One of the best life lessons I learned was while perusing a poker strategy book in a bookstore as a teen. I’ve never been into poker, not even sure why I picked it up. One thing it said was the most important thing to remember is that most of your hands will be crap. Don’t get attached to a bad hand and don’t convince yourself that an ok hand is a good hand. If you just fold the bad hands and play the good ones you’re already a better player than most.

I took that to heart and it has served me well in life.

▲

tgijs 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

For me, it's "decisions, not results." Poker will teach you patience and acceptance of that which is out of your control.

▲

wileydragonfly 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s it. That’s the entire strategy. I pray that the Texas Hold ‘Em fad doesn’t come back. That was an insufferable decade of hearing how clever everyone was.

▲

cman1444 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's "the entire strategy" for becoming a non-beginner. Poker game theory gets much more complicated at higher levels of play.

▲

wileydragonfly 5 days ago | parent [-]

Someday, I hope you share your billions of winnings with us mere peasants.

	▲	cman1444 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Nowhere did I suggest that I am at those higher levels of play. I just know that they exist.

▲

albedoa 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How much did you lose?

	▲	oinfoalgo 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I have never met a losing poker player. That for me was the greatest life lesson from that time. Also how there was all these poker strategy books but I don't remember a single one trying to model the strategy of the rake and how to determine if the rake made a game unbeatable. Basically, assuming all games at all levels of rake are beatable. How convenient for the house.
	▲	wileydragonfly 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

thebigspacefuck 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

btilly 5 days ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

owlninja 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

In popular poker you are just playing against other players, not the house.

▲

eszed 5 days ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

bluGill 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Depends on where you play. For some the house is a literal house not a casino, and thus no rake.

▲

albedoa 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes. The person you are responding to doesn't quite understand the comment they are responding to :) The rake can turn a breakeven or even winning player into a losing player. That's what we mean.

	▲	owlninja 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, that is fair enough, he is describing a casino. I never played in Vegas during the hold 'em boom, but went to plenty of houses where there wasn't really a rake.

▲

thebigspacefuck 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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)