poker or sports betting! what are you better at?

[jjgold]

Both games of chance although in poker you can do stupid things to make you lose where as in sports there is not such thing as doing something stupid, slight edge to poker if your good at math.

[PAULYPOKER]

Maybe you should just keep your poker winnings and play in bigger tourneys with more to win

I hate it I'm not kidding when I say bad luck I mean bad luck consistently and without it you cannot win big period out foxing opponents can only carry you so far one with out the other and you fail it is that simple

[PAULYPOKER]

This is why there is No such thing as a professional poker player

[konck]

Equal

[OTL]

Poker has been really good to me, sports betting not so much.

[icancount2one]

nice, what stakes do you typically play at omaha hi-lo? is your tournament and sng play mainly no limit hold em? (would probably have a tough time getting a few thousand omaha hi-low sngs started)

I play 3 or 4 tables of 1/2 six max on stars. I used to crush full ring, but seem to have lost my edge lately, and 6max is a lot more fun.
I used to play $16 Stud H/L SNGs, as well as HORSE tourneys and such, but after variance evened out I was only making like a dollar a game.

Mixed in a bunch of double or nothings with the Omaha for a while before I made supernova, then there was no point. I like to do the $4 180-man tournaments, have a 150% ROI in those over small sample. So now it's grind omaha with a few NLHE tourneys mixed in.

Guess I'm a renaissance man, lol

Dr. sale I would Crush you in poker the only way you would have a prayer is the luck factor which would be involved I consistently make it in the $ in tourny's without winning more than 2 showdowns BANK IT

Post s/n and site please. Somehow I doubt someone who believes in house-bots is a consistent winner.

[PAULYPOKER]

but seem to have lost my edge lately, Somehow I doubt

Care to explain this edge in further detail?? Mr. professional

[mrmarket]

I'm better at poker. Bad thing about poker is that it is not scalable and good thing about sports betting is that it is.

[B1GER1C828]

way better at poker

[jeremythegreat]

yeah , im better on the heads up games and 6 man st n goes, but i love betting on a game on tv when i got a poker tourney going on.

[Domer]

made my initial br with poker then switched to sports when i figured out the variance was a whole lot less, it required much less effort, most sports bettors are much dumber than most poker players, and most importantly it was a whole lot more fun.

[billyloco]

I play 3 or 4 tables of 1/2 six max on stars. I used to crush full ring, but seem to have lost my edge lately, and 6max is a lot more fun.
I used to play $16 Stud H/L SNGs, as well as HORSE tourneys and such, but after variance evened out I was only making like a dollar a game.

Mixed in a bunch of double or nothings with the Omaha for a while before I made supernova, then there was no point. I like to do the $4 180-man tournaments, have a 150% ROI in those over small sample. So now it's grind omaha with a few NLHE tourneys mixed in.

Guess I'm a renaissance man, lol



Post s/n and site please. Somehow I doubt someone who believes in house-bots is a consistent winner.

I'M IMPRESSED!!!!....but i know very little re poker, just love to play with friends, and usually leave about $50 with them when its over, so, yes, i am REALLY a much better sports bettor.

[DrStale]

Dr. sale I would Crush you in poker the only way you would have a prayer is the luck factor which would be involved I consistently make it in the $ in tourny's without winning more than 2 showdowns BANK IT

You proved in the other thread that you don't have a clue about about hand strength, pot odds, etc. So I'm not going to get into this again as it will be a waste of time. All I will say is better hands and smarter play will always win over time. Of course you're going to lose hands you should win, but if you are consistently a 60% favorite then over time it pays off.

It's not that hard to understand (for most people).

[icancount2one]

Care to explain this edge in further detail?? Mr. professional

I was making about 1 big bet per hundred hands over more than a hundred thousand hands. Then suddenly I was getting picked off every time I bluffed on the river, running into huge coolers over and over, people were folding when I did have something, and I lost my confidence. I don't know if people picked up on my timing or just my overall style or games got tougher or just a bad run. Still up overall at full ring and doing better at the 6max version now.

Supernova bonuses make the sick variance worthwhile though.

I'M IMPRESSED!!!!....but i know very little re poker, just love to play with friends, and usually leave about $50 with them when its over, so, yes, i am REALLY a much better sports bettor.

lol, ty. I'm still kind of on the ground floor working my way up.

[PAULYPOKER]

You proved in the other thread that you don't have a clue about about hand strength, pot odds, etc. So I'm not going to get into this again as it will be a waste of time. All I will say is better hands and smarter play will always win over time. Of course you're going to lose hands you should win, but if you are consistently a 60% favorite then over time it pays off. It's not that hard to understand (for most people).

[PAULYPOKER]

I was making about 1 big bet per hundred hands over more than a hundred thousand hands. Then suddenly I was getting picked off every time I bluffed on the river, running into huge coolers over and over, people were folding when I did have something, and I lost my confidence. I don't know if people picked up on my timing or just my overall style or games got tougher or just a bad run. Still up overall at full ring and doing better at the 6max version now. Supernova bonuses make the sick variance worthwhile though. lol, ty. I'm still kind of on the ground floor working my way up.

What is is trying to say people in a round about stuttering way is his LUCK RAN OUT!!!

[PAULYPOKER]

Boys this is what poker players do to make themselves feel as if they are in control of their success when in all reality they are not cause without luck they are just an average Joe but will never ever admit it

[icancount2one]

What is is trying to say people in a round about stuttering way is his LUCK RAN OUT!!!

Still going strong dude, don't know what you're saying. One group of players I was beating before I'm no longer profiting on, so I changed things up. I still have a BR, and it's no accident I'm up thousands + thousands more in rakeback/bonuses playing 1/2 limit.

[PAULYPOKER]

Still going strong dude, don't know what you're saying. One group of players I was beating before I'm no longer profiting on, so I changed things up. I still have a BR, and it's no accident I'm up thousands + thousands more in rakeback/bonuses playing 1/2 limit.

I wish you well all I want you to do is admit luck is a contributing factor along with skill this is all nothing more

[icancount2one]

I wish you well all I want you to do is admit luck is a contributing factor along with skill this is all nothing more

Well, first you should admit you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Of course any session or any tournament is determined by luck.

As the sample size gets larger, the amount that someone's "luck" has effected their results gets significantly less important than the decisions they've made.

Look up "risk of ruin" "Kelly criterion" "Bayes Theorem" and "standard deviation" and then understand that with a properly sized bankroll and an edge on a game, the best poker players have virtually no chance of going broke (though as you brought up in another thread both Ivey and Doyle did go broke when they were younger).

My risk of ruin is probably around 2 or 3 percent, tops. It's similar to how the casino has no chance of going broke through spreading craps, roulette, or to a lesser extent blackjack.

[Chi_archie]

sports... I don't do any cards or casino stuff...

[neville sinclair]

gained more from poker

[PAULYPOKER]

Well, first you should admit you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Of course any session or any tournament is determined by luck. As the sample size gets larger, the amount that someone's "luck" has effected their results gets significantly less important than the decisions they've made. Look up "risk of ruin" "Kelly criterion" "Bayes Theorem" and "standard deviation" and then understand that with a properly sized bankroll and an edge on a game, the best poker players have virtually no chance of going broke (though as you brought up in another thread both Ivey and Doyle did go broke when they were younger). My risk of ruin is probably around 2 or 3 percent, tops. It's similar to how the casino has no chance of going broke through spreading craps, roulette, or to a lesser extent blackjack.

One word

DENIAL

[PAULYPOKER]

I have played in the area of a million hands of poker in my life time I need no systems or mathematical formulas to tell me my chances I know them quite well to be frank, I can tell immediately when I'm going to place reasonably high up in the $ in a tournament just by the way the card flow is and this is pure intuition something that rainmen/number crunchers could never understand simply because they do not have this gift and I can tell by your post you don't have it

[icancount2one]

I have played in the area of a million hands of poker in my life time I need no systems or mathematical formulas to tell me my chances I know them quite well to be frank, I can tell immediately when I'm going to place reasonably high up in the $ in a tournament just by the way the card flow is and this is pure intuition something that rainmen/number crunchers could never understand simply because they do not have this gift and I can tell by your post you don't have it

Your results for PaulyPoker19 don't impress me.

[Lincoln73]

Poker is easier to beat since you can always drop down levels to find players you can beat where as in sports betting you still need to pick winners regardless of the variance in the amount that you bet.

[whatsgood5]

I suck at both, but I've lost less money betting sports. It's tough growing up with a professional poker player as your brother, very expensive.

[poker_dummy101]

change of plans.. mark me down for 0 at both

[pdx107]

sports usually... poker on rare occasion

[PAULYPOKER]

Your results for PaulyPoker19 don't impress me.

OK lets go put your confidence where your mouth is Here is the deal we play a heads up game and the rule is we have to show each other our hand after every hand to prove my luck factor theory once and for all

[bigdog3580]

I'm better at Poker. But I piss my poker winnings away at sports.

[smarmy]

I'm about the same at both. win some lose some. If I had to edge it out I would have to say I was better at poker.

[icancount2one]

OK lets go put your confidence where your mouth is Here is the deal we play a heads up game and the rule is we have to show each other our hand after every hand to prove my luck factor theory once and for all

lol what? How would that prove anything?

You're making these ridiculous statements that you can't win consistently at poker and your "intuition" is greater than my "rain man" abilities. I have consistently won at low-limit cash games, making Supernova last year, and have a winning tournament record (with a high percentage of 1st places to cashes, explain that one if I'm just a number cruncher) which I can tell you mostly comes from playing tight early and then stealing blinds from scared players late in the tournament.

It's not like I'm Shawn Deeb or anything like that, but there are LOTS of players who have a positive expectation vs. the rake, and about 15% of players have enough of a positive expectation that they should always beat the variance in the long run.

At this point I feel bad for you, please look up "expected value" "variance" "risk of ruin" and the other terms I've mentioned. At least do a quick wiki look up. Any more insipid one sentence responses with no argument or multi-smiley posts with no words and I'm done with this conversation.

[PAULYPOKER]

How!!! The only way you will beat me is luck and I guarantee it

[OmgUrMom]

I have played in the area of a million hands of poker in my life time I need no systems or mathematical formulas to tell me my chances I know them quite well to be frank, I can tell immediately when I'm going to place reasonably high up in the $ in a tournament just by the way the card flow is and this is pure intuition something that rainmen/number crunchers could never understand simply because they do not have this gift and I can tell by your post you don't have it

lol this has to be a joke right?

Go ask tom dwan or phil ivey if they can tell if they can win a tourney by the "card flow" LOL. They'll say no, so I take you believe your a better player than them?