deleted_user wrote:Isn't the idea that poker is the same amount of luck for everyone, so the luck part cancels out over the large number of hands being played?
Could say the same about any card game even when it is 100% based on luck.
That's actually why saying that random crates don't affect balance because sometimes you get a good start and sometimes you get the bad one is dumb.
The better poker player is often going to win but there's still a way he can lose to someone worse who's lucky.
Goodspeed wrote:Any individual hand of poker is mostly decided by luck, sure. But a "game" of poker is a collection of many hands and is ultimately mostly decided by making the right bets at the right time.
Yea, I totally agree. Still, Poker is a luck game.
This is totally wrong.
There is luck in a poker hand, or anything in the short run but if you consider long term there is little to no luck. Its >90% skill (or even close to 100%) in the long run.
If you disagree think about it like this, anytime you make a bet with the best of it, where the odds are in your favor, you have earned something on that bet, whether you actually win or lose the bet. By the same token, when you make a bet with the worst of it, where the odds are not in your favor, you have lost something, whether you actually win or lose the bet.
It depends on what you mean by short run and long run...
If you mean playing 10 hours a day during 6 months, then sure, luck is almost irrelevant.
If you mean one hour or one even one game, luck is going to decide who wins with people who're at the same level.
Goodspeed wrote:Any individual hand of poker is mostly decided by luck, sure. But a "game" of poker is a collection of many hands and is ultimately mostly decided by making the right bets at the right time.
Yea, I totally agree. Still, Poker is a luck game.
This is totally wrong.
There is luck in a poker hand, or anything in the short run but if you consider long term there is little to no luck. Its >90% skill (or even close to 100%) in the long run.
If you disagree think about it like this, anytime you make a bet with the best of it, where the odds are in your favor, you have earned something on that bet, whether you actually win or lose the bet. By the same token, when you make a bet with the worst of it, where the odds are not in your favor, you have lost something, whether you actually win or lose the bet.
It depends on what you mean by short run and long run...
If you mean playing 10 hours a day during 6 months, then sure, luck is almost irrelevant.
If you mean one hour or one even one game, luck is going to decide who wins with people who're at the same level.
There is no âsame skill levelâ and there is very little luck in poker. End of story.
deleted_user wrote:Isn't the idea that poker is the same amount of luck for everyone, so the luck part cancels out over the large number of hands being played?
It does but in any one poker game there's not enough hands being played so that the best player always wins. In tournaments, some players fairly consistently reach the final table but the final table is decided by luck more than anything else. Often enough, very good players are eliminated early due to bad luck. This would never happen in AoE.
It follows that any individual poker tournament doesn't tell you who the best player is. The only way you could realistically know that is by taking the average finishing position over many, and I mean many, tournaments.
It seems obvious that the bigger the luck factor, the more games you need to play before you can know who the better player is. So given the fact that you need many poker tournaments to know who the best is, and you only need 1 or 2 in AoE, we can safely say poker has a bigger luck factor than AoE.
Tournament play, as opposed to cash game play, has higher variance. In general in poker you measure one's success by the money he wins and not the fact that he win/lose vs other specific players. That's just how the game works. On the other hand, poker heads up is highly skillfull and the best player does indeed wins over the other (he steals money from him). Again, generally a certain number of hands is agreed otherwise one may suck out on one hand and walk away with the money.
deleted_user wrote:Isn't the idea that poker is the same amount of luck for everyone, so the luck part cancels out over the large number of hands being played?
Could say the same about any card game even when it is 100% based on luck.
That's actually why saying that random crates don't affect balance because sometimes you get a good start and sometimes you get the bad one is dumb.
The better poker player is often going to win but there's still a way he can lose to someone worse who's lucky.
It is not dumb, it is the nature of a certain game. You know, in games not always the best win, it's part of the game.
The luck part may cancel out, but if there is no skill involved then results will continue to be random (e.g. lottery).
In poker you also have ways to deal with bad luck, folding being the simplest, where you can back out while losing nothing( unless youâre on a blind).
im a professional player and poker is a skill game.
though playing 1 tournament is mostly luck.
just the longterm makes the money and better players win more
Acergamer wrote:Well, that's it for me fellas haha. Anyways I just want to say good luck to Samwise12 ,and hope he beats Lordraphael since he's basically a piece of shit idiot combination of Garja and Umeu.
N3O_Jerom wrote:and huh the balance is actually pretty good
1 tournament isnât mostly luck....the better player Still has a higher chance of winning than a worse player, itâs just the smaller sample size makes it seem more like luck.
gibson wrote:In poker you also have ways to deal with bad luck, folding being the simplest, where you can back out while losing nothing( unless youâre on a blind).
Yep but if you have a great hand and one guy has an even greater hand, you're unlucky.
gibson wrote:In poker you also have ways to deal with bad luck, folding being the simplest, where you can back out while losing nothing( unless youâre on a blind).
Having a bad hand isn't really bad luck in poker though. Bad luck is having an excellent hand but slightly worse than your opponent's.
gibson wrote:In poker you also have ways to deal with bad luck, folding being the simplest, where you can back out while losing nothing( unless youâre on a blind).
Yep but if you have a great hand and one guy has an even greater hand, you're unlucky.
yes which is why itâs good thereâs more than 1 hand in a game
for me ep7 is nice, for sure everything is not perfect because perfection doesn't exist. The Portuguese have the opportunity to play in other ways instead of making the usual survival so that it doesn't come in 3 ages, Spain more playable etc., maybe only the Russians should balance the musks because they lose too much against cav, like with 13-14 more life and a multiplier of 3.5 vs cav would be better and to this point the current coato of the musk would be correct. Last question: but the completely redone ui that was being developed in which version ep will be published? (in case this ui will be terminated)
No one will escape from me, from my Russians, neither a troll nor a hacker nor a smurf, they will all give days in front of my strelets
Blastkiller wrote:for me ep7 is nice, for sure everything is not perfect because perfection doesn't exist. The Portuguese have the opportunity to play in other ways instead of making the usual survival so that it doesn't come in 3 ages, Spain more playable etc., maybe only the Russians should balance the musks because they lose too much against cav, like with 13-14 more life and a multiplier of 3.5 vs cav would be better and to this point the current coato of the musk would be correct. Last question: but the completely redone ui that was being developed in which version ep will be published? (in case this ui will be terminated)
Blastkiller wrote:for me ep7 is nice, for sure everything is not perfect because perfection doesn't exist. The Portuguese have the opportunity to play in other ways instead of making the usual survival so that it doesn't come in 3 ages, Spain more playable etc., maybe only the Russians should balance the musks because they lose too much against cav, like with 13-14 more life and a multiplier of 3.5 vs cav would be better and to this point the current coato of the musk would be correct. Last question: but the completely redone ui that was being developed in which version ep will be published? (in case this ui will be terminated)
14 more life and a multiplier lmao
are minimal details but if you want to balance well you have to start from this and then test
No one will escape from me, from my Russians, neither a troll nor a hacker nor a smurf, they will all give days in front of my strelets
it counts that they are the Russian musks, less expensive, weaker than the normal musks so if you increase the cost you have to increase their effectiveness so in this damage a little I give life like bringing them to 136 and putting them a multiplier of 3.5 against heavy cava of siro begin to to be a more valid musk being that I pay them 285f and 93c or 91c now I don't remember well the cost of money
No one will escape from me, from my Russians, neither a troll nor a hacker nor a smurf, they will all give days in front of my strelets
Blastkiller wrote:for me ep7 is nice, for sure everything is not perfect because perfection doesn't exist. The Portuguese have the opportunity to play in other ways instead of making the usual survival so that it doesn't come in 3 ages, Spain more playable etc., maybe only the Russians should balance the musks because they lose too much against cav, like with 13-14 more life and a multiplier of 3.5 vs cav would be better and to this point the current coato of the musk would be correct. Last question: but the completely redone ui that was being developed in which version ep will be published? (in case this ui will be terminated)
14 more life and a multiplier lmao
are minimal details but if you want to balance well you have to start from this and then test
No lol ? We know that RE Russia is fine and buffed Russia was a bit too strong so we know for sure that Russia with normal musketeers would be the best civ in the game.