Comment by thebigspacefuck
15 hours ago
That just makes you a tight passive player which is not the worst kind of player to be but also not likely to win you a lot of money
15 hours ago
That just makes you a tight passive player which is not the worst kind of player to be but also not likely to win you a lot of money
Being a loose aggressive player is far more likely to lead to you losing a lot of money, than winning a lot of money.
Once you consider what the house earns, poker is a net negative for the players. In order for there to be some big winners, there have to be a lot of losers. And a shocking number of those losers will, thanks to our selective memories, consider themselves winning players.
In popular poker you are just playing against other players, not the house.
Doesn't the house take a percentage of the pot ("rake", isn't it called?).
Not a poker player, just thought that was a thing.
3 replies →
Sure, that’s considered the worst player type to be and generally tight aggressive is considered the best strategy.
Zero-sum nature of the game aside, Meta developed an AI that wins consistently at poker, so it is possible to be good at poker and win consistently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluribus_(poker_bot)