[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by cowherjaw

If the point of your central premise is that bridge and cribbage are card games where the primary strategy is around doiing things with the cards in your hand and hold'em and BJ are games where the strategy is in how you make betting decisions then we can be in agreement.

It is my premise. But not my central premise. And we're mostly in agreement. (I think BJ is also a card-playing game. It's a rather silly one. And an absolute CHORE to play for long periods of time. (The free drinks help immensely in that regard.) But the card player has decisions to make. Compare to the BJ dealer. He or she is just a card-playing automaton.)

My central premise is: Put any two cribbage players up against each other in a best of five series, and you'll know who the better player is. There is no buying the pot, intimidation, tells, or any other BS. It is a game decided ONLY by card-playing ability. You could take 1,000 cribbage players, pair them off randomly in a tournament, and six or eight players would make the "final table." Then you could take those same 1,000 cribbage players, pair them off randomly again, and the SAME six or eight players would make the final table.

Many poker players confuse "gambling prowess" with "card-playing ability." Just because they're gambling on a card game does not mean that they're expert card players. They could gamble on "war" or even "52-pick up" because those two games take EXACTLY the same amount of card-playing skill as Hold'em, which is, "none at all."

Unlike the "put any two cribbage players" scenario, put 1,000 poker players in a tournament, and you'll get wildly different results every time. While the better gamblers will certainly advance further in the tournament as a rule, an "all in" bad beat can kill their chances. There are no "all in bad beats" in a game like cribbage. Luck is FAR less of a factor. Which is why casinos aren't interested in million-dollar cribbage championships.

[cowherjaw]

I have trouble with the central premise because my experience has been different. I think best of 5 is too short of a series to have the luck element not become a significant factor. I also think that the basic cribbage skills can be learned to the extent that once one gets a certain level of skill then there is not a significant difference between good cribbage player and expert cribbage player such that luck couldn't tilt the scales in a best of 5.

Just yesterday, I dialed up a friend online and played. We have comparable skill but I have historically won more than I lost against him. The series went 3-2, 2-3 and 0-3. In the last series, I watched him get a 28 when I had 8, a 24 when I had 5, and two 20s when I had 10 and 11. Unless there is a drastic skill differential, that's quite a bit to overcome without luck intervening again. I understand that luck evens out over time (as it does in poker); I just don't think a best of 5 is a satisfactory amount of time. I also contend that if you give the expert poker player a best of 5 against the novice, even with the all-in bad beats, that the expert will end up besting the novice the vast majority of the time. Your scenario gave the cribbage player a series scenario with which to overcome bad luck yet the poker player got do or die.

I agree that there are way fewer bad beats (meaning luck determined games) in cribbage than in poker and that the all-in move levels the playing field in that game. I just don't think the disparity is as large as you think it is. If I could select the cut card every third hand in a cribbage game (only 3-4 times per game), there is not an expert out there that I fear.

[ElleTea]

Okay, really? WHO CARES???

[cowherjaw]

Originally Posted by ElleTea

Okay, really? WHO CARES???

2 people on a discussion board were having a discussion on a subtopic after the main topic of the thread ran its course. They were actually discussing ideas intellectually and courteously without putting each other down, and they were constantly making progress toward agreement on points and yet this is what you choose to comment on out of all the threads here?

Please feel free to spend your time on all the other threads here that you care about. I am sorry that the topic of gambling and casinos doesn't meet your standards for interest in a Las Vegas forum. I will try to stick to threads about where to live and dogs finding toads in the backyard because now I know that's what people care about.

[ElleTea]

Originally Posted by cowherjaw

2 people on a discussion board were having a discussion on a subtopic after the main topic of the thread ran its course. They were actually discussing ideas intellectually and courteously without putting each other down, and they were constantly making progress toward agreement on points and yet this is what you choose to comment on out of all the threads here?

Please feel free to spend your time on all the other threads here that you care about. I am sorry that the topic of gambling and casinos doesn't meet your standards for interest in a Las Vegas forum. I will try to stick to threads about where to live and dogs finding toads in the backyard because now I know that's what people care about.

It was bickering and name calling and completely ridiculous. And from the reps I got for my comment I'd say I was just saying what everyone was thinking

[von949]

I get reps from some of my thought provoking posts, humorous posts and some that are plain stupid or just don't make any sense. 70% o the time it's anonymous. So I figure most people just rep just to rep. It's the direct messages that really mean something here.

I can go a week or two without receiving a rep point yet I hardly can go a couple of days without a message from a regular poster or even better; someone that has never posted.

Anyway, back to the gamblers versus non gamblers.


Sent from phone using app

[ElleTea]

The reps I was referring to had comments attached regarding this thread. There were quite a few

[cowherjaw]

Originally Posted by ElleTea

It was bickering and name calling and completely ridiculous. And from the reps I got for my comment I'd say I was just saying what everyone was thinking

One person's bickering is another person's debate and there was absolutely no name calling in my exhcange with Scoop (I challenge you to find any). Scoop and I presented each other with facts and anecdotes to make our points to each other. Again, I am sorry if the topic doesn't interest you (and obviously others), but perhaps a better approach is to just ignore topics you don't like as opposed to interjecting a snippy comment that adds nothing to content.

I don't know you, and you have nothing constructive to add to this topic; however, maybe your third comment at me will be made with civility instead of sarcasm and venom or perhaps you'll do what you should have done in the first place which is read a post you don't care about and have no real feedback on and choose to just move on instead of reply.

I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot; maybe our next exchange will be better.