Instigator / Pro
35
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2484

Any Topic 2

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
6
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
5
0

After 5 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Pro waives round 1 and con posts a topic and definitions. Pro will CHOOSE HIS SIDE in round 2 (he can become con on the topic, and then con will argue pro side) and then they will debate the resolution. Have fun.

-->
@RationalMadman

It was an original topic, at the very least. It was an interesting debate to read. I don't know a lot about poker, so I did get lost at times.

-->
@SirAnonymous

He's not wrong, cash games are closer to chess' game theory than tournaments are.

The point is that tournaments involve far more (not less) theory and concepts. This was going to be very demanding for me to go in detail so I just gave it up. I also don't mind losing to someone that I regularly win against, on the topic that is going to demand the most out of me. It's a net-gain for me in terms of effort vs output in rating.

-->
@seldiora

Are you a chess fan?

-->
@Barney

vote pls?

-->
@Bullish

that doesn't make them less luck based, it makes them simpler. The fact you don't have to factor in the logical and emotional aspect of ICM and how shallow stacks evolve when it's worth a bluff and/or an honest shove, simply means that you aren't cut out for poker and game theory when your back is against the wall.

I will explain this more in the debate, but essentially the superior display if skill is when both are forced to take risks again and again. This can appear like luck, feel like luck and make people like Seldiora say there's no real guarantee of who wins tournaments repeatedly, yet how many bracelets did Hellmuth win vs other GOATs? Why was that? It's because he understood ICM and nuances of tournament poker long before they were mainstream-taught theories. Even now, not everyone truly grasps them.

Tourneys are fairer because everyone starts with the same amount of chips (barring rebuys and addons), but it's a good point that cash games are less luck based because the blinds don't go up.

-->
@Bullish

I'm curious what you think of this debate. By the way, I am debating the side I believe in this debate and I used to believe the Con side (Seldiora picked being Con).

You bring up some good points if you'd expand them but I'm going to win. Pro is the easier side to debate, to win as Con requires more abstract thinking.

-->
@seldiora

Your scholarly article doesn't even remotely suggest that onlime poker has no tournament format. There is not a single provider of online poker that lacks the tournament format but there are some that lack/struggle significantly with providing the ring-game format.

https://www.pokerology.com/lessons/cash-games-vs-tournaments/