PDA

View Full Version : Real Bad With Math But...

awesomebryan
11-27-2006, 07:53 PM
If a computer simulation were run in which a "skilled" poker player beat an "unskilled" poker player 76% of the time over a million "games," would that not prove that poker is less than 50% chance? My reasoning is based on the idea that the "skilled" player could not win more than 50% of one million if the game were 100% chance and would win 100% if the game were 100% chance. Poker is considered an illegal lottery in Mass because it is assumed to be "predominatly" a game of chance rather than skill.
awesomebryan
11-27-2006, 07:54 PM
I meant would win 100% if the game were 100% skill.
JoseGonzlez
11-27-2006, 08:08 PM
i think the language of the law is a "game subject to chance".

so proving a better player would win x percentage of the time does not prove much.

i aint no lawyer but there are threads on this.
blackize
11-27-2006, 08:09 PM
Poker tends to have good players winning showdowns at slightly better than 50%. The skill difference comes in mainly in that the good player will win the big pots more often than he loses them.
bcubed72
11-28-2006, 03:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
i think the language of the law is a "game subject to chance".

so proving a better player would win x percentage of the time does not prove much.

i aint no lawyer but there are threads on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur.

I think Cali came down to predominately "game of skill" vs "game of chance." This would depend essentially on whether one takes the short-run or long-run perspective.

But (as anyone who's had aces cracked can attest) poker IS "subject to chance." IMO, this word choice seems to have been deliberately selected to prevent winning poker players (or any +EV gambler) from arguing this in court.

There has been an attempt to "end run" this provision by hosting tournaments where you and a competitor at another table get identical cards and the winner is detrmined by who does better. IMO, this is still subject to chance. (Suppose you both get AA. After a flop of J73 (rainbow), both of you correctly bet to thin the field. Your guy folds; his opponent stupidly check/calls ATW w/ 55 and rivers his set. Wouldn't that be "subject to chance?")