Gambler vs Poker player

[gerhardt]

Hi guys/ girls

it's been a while since I posted a thread , nonetheless..

I have now studied myself and other players for a while, and have come to realise that the winners of most tourney's are poker players, not gamblers..

It goes like this..gamblers are donk in, win some, maybe some more, and then donk out kind of players..
Then you get the poker player..passive, tight and are able to fold goodish hands, if need be..

Don't get me wrong, I am not downplaying the gambler kind of player...we all love to hate them, most days, and some days I love too be aggresive as well, but I have personally only won tourney's where I played poker, with a well measured amount of aggro, but mostly..PATIENCE..

This is MY experience, and does not apply to all players and games...

JAHWEH est GROTICA

[Brooklynbum]

A good poker player isn't passive. Plain and simple.

Patience is needed but passivity is only going to get you beat.

Besides I think you need to gamble a bit in key spots if you're going to win a tournament.

Some guys are just happy to make the money while other players are playing to win.

Check up on some of the best players, they'll cash less but win more tournaments.

I respectfully disagree that you don't need to gamble to win a tournament.

[liladypokerpro]

I agree with brooklyn...if you take the gamble out of poker, you might as well go play solitaire. Passive or Aggressive...everyone has to take a risk at some point. A Passive player calls, an Aggressive player bets. Who is to say a Passive player knows he's good when he calls 100% of the time? He doesn't...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dogging your post at all. I just think maybe you might change the word "gambler" to "loose player" and take "passive" out of the equation and just leave it as "tight" and it might make a lil more sense.

[DeadBabySoup]

in my opinion, a gambler is someone who's less strategic. they're willing to go all in on a coin flip at any point in a tournament. where a better player will realize the risk outweighs the reward in most situations. basically, a poker player is better at picking their spots.

[gerhardt]

thanx brooklynbum

While I do agree with you that passive players , most likely will check themselves out of most tourneys,
I make the point, unless you have an unlimited bankroll, it is no use being a gambler all of the time..

It is in my nature too take on most gambler type players, make a nice pot size myself, only to find myself
strugling against better poker players, as the game goes on, because I don't stop gambling my average hands, and loosing chunks of chips, because of impatience by myself, instead of then being more passive..

[gerhardt]

Thanx liladypoker

Yes , I have taken huge risks, and it came off, aggro..
But my point is then not too gamble on every hand, every pot..but let the game come to you, and fold
avarage hands, when needs be..go aggro , on above avarage hands..short and sweet..start reading more
of the play, than forcing it...as I tend to do ....

[liladypokerpro]

I gotcha

[C8H10N4O2]

in my opinion, a gambler is someone who's less strategic. they're willing to go all in on a coin flip at any point in a tournament. where a better player will realize the risk outweighs the reward in most situations. basically, a poker player is better at picking their spots.

I was trying to figure out how to say almost exactly what you did early today and decided to wait until I got off work to try to phrase it. However, you basically beat me to it :-) so... I agree with this statement.

[DeadBabySoup]

they're usually the same people who can't understand why they keep getting "donked out on." AK only beats 10J 6 out of 10 times. go all in with AK twice in a tournament and chances are you'll be knocked out.

[Brooklynbum]

Thanx liladypoker

Yes , I have taken huge risks, and it came off, aggro..
But my point is then not too gamble on every hand, every pot..but let the game come to you, and fold
avarage hands, when needs be..go aggro , on above avarage hands..short and sweet..start reading more
of the play, than forcing it...as I tend to do ....

That's more clear. Thanks for the reply Gerhardt.

[Brooklynbum]

in my opinion, a gambler is someone who's less strategic. they're willing to go all in on a coin flip at any point in a tournament. where a better player will realize the risk outweighs the reward in most situations. basically, a poker player is better at picking their spots.

I think you mean a bad gambler is someone who is less strategic.

A good gambler will take a chance in a key spot and hope to get lucky.

A bad gambler will fold in a tight spot with draws.

A good gambler will shove knowing he has outs if he doesn't hit. Not all the time but when the situation dictates it (like against a nitty player who's unwilling to risk his chips in a race).

I've known players who won't gamble even if it's a 50/50 situation for all their chips. They're the bad gamblers in my opinion.

A good gambler will take chances when the situation is right for it. A bad gambler is just hopes to get lucky.

Sorry for the post, I'm just a little bored...lol.

[Brooklynbum]

in my opinion, a gambler is someone who's less strategic. they're willing to go all in on a coin flip at any point in a tournament. where a better player will realize the risk outweighs the reward in most situations. basically, a poker player is better at picking their spots.

I think you mean a bad gambler is someone who is less strategic.

A good gambler will take a chance in a key spot and hope to get lucky.

A bad gambler will fold in a tight spot with draws.

A good gambler will shove knowing he has outs if he doesn't hit. Not all the time but when the situation dictates it (like against a nitty player who's unwilling to risk his chips in a race).

I've known players who won't gamble even if it's a 50/50 situation for all their chips. They're the bad gamblers in my opinion.

A good gambler will take chances when the situation is right for it. A bad gambler is just hopes to get lucky.

I just think that to be a good solid poker player you need a balance of being a gambler with being patient. It's all about timing. Sometimes it's worth it to gamble it up and other times it doesn't make sense.

I'm guessing this is a tournament situation.

Sorry for the long post, I'm just a little bored...lol.

[DeadBabySoup]

I think you mean a bad gambler is someone who is less strategic.

A good gambler will take a chance in a key spot and hope to get lucky.

A bad gambler will fold in a tight spot with draws.

A good gambler will shove knowing he has outs if he doesn't hit. Not all the time but when the situation dictates it (like against a nitty player who's unwilling to risk his chips in a race).

I've known players who won't gamble even if it's a 50/50 situation for all their chips. They're the bad gamblers in my opinion.

A good gambler will take chances when the situation is right for it. A bad gambler is just hopes to get lucky.

Sorry for the post, I'm just a little bored...lol.

no, i'm pretty sure i meant what i said. a gambler prefers to get their money in preflop and hope they hit. a poker player would rather not go all in preflop unless they know they have their opponent crushed. a good poker player will look to outplay their opponent after the flop, making it more a game of skill than luck.

[Brooklynbum]

no, i'm pretty sure i meant what i said. a gambler prefers to get their money in preflop and hope they hit. a poker player would rather not go all in preflop unless they know they have their opponent crushed. a good poker player will look to outplay their opponent after the flop, making it more a game of skill than luck.

Not true. Good players will gamble in key spots. They don't always go into a hand ONLY when the villain is crushed.

A good gambler might call with J10 suited against a short stack shove even if he knows he's behind. A bad gambler will always fold in that situation.

[C8H10N4O2]

Apples and oranges fellas

[DeadBabySoup]

Not true. Good players will gamble in key spots. They don't always go into a hand ONLY when the villain is crushed.

A good gambler might call with J10 suited against a short stack shove even if he knows he's behind. A bad gambler will always fold in that situation.

Read what I said. I said a poker player picks their spots. I never said they only play a hand when their opponent is crushed. A good poker player won't risk their tournament on a coin flip. A gambler usually will. And calling a short stack in a likely 60/40 situation is basic poker strategy, provided you're getting the right pot odds to call.

[travz21]

A gambler is obviously someone who doesn't know poker, and is just out there on occasion to try and win money. A poker player is someone who knows and understands the in's and out's of the game, and can win more often than the gambler because of it. A poker player can become a gambler though, say if they play a game which is half of their bankroll. Even though they should beat the game more times than not, they are still risking half of their BR. That would be applied to low-medium stakes though. Obv if you jump up from NL100 to NL20,000 the type of game is going to change significantly, and your profitability goes out the window.

Poker is definitely gambling if you're looking at a single session perspective, so you can say every tourney played or every cash game is a "gamble". Through the long run, however, the poker player will show profit while the gambler won't, simply because the gambler is putting money into things they don't understand.


Looking at this in Dew's and Brooklyn's view, in a tourney, if the poker player decides to gamble, and it's an unprofitable play, then he is not playing like a poker player anymore. So I'd have to agree with Dew for the most part. What you are getting at, Brooklyn, is that good players will "gamble" in key spots because it's a profitable move given the situation and circumstances that I don't want to get into. Good players simply will not put money into the pot hoping to win unless it's a profitable play for them. I suppose it could be looked at as a gamble for the specific hand, but it's far from a gamble if it improves your profitability.

[gerhardt]

This is now more to the point , thanx trav..

I have played my own games both ways, and have come to realise that I loose more often, as a gambler
type player, than a poker type player..

I have to work on both, as I am sure there are a place for both..

[gerhardt]

baised on you'e reply, I would guesse you are a gambler, and not a poker player..

The key difference is , a gambler has no money left after a few hours; where the poker player, well for
him/ her it is about the game, not the money, and thus can sit back when a bad streak comes, where a gambler will donk out at this point..

[thegrizz1111]

they're usually the same people who can't understand why they keep getting "donked out on." AK only beats 10J 6 out of 10 times. go all in with AK twice in a tournament and chances are you'll be knocked out.

wait for aces in a tournament and chances are you will be knocked out as well.

while i agree that all in with ak in the early stages of the tournament is not a very good play. As the tournament progresses and the blinds and antes get up there u should be happy to push all in with ak. everyone might fold, you might get a weaker ace to call, and it is very unlikey that you will be less than a slight dog.