Poker vs. Go

BobC · **#41**

zazen5 wrote:

Poker and Go are different on many levels.

In go generally luck is not a factor. You can do everything right in poker and oftentimes lose. The chances of this occurring are much less in go.

You do have to play a long game in poker. Variance is very harsh - but this is a feature of all gambling games.

zazen5 wrote:

Poker rewards deception. Go is better for mental training in that it teaches you how to play assuming the other player can see everything you do. Not so in poker. Poker is a game of incomplete information. Which would you rather play a game in which you can lose money when you make no mistakes or a game which teaches you how to play with no deception and yet your opponent is powerless to stop you? To me nothing could be more thrilling about the idea of mental training teaching you how to take steps to win, your opponent can see these steps and cant do a single thing about it.

Yes. To win at poker you need to put a value on position and betting structures over pot odds and hand odds. Over a very large number of hands between players - it is largely position and post flop work that a player has any control over. This is usually viewed as deception but that is the only real edge you have long term.

zazen5 wrote:

I have played poker and understand pot odds and hand odds. There are many different types of poker players. Yet I have found the whole game is bs and rewards slimeballs and trickery.

[/quote]

Fair point, well made...

zazen5 wrote:

Poker is a close in interest to watching paint dry.

Again you show some considerable insight here. I am beginning to respect your opinion

zazen5 wrote:

Poker is a close in interest listening to women talk about female topics

No.no no. This is an awful thing to say... No game is that bad...

zazen5 wrote:

Additionally, poker causes physical tension whereas go gives positive energy and relieves stress. No wonder poker is grouped with other negative vices.

I'm not sure go relieves stress... :grumpy:

danielm · **#42**

One thing poker has in its favour is that it works a whole lot better as a casual game. Which is why I like to play it with friends or online, but not for (significant) money.

I believe that competitive poker players probably also enjoy the game very much, but as for making a living from online poker sites, I just get the impression that most people (or all?) get to the point where it becomes a mindless grinding of mathematical evaluations. It does not sound particularly more enticing than a comparatively repetitive office job.

hyperpape · **#43**

Hsiang wrote:

In a prototype team competition, six people from six teams play each other at one of six tables. Members of each team sit at different positions at the tables. Each hand is replayed at all tables. The chips are reset after each hand. The hands are scored on a 1-6 basis: whoever wins the most (or loses the least) in a particular hand, relative to other players sitting at the same seat at the other tables, gets a 6; the next gets 5; etc.; exactly like in Duplicate Bridge. So, for each hand, every player on a team gets a score somewhere between 1 and 6. When all the hands are played, the team score is the sum of all its members' scores on all hands.

It sounds like a good game, but resetting the chips removes a lot of room for strategy in pot limit or no limit play.

Mef · **#44**

danielm wrote:

One thing poker has in its favour is that it works a whole lot better as a casual game. Which is why I like to play it with friends or online, but not for (significant) money.

I believe that competitive poker players probably also enjoy the game very much, but as for making a living from online poker sites, I just get the impression that most people (or all?) get to the point where it becomes a mindless grinding of mathematical evaluations. It does not sound particularly more enticing than a comparatively repetitive office job.

Poker is great as a casual game in that it is easy to be more social (have a larger group playing), has a low barrier to entry (someone who has never played before can be dealt into the hand, and at least participate), and a low barrier to victory (at least in the short-term....anyone can get lucky on one hand and win). Go can be a social game if you have the right group in the right spot, but it really suffers in the latter two regards.

Hsiang · **#45**

hyperpape wrote:

It sounds like a good game, but resetting the chips removes a lot of room for strategy in pot limit or no limit play.

Yes, indeed. But you must have that feature to ensure the "duplicate" nature of the game. For example, if at one table a player drops out after losing all his chips, the next hand is no longer duplicated on all tables!

You can fix this with no-limit play of course, but there are other consequences. For example, if the chips are counted cumulatively, a player who just lost a big hand will have a hard time recover from it. You could limit that and only count X number of hands together; that would be a different game. Or you could count the chips won and lost in each hand separately, then you might as well reset the chips after each hand. ^^

daniel_the_smith · **#46**

Hsiang wrote:

There is a new twist in Poker: the Duplicate Poker.

Thanks for the explanation, I was wondering how it worked.

I have to say, it doesn't sound very fun to me, but then I am not a very good poker player. I imagine it would show the difference between good and poor players much better/more rapidly than regular poker does.

tj86430 · **#47**

There was a site offering duplicate poker online, but it went bust a couple of years ago.

Matti · **#48**

Hsiang wrote:

hyperpape wrote:

It sounds like a good game, but resetting the chips removes a lot of room for strategy in pot limit or no limit play.

Yes, indeed. But you must have that feature to ensure the "duplicate" nature of the game. For example, if at one table a player drops out after losing all his chips, the next hand is no longer duplicated on all tables!

You can fix this with no-limit play of course, but there are other consequences. For example, if the chips are counted cumulatively, a player who just lost a big hand will have a hard time recover from it. You could limit that and only count X number of hands together; that would be a different game. Or you could count the chips won and lost in each hand separately, then you might as well reset the chips after each hand. ^^

Do the players have equal number of chips when the hand is dealt? I think it would be more interesting, if they had unequal chip stacks.

Pippen · **#49**

Is there a poker program where u can learn poker with and that shows you your mistakes? I don't wanna learn Poker online since beginners usually are ripped and it seems the whole Poker business is only about getting new "flesh" to rip.

tj86430 · **#50**

Pippen wrote:

Is there a poker program where u can learn poker with and that shows you your mistakes? I don't wanna learn Poker online since beginners usually are ripped and it seems the whole Poker business is only about getting new "flesh" to rip.

I don't think there are any programs that will show your mistakes (several reasons for that). However, online poker sites do offer games with play money. Of course, these games have (almost) nothing to do with real money games, so as a learning tool they are next to useless.

In addition to playing real money games with very small stakes, there are some other options
- teaching sites with videos
- using a teacher (usually you record a session and get comments from your teacher, or the teacher watches your play and comments it; so this requires playing with real money too)
- books

Unfortunately, only about 10% of players are winning players in the long run, and the games are nowadays much tighter than during the poker boom.

Also, remember that in order to be a winning player, you need also other skills than how to play (bankroll management being perhaps the most important)

breakfast · **#51**

Interesting article
https://www.thecasinodb.com/blog/go-masters-vs-poker-pros
"Why do Go masters love poker and poker professionals love Go?"

Applebaps · **#52**

BobC wrote:

A major difference is the money.

I know this is an anathma to many players here but the "monetization" of go is very poor. There is little commercial sense around a game that lends itself to gambling. Although I think Magicwand has experience of gambling on go- I'd be interested to hear his point of view.

I thought bangneki hustlers could make a decent amount of money in countries with larger player bases?

Applebaps · **#53**

BobC wrote:

zazen5 wrote:

Poker is a close in interest listening to women talk about female topics

No.no no. This is an awful thing to say... No game is that bad...

It's so great to see male nerds are the same wherever I go. :roll:

Poker vs. Go

Who is online