TheDon Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It is impossible to make a living out of gambling unless you're a bookie Aren't there several thousand professional poker players the world over? Indeed. Poker is probably the only exception to the "don't gamble unless you already know you'll lose" rule, and only when you actually understand the game and why it's possible to "beat the game" and be a profitable player. It's very easy to be better than 90% of poker players. You can make ok money playing poker quite easily (not as much as you used to be able to, but still a decent amount). However it requires a certain mentality that goes against what most people have. You need a complete disconnect between the money you play with and your real world money. Money on the table in poker isn't money, it's chips, no matter what stake you play at, it's still just chips. You should play a $1 hand exactly the same as a $1000 hand, hell even a $1mill hand. And if you lose it because someone sucks out, you should be able to just shrug it off in the knowledge that you made the right call and that's what's going to make you your money. If you can't do that, don't play poker for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Aren't there several thousand professional poker players the world over? Fleecing several million mugs. Again 99 times out of 100 not playing with their own money, usually others buy stakes in their tournament performance and take a % of any winnings. Cash games are usually played by proxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Small stakes betting is fine, which is what the above is. Help? My arse. If you bet sensibly and do research, there's no problem to it at all. Totally agree if you bet what you can afford and don't mind the loss. Rodders said he was doing it to pay his rent...... not exactly sensible where I come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Aren't there several thousand professional poker players the world over? Fleecing several million mugs. Again 99 times out of 100 not playing with their own money, usually others buy stakes in their tournament performance and take a % of any winnings. Cash games are usually played by proxy. What a load of bollocks. The vast majority of professional players got to where they are by playing with their own money. Look at the likes of Durrrr, started playing online with $50, has turned it into millions. Sure plenty of people get staked into the big tournaments (and the big names will get paid in by their sponsors), but usually not for their entire buy in, and to get to the point where they can sell slices of their action (which they'd be dumb not to, it's guaranteed profit and the entire point behind poker is making +EV decisions) they've all put a ton of their own money on the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted January 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 9, 2012 It is impossible to make a living out of gambling unless you're a bookie Aren't there several thousand professional poker players the world over? Indeed. Poker is probably the only exception to the "don't gamble unless you already know you'll lose" rule, and only when you actually understand the game and why it's possible to "beat the game" and be a profitable player. It's very easy to be better than 90% of poker players. You can make ok money playing poker quite easily (not as much as you used to be able to, but still a decent amount). However it requires a certain mentality that goes against what most people have. You need a complete disconnect between the money you play with and your real world money. Money on the table in poker isn't money, it's chips, no matter what stake you play at, it's still just chips. You should play a $1 hand exactly the same as a $1000 hand, hell even a $1mill hand. And if you lose it because someone sucks out, you should be able to just shrug it off in the knowledge that you made the right call and that's what's going to make you your money. If you can't do that, don't play poker for money. For the games you get in, say, a Vegas casino*, there's only three games that are at some level beatable (+EV): blackjack, poker, and sports betting. Blackjack is the most theoretically straightforward: card count well enough and it's +EV. Easy and absolutely statistically unassailable. It's also fairly easy to detect, at least to the burden of proof required in Vegas for banning you from the casino, so it's not that viable a way of making a living. Poker retains the knowable-to-all probabilities of blackjack with the added benefit of not having the house kick you out. The problem shifts from understanding the probabilities to understanding your opponents (easier said than done). Sports betting throws in strictly unknowable true probabilities, though the house is not necessarily closer in their knowledge of the true probability than a skilled player is (though they generally are). If you can assess the true probabilities better than the house, you can make money (easier said than done, and you're subject to being told that your action is not welcome or having limits cut). If you can assess whether the odds on a particular bet are being set on action or opinion, it may only suffice to be a better handicapper than most other bettors. There's also the possibility of arbitrage. A tiny proportion of sports bettors can make an equal/better line than the house, though: arbitrage (which may imply the ability to see which way a line is likely to move and to take a lead) is probably a more long-term viable. *: so ignoring the financial sector, but the same basic arguments as for sports betting apply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Have to agree with the gambling thing too, it's never appealed to me either. I used to watch colleagues at our place stick their wages into the fruit machine in our canteen, untill the management had it removed that is, I just couldn't see the attraction in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 9, 2012 Umbrellas, I just don't get the need for them, they slow you down, they only give you limited protection from the rain, they are a pain in the arse to carry around going in and out go buildings, one slight puff of wind and they are useless and they make it so you can't see where you're going causing danger to everyone else. Its easier to just get wet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Umbrellas, I just don't get the need for them, they slow you down, they only give you limited protection from the rain, they are a pain in the arse to carry around going in and out go buildings, one slight puff of wind and they are useless and they make it so you can't see where you're going causing danger to everyone else. Its easier to just get wet! ah the joy of the brolly. My wife's mum leaves the house, stops on the doorstep, grapples with a collapsible brolly in a pouch. Puts up brolly. Walks 6 metres to the car. Opens car door and then stands there trying to collapse clever mini brolly and re install in pouch. I march out of house and get in car, I estimate I'm stood in the rain half as long as she is. She then tells me I should use a brolly so I don't get wet. Use the evidence of your own stupid eyes! You are wet, I am not. On the same subject, she will take 20 minutes deciding which coat is best suited for today's weather that will be encountered during that same 15 seconds of walk down the path to the car. Am I in the wrong thread? aaaargh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Banksy - in fact "Street Art" in general. Isn't it just graffiti? Make the scrote paint over it is what I say...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 10, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 10, 2012 Banksy - in fact "Street Art" in general. Isn't it just graffiti? Make the scrote paint over it is what I say...... Hmmmm... dunno. See, I quite like stuff like THIS: Whereas stuff like THIS makes me want to give the culprits a good kicking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 10, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 10, 2012 90% of the programmes raved about in the TV threads. Especially the sitcoms (Only Fools, etc.) and the HBO stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 10, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 10, 2012 The Fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 10, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2012 The Fall. Post punk rockabilly garage krautrock from the mind of a drug addled genius, whats not to like ? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 10, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 10, 2012 Banksy - in fact "Street Art" in general. Isn't it just graffiti? Make the scrote paint over it is what I say...... Hmmmm... dunno. See, I quite like stuff like THIS: Whereas stuff like THIS makes me want to give the culprits a good kicking: Even though I agree with you, what's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 10, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 10, 2012 The Fall. Post punk rockabilly garage krautrock from the mind of a drug addled genius, whats not to like ? ;-)That. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 10, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2012 Even though I agree with you, what's the difference? Just like any form of art, there's stuff you like and stuff you don't. Me, I like Banksy, because I understand most of it, the one in the second picture is meaningless to me but to others probably not. Banksy did a new piece in Liverpool the other week and some bastard sprayed graffiti over it But this has to be my favourite Liverpool Banksy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Zooey Deschanel. Obviously wouldn't say no but the way people swoon over her like she is the hottest thing to grace the galaxy is a bit ridiculous. I think she tries a bit too hard to be kooky and I can think of a lot of women I'd rank above her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 10, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2012 But going back to Mike's never getting The Fall, I can understand that but for me with my least favourite band in the whole world, I do "get" them, I can appreciate what they've done and why people like them, I simply don't like them at all, which I think is a totally different thing to Mike's not getting The Fall who it must be said are a marmite band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Don't speak ill of Deschanel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 10, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 10, 2012 As ever, I had to Google her. I assume she's famous for being famous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts