The New (Computerized) Card Shark
from the changing-the-face-of-the-game dept
Back in May, there was a flurry of news stories about an accountant named Chris Moneymaker who surprised everyone and won the World Series of Poker after only picking up the game a few years ago and playing exclusively online. The NY Times is looking at this new trend in poker (and other games) for people to hone their skills against opponents online or to use software to let them experiment and better understand the fundamentals. Whereas the traditional way of getting good was to hang out in a casino all night playing hands, that's increasingly becoming a thing of the past. Players point out that there are plenty of benefits to playing online instead, such as more room to experiment, cheaper fees, faster deals, no smoke, and fewer distractions. The one thing that's missing - being able to "read" the players - is highly overrated anyway. The end of the article makes the most interesting point, though. With the proliferation of such "learning tools", fewer and fewer players actually have an advantage when they play. Everyone is more or less equal, and the winner is left up to chance. In fact, the winner of the World Series of Poker from the previous year (also an unknown amateur) apparently lost in the first round of this year's tournament.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
I have to say I find reading this quite sad Mike, don't you think it takes away some of the poker "mystique"? To me it reduces it to a basic slot machine...you put your money in, press a button.
Ok ok, maybe not quite that bad since you still have to have SOME strategy...but still...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No skill huh?
Q: How good is Poki?
A: The older version of Poki that plays in full 10-player games is better than a typical low-limit casino player, and wins consistently against average opponents; but it is not as good as most expert players. The newer programs being developed for the 2-player game are quite a bit better, and we believe they will eventually surpass all human players, perhaps within a few years, or less.
http://games.cs.ualberta.ca/poker/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Sorry, can't resist, i have to post another comment since this is just too good (also from University of Alberta:
-----quote-----
Texas Hold'em
We have chosen to study the game of Texas Hold'em, the poker variation used to determine the world champion in the annual World Series of Poker. Hold'em is generally considered to be the most strategically complex poker variant that is widely played in casinos and card clubs. It is also convenient because it has particularly simple rules and logistics.
-----endquote----
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
If you'd like to know more about the intricacies of poker, I strongly recommend any of the books by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, primarily "Theory of Poker" and "Texas Hold'em For Advanced Players".
It is a wonderful, complex game, although like all forms of poker luck of course plays a significant role.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
I guess if I had said "It's significantly about luck" I'd be right ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
While winning a single tournament requires luck in addition to skill, being able to win consistently enough to play professionally is a question of skill. Look at http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=poy for a list of the top tournament players in the world. Of the top 20 in that list, at least 15 of those make the list or close to it every year.
I interpreted your statement to mean that being a winning poker player is mostly about getting lucky; perhaps I misunderstood you. But I do really believe that being a winning poker player is mostly about being a skillful player. Luck comes into play in single hands, and single events, but winning at poker over the long run requires a great deal of skill, judgment and perseverance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Being in a position to win takes skill, practice etc. The outcome of any one game or series, even when it is the "championship gane" is usually fairly random. The old "any team can beat you on a given day" philosophy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No skill huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
the oft repeated comment that its all luck is absurd. There is not enough luck in the world to get you thru 2days of play let alone 4 or 5
[ link to this | view in thread ]