Phil Ivey vs. Magnus Carlsen..poker and chess

I have an idea for you guys: why don't you go over to forumserver.twoplustwo.com and discuss these things with the guys over there?

There's a ton of better and more respected players than me over there, and I sure some of them will take the time and try to explain certain things to you, or point you in the right direction.

one thing both chess players and poker players share in common btw:

they both think they are superior to the other and could learn the other's game reasonably fast. tom dwan also thought he could beat his friend who's an IM if he'd just take up chess more seriously for 2-3 months lol.

my point was to correct certain missconceptions you and others seem to have about poker, in this case namely that it is at all relevant to say "an amateur can win a hand in poker vs the best in the world" when comparing poker and chess.

I realize now you'd rather live with your missconceptions as this seems more comfortable to you than informing yourself about a topic before you open your mouth. the virtue of the idiot, i guess.

if chess players could learn poker so fast, why is it that we don't see a ton of IMs and NMs going after a successfull poker career?

after all, there's more money to be made in poker.

btickler, you are just an idiot trying to keep this picture of chess' superiority alive in your head. get over it.

you're dead wrong. either you have no clue about poker or maths.

I will state this one last time: there's no difference between Magnus playing a game of chess vs Ivey and Ivey playing a sufficient number of hands vs Magnus. the champ of the respective game is gona crush the other one, 100% certain.

"this is about one session of each game"

and I made it clear with numerous posts that this comparison is irrelevant and idiotic due to the differing natures of the games. 

i also mentioned dwan myself already, when i stated both sides think it's easy to learn the other game. you are just hopeless at this reading thing aren't you?

fixing_arsehole, it might be time to step down from your high horse and learn something about game theory before you make yourself look like an idiot.

my last input for today: we all know what the outcome of stockfish 5 vs any GM will be in a match. Bots in poker on the other hand still struggle to beat top level players. so, after all, poker might actually not be that simple as both bfickler and fixing_arshole think, and there might be a bit more to it than "reading your opponents tell" and all this bullcrap.

have a nice day.

I played PLO daily for 5 years as my only income, was playing up to 600PLO.

what have you done in your favorite game that can compare to it?

and yes, it does not matter whether i think the comparison is irrelevant or not.

it just is. just like anything you have to say about this topic it seems.

have a nice day, bfickler.

where did i state such a thing? also, what exactly is chess theory in logic? :D

you know, couple years ago when i was taking logic courses at university, we learnt a lot of things. I even have a principia mathematica on my shelf. but we we're never educated about "chess theory in logic". 

the only thing where logic plays a role in chess is when the engine is operating with 0 and 1s, and those things are well explored for quite some time now, meaning an engine knows how to operate 0 and 1s in order to play great chess. with poker on the other hand, not so much...

same thing you can say about chess.

and arts.

thing is, humans need these things to fully use their potential.

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. 

you want to go the ethic road now?

how is it unethical to rob off people in a game that the other chose freely to participate in? you know, most of these earnings you mention are only so high because they are so low somewhere else.if somebody can do a certain job in the USA or middle europe for x dollars, and another guy doing the same thing for x/50 dollars in bangladesh, how is that not robbing the guy from bangladesh? and now, add in that the bangladesh brother did not choose his position freely, did not participate in this "game" freely, and i think you can see just how ridicoulous that argument is. 

which does not mean that i don't agree with you up to some point. it really does not generate any value to win money at poker. but there might be value in the beauty behind the game for those appreciating it, just like in chess or sports. seems like we actually totally agree on this. And obviously money is an essential part of poker, so poker could no exist in an utopical world where everybody does everything just for it's mere value. It is also the number 1 reason for most people including myself to eventually quit. To rather find something you do for it's own value than money. Because mentally it is almost impossible to seperate these things in poker.

So what? Just because you are winning near to the same amount doesn't mean you're near to the same standard. The top few percent is all of the quality. The nature of the game means the better player wont win loads more, it doesn't mean he isn't much more skilled.

You just don't realise the knowledge it takes to be a top player. You can't get near that in a few weeks.

What I know is that the "80/20" curve of poker is lot kinder than chess' curve...and that, coupled with the luck factor, means that where a "really amazing" chess player (say, top 1% by rating) has zero chances against Carlsen, a "really amazing" poker player (top 1% by earnings, I guess that would be the only imperfect measure) can have a fairly decent shot at taking one heads up match against against Ivey (or anyone else; such is the nature of poker...in fact, the very idea of being able to determine who is the "best" in poker with an accuracy that reflects chess ratings seems silly, because the game is just inherently that unpredictable (not to be confused with complexity ;)...).

while you seem to be more informed on the issue than i first thought, i still strongly disagree.

first, there is no top poker player in the world today who seriously wants to challenge ivey at live HU. they all just like their money too much. seriously, a top 1% player will have have close to zero chances against ivey just like it is with carlsen. 

second, if "80/20" curve means that 20% are winners in poker, that is wrong aswell. in todays games, it's considerably less, and it's becoming less and less every day. which does not mean that it isn't easier to make money playing poker than playing chess. this isn't due to the nature of the games though, but their environment.

And you're confusing that with poker being less skilled/easier to learn. It's not the same thing.

if the match is long enough, say 100'000 hands (which can be done in less than a month online), it doesn't really matter,  it's bye family then.

I am half german originally, and quarter austrian quarter yugoslav. But i live in Barcelona for almost 3 years now. Luckily people here seem to be more open minded towards me than you and your friend on these forums.

no but my son thinks you are an idiot and i must say he's probably right.