Contact us





Are They Bad for Poker?

I have to agree with those who have mentioned that, on the whole, tournament may be worse for poker play . When someone wins a big tournament a certain amount of money is immediately removed from the poker budget.

Sometimes it may find its way back if the tournament winner uses it to play live games or more tournaments, but it would be a very rare case. Often particularly with players who are not professional tournament players that money would be spent on costly items, never to be exchanged for chips. When the player wins the same amount of money in live games it would be in small installments over a long run. Those small installments are put back again in to the play. A $30000 tournament player wins and buys a new car but a $1000 dollar player poker winning in ring game will more likely but some more buy-ins.

Although any tournament may bring some people into a card room that may not go there otherwise I believe this advantage is more important by the problem I have discussed. I thus suspect that poker would not do well without so many tournaments. I do, however, think that both very small buy-in tournaments and contest large enough to attract any means which might help to bring new players to the game. Therefore, it is the scores of medium sized buy-in tournaments that I would argue impairing omaha poker.

I have also noticed that many tournament specialists play rarely in live games. I have to think how many more live games there would be if tournaments were not there to divert players away from them.

I comprehend that many players love to enjoy tournament and I do not mean to belittle their efforts, skills or abilities, but as a live game player I am much interested about the degree to which they eliminate players and money from regular poker games. That is my conclusion regarding it. Could a tournament player turn the tables and condemn live games for taking money and players away from tournaments? It may be sometimes. But were it not for live games, the foundation of public poker, would tournament even exist?

Risk-Reward Ratios

Serious players would learn to assess carefully the risk-reward ratios in their chosen gambling activities. When the amount of risk is justified by the value of the reward, the skilled gambler takes that risk. Consider the skilled poker player in a game.

When he can only beat a bluff and on the river the pot is giving him 9-to-1 he makes the call if he thinks the odds against his rival bluffing are no greater than 9-to-1. Below 9-to-1 the risk-reward ratio is positive. If he has evaluated the situation correctly, the player is taking the risk of his call, for a reward which will average more than that. (Practically, many good players assess risk-reward more by feel than enough such an unambiguous analysis. They also develop extra ordinary skills at doing so. They develop a sharp sense of risk-reward ratios without always thinking them through mathematically.)

A good player who has learned to think productively from a risk-reward point of view has gained a valuable skill to apply other walks of life as well. This is true in cases where the player has learned to think through risk-reward analysis. That is skilled poker player, especially those who have contemplated and studied the game enough hat their decisions are often fairly conscious, not involved by implicit feel alone, should be able to apply their ability to assess the risk-reward with some success to other decisions in their lives. Whether or not, a specific player does this is another matter. Personality traits or other factors may stop him from doing so. He does possess skills that are transferable to other forms of poker.

The following are the three decisions where a sound assessment of risk-reward ratios can help us out:

1. Selecting a Car:-. When someone decides to buy a car, they will usually base their decisions on the factors such as price, performance, safety, looks, durability and reliability.

Performance, looks, durability and reliability represent the "reward" a car can offer you. Price and safety naturally represent a degree of "risk." We all have observed all statistics that show the very real risk we are taking each time we sit behind the wheel of a car. Because automobile safety is related to the large extent of risk, the risk of losing one's life it makes sense to consider the risk-reward ratio given by any car you might decide to purchase.

Though the degree to which you value your life is a personal matter, I think many people will not overemphasized much on this assessment. Given the great value most people put on their own lives, if they think about it they would choose safer cars. This is because unless you do not actually out great value on your life or put substantial amount on good looking, high performance car, the rewards given by any great looking performance car are hardly enough to justify a small increase in your chance of death (or serious fatal injury). Based on it, it also makes sense to choose the safest car you can afford. Paying more means of greater risk of a kind, but not to the level of safety factor poker players.

Continue Here: Climbing A Rock

online poker fun game


Our Partners