Originally posted by JusuhYes of course it's a game of great skill (anyone who thinks it is not is deluding themselves) but even chess has a very tiny element of luck whereas poker has a much higher element of luck. I think that could be demonstrated by the odds that would be offered in a match between say Kramnik versus someone just inside the top 100 in the world and the odds that would be offered between Jamie Gold (who I believe is the top money earner, if not certainly a top player) vesus someone just inside the top 100 in the world. It would be virtually impossible to get a decent bet on Kramnik at any sort of odds. I remember what Howard Lederer said one night after he played badly (by his standards) but got the cards, was 'good job I wasn't playing chess tonight'. Apparantly he is supposed to be quite good at chess, I think it said he was master level (but I know these tv programmes can tend to exaggerate) does anyone know his chess strength?
Yet the truth is that poker is a game of skill.
Originally posted by stevetoddfrom FIDE
Yes of course it's a game of great skill (anyone who thinks it is not is deluding themselves) but even chess has a very tiny element of luck whereas poker has a much higher element of luck. I think that could be demonstrated by the odds that would be offered in a match between say Kramnik versus someone just inside the top 100 in the world and the odds tha (but I know these tv programmes can tend to exaggerate) does anyone know his chess strength?
Lederer, Peter - Rating 2051
Maybe a relation?
http://www.chessclub.com/activities/finger.php?handle=philhellmuth
Not Howard Ledered but atleast a top poker player. 2300 in 5-minute games on ICC is up there with the GMs.
The difference between chess and poker is in poker it is all about raising your odds. Any poker player willingly accepts the fact that any decent player can have a good couple of days and win any tournament, in the long run the cards even out and a better player will have the odds on his side.
In chess odds are not a factor. You can get lucky, but if you do, it is always the other player's mistake, and not an outside factor (like being dealt good cards, which neither player can do anything about).
The bottom line though. If you think chess is more fun, play chess, if you think poker is more fun play poker.
Originally posted by ZlaireIs that the real Hellmuth? I only ask because it's funny the commentators on the poker keep going on about Lederer's chess but have never mentioned Hellmuth's (maybe it's cos they do not like him or maybe they just do not know?). Or maybe they have and I have missed them talking about it.
http://www.chessclub.com/activities/finger.php?handle=philhellmuth
Not Howard Ledered but atleast a top poker player. 2300 in 5-minute games on ICC is up there with the GMs.
The difference between chess and poker is in poker it is all about raising your odds. Any poker player willingly accepts the fact that any decent player can have a good couple of da though. If you think chess is more fun, play chess, if you think poker is more fun play poker.
I agree with everything you are saying but the point I was making about odds was to demonstrate the difference in the chances of them winning in a one off match, not that odds had anything to do with the game of chess
Originally posted by Dr Strangelovehttp://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12138610
from FIDE
Lederer, Peter - Rating 2051
Maybe a relation?
Rating was 1951
The great thing about poker right now is how many people are playing. Most of them are terrible. I netted just under $2400 last year. and I am not good at all.