Phil Ivey vs. Magnus Carlsen..poker and chess

Not 90%, but still, let's compare here. If Phil Ivey got lessons by Carlsen for 8-10 weeks, I mean, he wouldn't even be able to play .1% as well as Carlsen probably. I most certainly do not think that Carlsen's skill at poker would be nearly as imperceptible as that. In fact it probably isn't already.

Yeah, poker takes skill too, and I'm not a poker player, but there comes a point where giving the benefit of the doubt too much allows someone to post utter bullshit opinions with impunity. Chess isn't the one that has to explain total amateurs (literally!) winning "prestigious" tournaments.

"if carlsen goes to play big $$$ after a mere 10 weeks of instruction by ivey, he's gonna be broke really soon. nuff said."

This provides surprisingly little help in answering the question posed by the OP.

"also, when do non-poker players believe poker players when they say that winning "prestigious" tournaments is not what makes great players so great?"

Yeah, good poker players win tournaments more often... non poker players shouldn't be able to win at all! lol. In chess this is entirely nonexistent. There is occasionally a weaker player doing better than expected, but you have to know entirely what you're doing in chess for even this to happen. They don't just decide on a whim, hey I play chess once in a while, I think I'm going to go to a tournament with a bunch of GMs, and then maybe it'll be my lucky day. No, in chess, even a "weaker player" getting a good result is going to be a serious tournament player.

Karpov once played a chess/snooker match with Steve Davis who was the world snooker champion at the time of their match .... with predictable results ofcourse ! 

Carlsen would likely win 100% of the time. Nah screw likely, he would win 100% of the time. Ivey wouldn't even come close.

There is, however, a slight (oh so very slight) chance that Magnus would get lucky enough to win over the course of say, 100k hands. In the short term (say 100-1000 hands - or a HU SnG) Magnus would win a lot more frequently, perhaps 10-20% of the time as many others have pointed out.

Chess is essentially solved for Magnus when it comes to versing Ivey, whereas Poker still has a lot of unknowns for Ivey playing against Magnus (style, luck, aggression etc).

Carlsen has more of a chance than Ivey. 

I think Magnus could become poker champion if he decided to do it once he retires from chess. I don't think Phil could retire and become chess champion.

Obligatory "Stu Ungar would beat them both at poker" post!

Better throw in the obligatory "Stockfish would beat them both at chess" post also!

1.  Whatever, I forgot to say "20-somethings" in my post.  You need to read more carefully, though.  I didn't say they win half the time, I said they make up half the final tables, usually.

2. We're talking about Phil Ivey...so I don't really give a crap about other variants...they are irrelevent here.  Ok, Omaha is not Texas Hold 'Em...no need for learning Omaha in this scenario.

3.  Thanks for making my point for me.  Anyone halfway decent can get lucky and beat a top professional heads up.  Magnus with 10 weeks training from Ivey would have a pretty good shot at winning...3-4 out of 10.  Ivey's chances in chess after 10 weeks of Magnus mentoring?  Maybe 0.25% (probably too generous).

"Are some people luckier than others?  Maybe, maybe not.  "

No there aren't. Some people can run good or bad but everybody has the same chance to win a coin flip. 

Whether you have the same chance of winning a flip as me is irrelevant - It's whether in a given sample you'll win those flips that people determine as your "luck".

Ivey has been and is a top notch poker player. But he's not even arguably the best IMO when stacked up against people like Brunsen, Hellmuth, Chan, and possibly even Negreanu. Having said all this he probably stands no chance in chess against Magnus. Magnus would probably win a few hands as is normal in cards but he would be getting outplayed 99% of the time at the table.

Brunson is way to old now. One of the best in history? Sure. One of the best current players? No way. 

Hellmuth is a great tournament player, but he's so bad at cash it's not even funny.

Negreanu is definitely a contender for best player. 

Ermm...a 6 yeal old could win more than 1/100 hands against Phil Ivey, or any Poker player ever conceived ;).  

There's no way in HELLmuth that Phil Hellmuth is a better cash game player than Negreanu. No contest.

Also in regards to bracelets - Hellmuth is like 10 years older than Negreanu and has 7 more bracelets. I'd be a happy man putting money on Negreanu getting 7 bracelets in the next 10 years, especially considering he's playing the best poker of his life.
 

the greatest poker player at the moment is Daniel Colman, he had like 4 7-figure scores and is ahead of phil ivey in the top money list and this was only in 1 year!!!

You're not getting the point.  It doesn't matter which poker player it is.  You could play *nobody* against Phil Ivey (deal the cards and have a blackjack-style rule about which bets to call) and the "nobody" side would still win at least a dozen hands out of a hundred.

For anyone to say that a poker player, any poker player, can win 99% of hands played against a minimally reasonable level of competition is just a ridiculous statement. 

If you're not going to comment in the context of the thread you are in, you might as well leave.  Either demonstrate how you imagine that a pro poker player can win/outplay opponents 99% of the time as claimed, or don't comment on my reply refuting said claim. 

You might notice that your original reply to my post does not address what I said at all.  Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

Poker theory, lol.  

If were just going by todays players I'd have to go with Negreanu and Ivey at the moment. But all time Id still say they arent better than the greats I mentioned, or the few legends I shamefully forgot. Their reads and feel for the game is beyond Caros Book of Tells but lets not forget where they learned it all. 

And theyre all great at cash games. Some obviously better than others but most of these guys still make their money grinding the tables for 12 hours a day. As for winning 99% of the hands of course its not possible but its not about that. Its about maximizing pot odds and generally outplaying your opponent when you have the losing hand. Unless of course your David Sklanksy and play everything by the numbers.

Clearly only one group is correct, and it is ridiculously obvious which group that is.