Thanyou both for your replies, I have developed an interest in poker lately (as a hobby) and have become quite fascinated with it.
Haven't played any real money, tournament or otherwise as I haven't finished studying the structure of the game yet. Still playing in the play money "paddling pool" but that offers nothing beyond the very basic learning of hands.
My line of thinking was that the increasing blinds would force you to play hands that you would not otherwise play and thus make it more difficult, but I understand the points you both make,

UM that was then. My luck seemed to change after that last post or was my strategy up the creek ? Probably the latter. I have gone back to the book a bit wiser than i was hopefully !!!

Once the slide starts it is hard to stop it. My roll went from $125 to $104 much quicker than it went up. A sort of gung-ho can't go wrong attitutude sooned turned disastrous, although it made for a much more exciting play.
Back to self discipline and patience guided by the book and I am on the way up again.

That pretty much seems to be the only way to make any head way in poker, the drive to give the game crediblity and mainstream recognition has led to "playing up" the skill factor whilst at the same time "playing down" the luck factor. The former I have no real problem with, as the more I learn and experience of the game the more skill I have to cresit it with. But the fact remains that luck will always play a more significant part than it does in other disciplines of skill.

I agree that luck will always play a bigger role in poker than other games of skill that involve less luck.

It's like trading though, it is a game of probabilities. I liken the luck aspect to the fact that no matter how good your analysis is in the markets, you will always get it wrong sometimes. I've seen a guy win needing runner runner 7's(probability about 274:1 if memory serves but it could be even higher) on the turn and river. I will bet big against him in that situation every time and most times I will win. Luck can be a biatch though and sometimes I'm going to loose. That's part of what makes poker so much fun.

The skill lies in 1: knowing the probabilites and 2: watching, learning and remembering other players betting/playing habits and 3: putting those together at the right time to win. Learn to do that and you will consistantly beat the lucky player and make money over time.

I remember reading about how Doyle Brunson and a few of his poker playering buddies used to get together once a week and play a game. They kept "score" of who won and how much etc. At the end of the year it was Doyle in the lead by a long shot. Over time, the luck evens out and the skill comes to the fore. The skillful player will win hands down over the long term.

Cheers,
PKFFW

If that is the case then why do the same names keep appearing in the open tournament finals ? In my view this cannot be just down to luck.


Paul

OK Paul, firstly, there's no mention of "just luck" in either my comments or the reply to it, there is however reference either directly or indirectly to a "significant amount of luck"
So let's consider your comment "the same names keep appearing in the open tournament finals"
Not sure what tournaments you are talking about, but let's isolate one, WSOP Main Event, arguably the "World Cup" of poker the "Wimbledon"
2005 WSOP Main Event winner----Joe Hachem, a former to unknown in the world of poker.
2004 WSOP Main Event winner----Greg Raymer a former to unknown in the world of poker.
2003 WSOP Main Event winner----Chris Moneymaker a former to unknown in the world of poker.
2002 WSOP Main Event winner----Robert Varkonyi a former to unknown in the world of poker.
2001 WSOP Main Event winner----Carlos Mortensen, I don't know his status then, but he is now a pro poker player, I'm guessing he was unknown then, a former Matador.
2000 WSOP Main Event winner----Chris Ferguson He of course (if you follow poker) is a well known pro.
None of these defending champions made it to the final table the next year to defend their title, and I'll lay you pretty high odds Joe Hachem won't change that next month.
Raymer, Hachem and Moneymaker have been large as life in the most recent European Poker Tour, how many final tables do you think they made? Yup you guessed it.....None! about seven events all over Europe culminating in Monte Carlo and our intrepid trio make no final tables, despite playing in all events.
One last note would be Phil Ivey, generally recognised in the world of poker to be the best player on the circuit at the moment, don't think he's ever made a final table at the WSOP Main Event.
Most pros will tell you now, winning the Main Event is a remarkable feat that can't be done without a fair amount of luck, and that's the pros talking.
The fact is on the subject of "same names" it rather depends on how big your pool of "same names" is. I have been following poker for about 3 months and I could probably name 100, in no other sport or competitive envoironment could I do that. If it were all about skill the game would be dominated by a handful of names. Is there skill involved? Absolutely, the real question is how much, and how well does it offset the larger than normal "luck factor" Imho not very well.

Hilger = Good
Anything Hellmuth has written up to now is mostly considered a joke,
you are WAY better off with 2+2's books such as Theory of Poker, and
the new no limit book which I must say is quite interesting even
for a seasoned NL player.

I'd agree with that, even as a relatively inexperienced player. I'm inclined to think the skillset required to play is relatively small, In general terms obviously a knowledge of the hand combinations and rankings, how starting hands play from different psitions, and beyond that it is more or less a game of odds, odds to draw cards to make a hand and pot odds in comparison to call bets.

Point number 3 I'd agree with in the cash games, which is why most of the pros are cash game players, tournaments are designed to enhance the luck factor a little as ever increasing blinds often force players to play hands they would normally lay down, the acceptability of the game and the massive influx of internet players, winning free seats to tournaments now cause the pros many problems in the tournaments, as they have never played the majority of the players they come up against in early play, that coupled with the fact they have learnt to play bad poker makes them somewhat unreadable, since they will often bet any hand from any position, thus making it impossible to "put them on a hand"
Despite all that it is however a fascinating game.

Yes I agree, tourneys are designed to increase the luck factor. That is what makes it so exciting.

My points were more about cash or ring games. This is where the skillful player can really set himself apart from the lucky ones. At least that has been my experience and I'm only a little bit skilled! haha

Cheers,
PKFFW