authors. He plays live cash games in Vegas.
fliptthescript I don't know. I've been playing poker semi-pro for a couple of years and while I have wins and loses day to day, and some weeks I have big downswings and big upswings, ultimately I trend in a positive direction fairly consistently at around 1000/month. Hard to call that luck over tens of thousands of hands and years of playing.
Red Chip Poker
I know a lot of respected poker authors and they are broke or been broke before through poker. Even doyle brunson went broke. Its why the ywrite books. You don't see Tom Dwan writing books. If i was broke he would.
Matthew Weiss Making 1k a month is not making a living at poker.
Red Chip Poker Ivey put in aton of volume since making his poker website to create videos and bring more people to his site. He no longer makes money at poker thats why he made the website. Thats how you see a 6 million downswing. If your making millions at poker you have no need to teach anyone anything. A lot of these guys who write books are tournament players. They have no clue what they are doing. Isildur another great player plays almost every day down about 4 million over last 2 years. No profit in poker anymore except people writing books and running off to make poker training videos to get some sort of income.
What gets on my nerves this guy says phil ivey is really really much better then everyone else. Ivey scams games pays people off to give him an edge. He probablly done in texas holdem i seen him stare at the dealer and I think the dealer tips him off on hands. I seen him even wink at the dealer before the hand played out and he coolered the guy ace high flush over king high flush. Then he gets caught scamming casinos using some lady to read the cards. Hes the best cheater ever. All give him credit for that. Being down 6 mil doesn't surprise me if he can't cheat. When he won he was sponsored by fulltilt and they were scamming people. You think they didn't let him see the cards or give him some sort of edge to be part of the site?
I used to play 1/3 seven stud against Phil Ivey in Atlantic City. Today, Phil plays 1000/2000 no holdem. How did this happen? Luck? Phil Ivey crushed the online games for a few years. The game has changed, software is being used and I guess he has lost his edge online. The online players are by far the best in the world. Im sure Phil is still making big money in the nose bleed live cash games.
He also has incredible success in tournaments, an endeavor he hardly has interest in as there is more money in cash games. Phil Ivey will play any player, any time, any game and at any stake.
The bs about cheating is just that. He did the edge sorting thing and that does not mean he hasn't made money playing poker. I am a live witness to Phil being a next to broke 1/3 stud player to a multi millionaire nose bleed player.
fliptthescript . You are a fool. Phil Ivey started playing 1/3 stud. I played with him. We both got better and moved up. I played 20/40 limit and Ivey eventually is playing 500/1000 heads up no limit holdem. Where do you think he got the money to play those stakes? He got it from playing poker. He doesn't cheat. You have zero clue about poker or Phil Ivey.
phil ivey "cheated" in baccarat, not poker.
20 minutes and still didnt finish the point. You talk too much. You could have shortened the chess comparison to 3 minutes.
Get to the point!
complete waste of time.
Damn, what an AWFUL public speaker with all the umms, you know, ahhh, etc. Not for me this guy needs to take a serious public speaking for radio announcing course if he wants to have a future mentoring others.
u must be new to youtube. I hear worse every time I try and watch a new channel. people talk fast, mumble, use new found expressions that I have to look up. this guy is hella more professional.