When Oleksii Kovalchuk, who won the $2.5k buy-in No-Limit Hold'em event in 2011 for $689,739, entered the $2,500 buy-in Mixed Split - Seven-Card Stud/Omaha (Event #42), he had little hope that he would succeed. Mainly because he hadn't mastered the games or even understood them completely.
But the 22-year-old Ukrainian student watched and learned from the more experienced players and made it, a[...] Read more » Oleksii Kovalchuk becomes the first ever two-time Ukrainian WSOP Bracelet Winner!
Joined: Mar '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 1277
That's awesome - 22 and two bracelets! And a student - livng the life.
The fact he didn't fully understand the games makes me think why did he enter? But I guess you can learn a lot just during the tournament, seems a risky way to try and win money though.
Joined: Feb '11
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 59 (M)
Posts: 5712
This maybe gives hope to everyone...but will no doubt frustrate even more people cos he doesnt get it........! Its like playing freerolls at PS maybe. You just have to close your eyes and hope for the best.... Or maybe its just part of his game plan to pi** us all off./
Joined: May '08
Location: Lithuania
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 10090
great- this is so typical of poker- you can even have no idea what you are doing at the table and still win against the "pro's" who dig the game for years and know it inside out? so this brings back the old question- it poker a game of skill at all? i personally think it's about 90 percent luck and 10 skill
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Portugal
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 4827
I bet he must have studied a lot for this tourney after winning the entrance in the last year. Having, besides the Money prize he collected, a $2,500 ticket to another event, it wouldn’t be a chance to miscare. And it sure was worth it the time he spent learning how the action would be in this event. The text doesn’t tell us, but does anyone knows if this gave him another ticket too, besides the Money prize?
Joined: May '08
Location: Lithuania
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 10090
Posted by noonlion:
Posted by pochui: so this brings back the old question- it poker a game of skill at all? i personally think it's about 90 percent luck and 10 skill
If you genuinely believe that you might as well quit poker right now.
It's not even a debate so I think it was a throw away comment on your part.
oh really well for your knowledge in usa this question was put up in court and after hearing all the arguments the verdict was simple :"poker is a game of luck" and as i already stated several times in my posts- how can you say that poker is a game of skill if a total newbie can beat "pro" poker player without even properly knowing how to play the game...do you imagine a newbie coming out to play tennis and beating djokovic, nadal etc.? and don't start all that sh.it about poker is a long term game bla bla bla- let's look at tennis once more- a newbie cannot stand a chance against a por player not in the short term not in the long term, case closed but in poker a newbie can show a very big profit even in the long run if he manages by accident to win a big tourney (that happened so many times) and then for the rest of his career just play of those winnings
Joined: Mar '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 1277
Posted by pochui:
Posted by noonlion:
Posted by pochui: so this brings back the old question- it poker a game of skill at all? i personally think it's about 90 percent luck and 10 skill
If you genuinely believe that you might as well quit poker right now.
It's not even a debate so I think it was a throw away comment on your part.
oh really well for your knowledge in usa this question was put up in court and after hearing all the arguments the verdict was simple :"poker is a game of luck" and as i already stated several times in my posts- how can you say that poker is a game of skill if a total newbie can beat "pro" poker player without even properly knowing how to play the game...do you imagine a newbie coming out to play tennis and beating djokovic, nadal etc.? and don't start all that sh.it about poker is a long term game bla bla bla- let's look at tennis once more- a newbie cannot stand a chance against a por player not in the short term not in the long term, case closed but in poker a newbie can show a very big profit even in the long run if he manages by accident to win a big tourney (that happened so many times) and then for the rest of his career just play of those winnings
I couldn't give a s**t what some judges decided, chances are they know little about poker.
If it was a game of luck as you say Hellmuth would never have won 12 bracelets - the odds would be so stacked against him, same goes for any multi-multi bracelet winner.
As for the tennis comparison, that is a moot point - tennis isn't a game you can simply pick up and get lucky at.
Whereas in poker a pro can get his money in ahead and the newbie catches two runners or rivers the hand.
Its not a remotely valid comparison.
If you think I've contradicted myself I haven't, poker as everyone knows has a decent chunk of luck involved - no one can predict what cards will come next = luck element.
What a pro can tell is what hand someone has and if they are beating them. Then they shove/ call an AI ahead and get beat due to luck. Yes it happens obviously.
There's a reason no one has won the ME twice at the WSOP when the fields have increased a lot in size.
Joined: May '08
Location: Netherlands
Age: 53 (M)
Posts: 6197
Posted by pochui: great- this is so typical of poker- you can even have no idea what you are doing at the table and still win against the "pro's" who dig the game for years and know it inside out? so this brings back the old question- it poker a game of skill at all? i personally think it's about 90 percent luck and 10 skill
Cry.....
------------
Posted by pochui: oh really well for your knowledge in usa this question was put up in court and after hearing all the arguments the verdict was simple :"poker is a game of luck" and as i already stated several times in my posts- how can you say that poker is a game of skill if a total newbie can beat "pro" poker player without even properly knowing how to play the game...do you
Your missing the point in so many ways Your post is a total faillure based on short run profit
Joined: Dec '09
Location: Belgium
Age: 42 (M)
Posts: 162
Of course u need some luck to win tournaments, or at least you need to avoid bad luck and bad beats but skill makes most part of it, there is no mystery when you look at the top 50 live cash winner, they are all great players who have dedicated their life to poker like any other pro sport player.
Joined: May '08
Location: Lithuania
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 10090
ok so can someone answer me if skill is the main factor in the game- then why the hell do we see major "pro's" getting outplayed time and time again against all sorts of amateurs and businessmen who are in the tournaments just to have some great time- a pro can outplay a pro and this is a normal thing (just like in any other sport), but how can a "pro" be outplayed by a complete amateur who just knows the rules of the games and that's it...if you think this is a game of skill then why the hell so many "pro's" goes bust and end their careers working 8-17...to call poker a game of skill is the same as to call roulette a game of skill- and a "pro" roulette player could find so many arguments against me, but my point is clear- you cannot call any game a game of skill if luck is a major factor determining the winner
Joined: May '08
Location: Netherlands
Age: 53 (M)
Posts: 6197
Posted by pochui: ok so can someone answer me if skill is the main factor in the game- then why the hell do we see major "pro's" getting outplayed time and time again against all sorts of amateurs and businessmen who are in the tournaments just to have some great time- a pro can outplay a pro and this is a normal thing (just like in any other sport), but how can a "pro" be outplayed by a complete amateur who just knows the rules of the games and that's it...if you think this is a game of skill then why the hell so many "pro's" goes bust and end their careers working 8-17...to call poker a game of skill is the same as to call roulette a game of skill- and a "pro" roulette player could find so many arguments against me, but my point is clear- you cannot call any game a game of skill if luck is a major factor determining the winner
Problably 99,5% of all WSOP bracelets has won by pros, you got your answer here?
About skill versus luck. Uber uber uber long run its 99,9% skill. Long run its 90% skill, 10% luck. Short run its 50% skill, 50% luck. Uber short run its just gamble/luck.
Your only concentrate on short run in which case your absolutely right ---> poker is luck/gamble.
Joined: May '08
Location: Lithuania
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 10090
Posted by doomdy:
Posted by pochui: ok so can someone answer me if skill is the main factor in the game- then why the hell do we see major "pro's" getting outplayed time and time again against all sorts of amateurs and businessmen who are in the tournaments just to have some great time- a pro can outplay a pro and this is a normal thing (just like in any other sport), but how can a "pro" be outplayed by a complete amateur who just knows the rules of the games and that's it...if you think this is a game of skill then why the hell so many "pro's" goes bust and end their careers working 8-17...to call poker a game of skill is the same as to call roulette a game of skill- and a "pro" roulette player could find so many arguments against me, but my point is clear- you cannot call any game a game of skill if luck is a major factor determining the winner
Problably 99,5% of all WSOP bracelets has won by pros, you got your answer here?
About skill versus luck. Uber uber uber long run its 99,9% skill. Long run its 90% skill, 10% luck. Short run its 50% skill, 50% luck. Uber short run its just gamble/luck.
Your only concentrate on short run in which case your absolutely right ---> poker is luck/gamble.
good points dude- i want to say one thing- i do not wine, actually i like poker, i play a lot and i don't mind losing n bankrolls (which is the case anyway ).
now back to your thoughts: most of the so called pro's made their name by winning wsop bracelet or any other major tourney, before win they were just poker players, some even amateurs, some actually losing players.
about skill versus luck- i would absolutely agree with your statement if one condition is met: poker is rake free but in reality the longer you play the harder it is to beat the rake, we are not even talking about beating your opponent here, let alone beating the rake is a hard task...
Joined: Jan '10
Location: Indonesia
Age: 60 (M)
Posts: 1875
Not surprise for me, East Europe really have good talent for this game. Their instinct really match !! Especially Ukranian, Romanian, Bulgarian . I achm sure one day will be a lot of top poker player from there. Let's we watch. They start wake up !!!
Joined: May '08
Location: Netherlands
Age: 53 (M)
Posts: 6197
Posted by pochui:
Posted by doomdy:
Posted by pochui: ok so can someone answer me if skill is the main factor in the game- then why the hell do we see major "pro's" getting outplayed time and time again against all sorts of amateurs and businessmen who are in the tournaments just to have some great time- a pro can outplay a pro and this is a normal thing (just like in any other sport), but how can a "pro" be outplayed by a complete amateur who just knows the rules of the games and that's it...if you think this is a game of skill then why the hell so many "pro's" goes bust and end their careers working 8-17...to call poker a game of skill is the same as to call roulette a game of skill- and a "pro" roulette player could find so many arguments against me, but my point is clear- you cannot call any game a game of skill if luck is a major factor determining the winner
Problably 99,5% of all WSOP bracelets has won by pros, you got your answer here?
About skill versus luck. Uber uber uber long run its 99,9% skill. Long run its 90% skill, 10% luck. Short run its 50% skill, 50% luck. Uber short run its just gamble/luck.
Your only concentrate on short run in which case your absolutely right ---> poker is luck/gamble.
good points dude- i want to say one thing- i do not wine, actually i like poker, i play a lot and i don't mind losing n bankrolls (which is the case anyway ).
now back to your thoughts: most of the so called pro's made their name by winning wsop bracelet or any other major tourney, before win they were just poker players, some even amateurs, some actually losing players.
about skill versus luck- i would absolutely agree with your statement if one condition is met: poker is rake free but in reality the longer you play the harder it is to beat the rake, we are not even talking about beating your opponent here, let alone beating the rake is a hard task...
nice to see your input anyway- good luck
About beaten the rake, see Jess/Jovi or my scope, its proof rake is beatable and poker is profitable.
About tourneys, big runner tourneys have also the biggest variance, fact is a very good skilled player can be losing long run cos at live play he cant beat it long run cos his sample size is simply far too short. I know Jess has a very nice thread about variance, variance is so far far far worse as we might think. So its very likeable very skilled players cant beat the game at sample sizes of 5.000 games of MTTs, where they in fact are profitable players. Also the other way arround: Total donks can be profitable when they only played for about 5 tourneys. So yes luck is a major major major factor in MTTs, and also fact you cant be grinding to wipe out all variance, not even if you play for 50 years. Poker is sick i know......
BankrollMob Forum » News » Oleksii Kovalchuk becomes the first ever two-time Ukrainian WSOP Bracelet Winner!
well for your knowledge in 
but in 
