Another Idea To Show That Poker Is "Less Than 50% Luck"

[David Sklansky]

This can only be done regarding ring game holdem. But it could still conceivably be another good argument. It would require the help of internet sites that can look at the hands after the fact.

But if they did that, they would see that the "best hand" wins far fewer than half the pots. At least at stakes above 25cents-50cents. In other words the hand that would win if all hands went to the river (or to the point where the hand ended) is not usually the winner of the pot. So the cards are less than 50% of the outcome and skill is more than 50%.

[Eaglesfan1]

David, I don't mean to hi-jack here, but didn't Billy Baxter already prove in the courts, when he faced the IRS in 1986, that poker is a game of skill meaning any income derived from poker is not unearned income, but earned income?

[ike]

The whole problem with these arguments is that "Is poker more or less than half luck?" is not a sufficiently specific question to be answered convincingly either way.

[mbpoker]

Obviously you mean to include hands that are folded before the flop. Why wouldn't this apply to tournament hands as well?

[DeNutza]

Why not just gather a huge collection of pro player win/loss
records?

It could be sort of like a collection of petition signatures,
but instead would be 100's of documented win/loss
records of professional poker players that win year
after year after year...

Seems like a pretty undisputable way to prove it.

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just gather a huge collection of pro player win/loss
records?

It could be sort of like a collection of petition signatures,
but instead would be 100's of documented win/loss
records of professional poker players that win year
after year after year...

Seems like a pretty undisputable way to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to say you're wrong, they can simply say it could still be 90% luck 10% skill, over the long run skill wins out, poker is still mostly luck. this is the problem: "poker is more than half luck (or skill)" doesn't mean anything and you can argue about it forever.

[repulse]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole problem with these arguments is that "Is poker more or less than half luck?" is not a sufficiently specific question to be answered convincingly either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

The predominance test is a farce. The way this question is posed implies that there is one mathematically correct answer, yet the approaches to answering this question tend to be based on heuristics or "gut feelings" about the nature of randomness.

Specifically, doesn't the premise of this question assume a measure that is not defined? And if "more than half luck" were to have specific meaning such as "an unskilled player beats a skilled player more than n% of the time" or "the ratio of standard deviation to mean of an average player's results exceeds n", the Central Limit Theorem provides for these thresholds to be broken after some sufficient length of play, causing the question to degenerate into "how many hands of poker do people play", which, to my knowledge, has never been addressed.

Clearly the continued existence and application of the predominance test demonstrates that such scientific rigor is not what the courts are looking for. Why are we allowing what should be a specific mathematical question to be obfuscated by heuristics? Ideally, the lawmakers should utilize academic experts to shape rulings about fields they know nothing about. At the very least, the statute should be reworded to what it truly is, an informal "feel" about whether a game is too luck-based or, in the case of the recent NC ruling, whether the luck in a game is inherent to its rules (shuffling of cards) rather than external (physical randomness and human error in golf), which, as you may expect, seems highly dubious to me.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not just gather a huge collection of pro player win/loss
records?

It could be sort of like a collection of petition signatures,
but instead would be 100's of documented win/loss
records of professional poker players that win year
after year after year...

Seems like a pretty undisputable way to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to say you're wrong, they can simply say it could still be 90% luck 10% skill, over the long run skill wins out, poker is still mostly luck. this is the problem: "poker is more than half luck (or skill)" doesn't mean anything and you can argue about it forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a thought. If luck evens out over the long term wouldn't it be fair to say that even if poker is 99% luck and 1% skill that it is "predominately skill" because the luck evens out? The only difference long term is caused by the skill factor.

I realize this would be a tough sell because people have a hard time understanding that luck evens out or short term vs long term, but I thought I'd throw this thought out anyway.

[autobet]

Similar, that those players seeing the most rivers are usually the biggest losers...so in order to be a winning player you must often fold the best hand or with having a chance of making the best hand to be a long term winner.

The online sites should be able to provide back up on rivers seen versus profit/loss per 100 hands.

Obviously, this is only a small part of the argument, but I think adds a nice logical piece that can be supported by millions of hands from the online sites.

[Skallagrim]

I dont like the "predominance test" either.

But in 2/3rds of the US states that is what we have to deal with unless the law is changed.

I respectfully suggest that it is far easier to come up with ways to make the predominance test work for us than it will be for us to make the courts and legislatures change their test.

I have proposed one method which I still have not seen refuted, Mr. Sklansky has proposed 2, one which I critiqued for not getting us to "more or less" chance, and this one, which does, at least for ring games, if the numbers bear him out (which I have little doubt they will).

Skallagrim

[Skallagrim]

Not wanting to be redundant, but in case you dont read all the threads in this forum, consider this:

A lot of you folks hung up on the short term/long term thing are basically confusing "skill" with "edge." On any given hand, skill OR luck will predominate, and Courts demand we prove that skill predominates more often than luck.

Skill can come in 2 forms, good skill and bad skill. Shooting a golf drive is a skill whether you are Tiger Woods or have never golfed before in your life. Likewise deciding whether to call, fold or raise is a skill whether your think like Phil Ivey or "the drunk tourist who has only played once before.'

Your "edge," however, is indeed something that is only sure to manifest itself over the long term, especially if your edge is a small one. Thus on any given hand, or on any given night, or any given session, it is likely that your edge (your skill ADVANTAGE) is not going to manifest itself, but over the long run it will (or at least should).

Your "Skill." on the other hand, will manifest itself ON EVERY PLAY YOU MAKE, whether good or bad. Sometimes it will make a difference, sometimes it wont. But it is always there, one way or another.

Accept this, and then you get to include "donk plays" as skill in the skill v. chance debate. See that, and beating the predominance test becomes a lot easier doesnt it?

Skallagrim

[catcher193]

lol skill vs chance debate.

[alphatmw]

wait a minute. lets pretend i invent a game in which 10 people are given 2 cards face up, antes an amount, and 5 community cards are dealt. no one is allowed to fold or do anything, thus making the game 100% luck. so the fact that the best hand before the community cards doesn't always win mean my game is somewhat skilled?

[EGO]

[ QUOTE ]
wait a minute. lets pretend i invent a game in which 10 people are given 2 cards face up, antes an amount, and 5 community cards are dealt. no one is allowed to fold or do anything, thus making the game 100% luck. so the fact that the best hand before the community cards doesn't always win mean my game is somewhat skilled?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The premise that a player only wins when they get good cards is faulty, and any conclusion that legislators derive from this bad premise is also faulty.

If your cards aren't the determining factor in whether or not you win, 100% of the time, then there must be some skill involved. This "sample game" illustrates this concept nicely, but still a bit ambiguously.

Edit: I liked Annie Duke's idea that a person could lose on purpose, and that would take some degree of skill - implying that winning also takes some skill.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wait a minute. lets pretend i invent a game in which 10 people are given 2 cards face up, antes an amount, and 5 community cards are dealt. no one is allowed to fold or do anything, thus making the game 100% luck. so the fact that the best hand before the community cards doesn't always win mean my game is somewhat skilled?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The premise that a player only wins when they get good cards is faulty

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean that's true for the real world and not the invented game, right? Because the only skill here is deciding not to play (and/or finding a casino with a lower rake on this Never Fold'em Holdem) unless I've missed something.

[EGO]

The point is that the cards aren't the only determining factor in the outcome of any particular hold'em hand. If it isn't 100% luck-of-the draw, then some skill is involved.

DS's exercise shows that the premise that non-poker players hold regarding poker is invalid. I'm sure that he doesn't propose his 10-player showdown exercise as a "skill" game.

[David Sklansky]

" I liked Annie Duke's idea that a person could lose on purpose, and that would take some degree of skill - implying that winning also takes some skill."

That was my son Mat's idea. First written about here a few months ago.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
" I liked Annie Duke's idea that a person could lose on purpose, and that would take some degree of skill - implying that winning also takes some skill."

That was my son Mat's idea. First written about here a few months ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sigh.

No respect I tell you.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9190233&page=5&vc=1

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that the cards aren't the only determining factor in the outcome of any particular hold'em hand. If it isn't 100% luck-of-the draw, then some skill is involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess so, but at least at the lower limits, all of the winning players are winning fewer than their fair share of the pots, not more (because they fold much more pre and postflop.)

[Skallagrim]

The whole point of Sklansky's exercise is to show that here is a significant statistical difference between having the 2 best starting cards and winning the hand. Of course there is a chance element in poker and the 2 best cards may be outdrawn.

For illustration, lets say the figures show that with no other action, the best starting cards win 85% of the time, but with player actions the best starting cards win only 30% of the time. Conclusion, player actions (skill) are making the 55% difference.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that the cards aren't the only determining factor in the outcome of any particular hold'em hand. If it isn't 100% luck-of-the draw, then some skill is involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess so, but at least at the lower limits, all of the winning players are winning fewer than their fair share of the pots, not more (because they fold much more pre and postflop.)

[/ QUOTE ]

So WHAT? Are they winning more than their fair share of money, with all of that overlay in such NFEHE games?

THAT should be the focus, not the cards or who won the hand

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that the cards aren't the only determining factor in the outcome of any particular hold'em hand. If it isn't 100% luck-of-the draw, then some skill is involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess so, but at least at the lower limits, all of the winning players are winning fewer than their fair share of the pots, not more (because they fold much more pre and postflop.)

[/ QUOTE ]

So WHAT? Are they winning more than their fair share of money, with all of that overlay in such NFEHE games?

THAT should be the focus, not the cards or who won the hand

[/ QUOTE ]

well yeah, i agree, that's why i think that OP's argument sucks.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's a thought. If luck evens out over the long term wouldn't it be fair to say that even if poker is 99% luck and 1% skill that it is "predominately skill" because the luck evens out? The only difference long term is caused by the skill factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luck does not even out in the long run. Don't know where that silly notion came from.
Luck is a function of the square root of time. Skill is a linear function of time. As time approaches infinity, skill becomes a larger portion of the equation than luck. This time period may be extremely long. Some people are just unlucky and it may last a lifetime.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole point of Sklansky's exercise is to show that here is a significant statistical difference between having the 2 best starting cards and winning the hand. Of course there is a chance element in poker and the 2 best cards may be outdrawn.

For illustration, lets say the figures show that with no other action, the best starting cards win 85% of the time, but with player actions the best starting cards win only 30% of the time. Conclusion, player actions (skill) are making the 55% difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have misunderstood me. This isn't about starting hands. Its about the fact that in normal holdem ring games, the player who wins the pot is not usually th player who would have wound up with the best hand. Because that player has folded somewhere along the line.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not just gather a huge collection of pro player win/loss
records?

It could be sort of like a collection of petition signatures,
but instead would be 100's of documented win/loss
records of professional poker players that win year
after year after year...

Seems like a pretty undisputable way to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to say you're wrong, they can simply say it could still be 90% luck 10% skill, over the long run skill wins out, poker is still mostly luck. this is the problem: "poker is more than half luck (or skill)" doesn't mean anything and you can argue about it forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a thought. If luck evens out over the long term wouldn't it be fair to say that even if poker is 99% luck and 1% skill that it is "predominately skill" because the luck evens out? The only difference long term is caused by the skill factor.

I realize this would be a tough sell because people have a hard time understanding that luck evens out or short term vs long term, but I thought I'd throw this thought out anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

The basic premise is incorrect. Luck DOESNT "even out in the long run", which is why "sklansky dollars" is such a funny concept. If you play a 50/50 game of pure chance and hit a losing streak and are -100 after 1000 trials, luck isnt expected to "even out" in the next 1000, 10000, 10 million etc trials. Pick any number short of infinity and your predicted position is still -100.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole point of Sklansky's exercise is to show that here is a significant statistical difference between having the 2 best starting cards and winning the hand. Of course there is a chance element in poker and the 2 best cards may be outdrawn.

For illustration, lets say the figures show that with no other action, the best starting cards win 85% of the time, but with player actions the best starting cards win only 30% of the time. Conclusion, player actions (skill) are making the 55% difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have misunderstood me. This isn't about starting hands. Its about the fact that in normal holdem ring games, the player who wins the pot is not usually th player who would have wound up with the best hand. Because that player has folded somewhere along the line.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but then the task for our site operator friends is different too, they must look at only a sample of hands that went to showdown (or you cant know all the cards) then compare everyone's hole cards.

Using this method then couples the "every hand that didnt go to showdown must be a skill result" argument with "and every hand where what otherwise would have been the winner didnt win, must be a skill result."

Thank you for devising a way to quantify the second point of my Poker is Skill argument (that skill exists even in hands that do see all the cards).

Any takers oh ye with large databases?

Skallagrim

[jackaaron]

There needs to be a "level of difficult" introduced into the argument. I think I'll probably get flamed for this, but in an effort to look at every angle...

If you have only 3 outs to win, your level of difficulty is very high. You'll win, but not as often.

Some of the better 3 point shooters in the NBA don't make 100% of their shots. The 3 point shot has a higher level of difficulty in it versus a lay up, or dunk.

Did the opposing team get lucky because Steve Kerr missed a 3 pointer? Not hardly.

Did my opponent get lucky because she cracked my aces with her pair of 4's when we got all in? Not hardly. My aces don't win 100% of the time.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
There needs to be a "level of difficult" introduced into the argument. I think I'll probably get flamed for this, but in an effort to look at every angle...

If you have only 3 outs to win, your level of difficulty is very high. You'll win, but not as often.

Some of the better 3 point shooters in the NBA don't make 100% of their shots. The 3 point shot has a higher level of difficulty in it versus a lay up, or dunk.

Did the opposing team get lucky because Steve Kerr missed a 3 pointer? Not hardly.

Did my opponent get lucky because she cracked my aces with her pair of 4's when we got all in? Not hardly. My aces don't win 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think the comparison is a good one.

The player with 4-4 DID get "lucky" in cracking A-A (granted, we have to define "lucky"), as no skill at all was involved in having the 4 fall on the flop/turn/river. The cracking of Aces in and of itself was lucky. Where skill (or lack thereof) comes into play is in how the competitors played before and after the Aces were cracked.

Did A-A raise? Did A-A limp? Did 4-4 raise? Was the money all-in pre-flop? Did the 4-4 flop a set and proceed to milk all of her opponent's chips? Did the 4-4 flop a set and not maximize her winnings? Did the A-A see the danger and get out of dodge? Did the two try to make plays against each other (smartly or not) and then see the 4 fall on the river? Etc., etc.

Just because A-A doesn't win every single time doesn't mean it's not unlucky when A-A gets cracked. Again, we'd have to define "lucky," but if someone hits a two-outer to crack A-A, I'd say that's lucky. It's the play surrounding the luck that involves skill.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There needs to be a "level of difficult" introduced into the argument. I think I'll probably get flamed for this, but in an effort to look at every angle...

If you have only 3 outs to win, your level of difficulty is very high. You'll win, but not as often.

Some of the better 3 point shooters in the NBA don't make 100% of their shots. The 3 point shot has a higher level of difficulty in it versus a lay up, or dunk.

Did the opposing team get lucky because Steve Kerr missed a 3 pointer? Not hardly.

Did my opponent get lucky because she cracked my aces with her pair of 4's when we got all in? Not hardly. My aces don't win 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think the comparison is a good one.

The player with 4-4 DID get "lucky" in cracking A-A (granted, we have to define "lucky"), as no skill at all was involved in having the 4 fall on the flop/turn/river. The cracking of Aces in and of itself was lucky. Where skill (or lack thereof) comes into play is in how the competitors played before and after the Aces were cracked.

Did A-A raise? Did A-A limp? Did 4-4 raise? Was the money all-in pre-flop? Did the 4-4 flop a set and proceed to milk all of her opponent's chips? Did the 4-4 flop a set and not maximize her winnings? Did the A-A see the danger and get out of dodge? Did the two try to make plays against each other (smartly or not) and then see the 4 fall on the river? Etc., etc.

Just because A-A doesn't win every single time doesn't mean it's not unlucky when A-A gets cracked. Again, we'd have to define "lucky," but if someone hits a two-outer to crack A-A, I'd say that's lucky. It's the play surrounding the luck that involves skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, we need to get away from the "luck" part of it.

That's part of the problem because "luck" is just a superstition anyhow.

It's chance. And, when you talk about chance, you know right away that Aces aren't supposed to win 100% of the time against 44.

Correct?

So, the person with 44 didn't get lucky. They won because a small percentage of the time they are SUPPOSED to win.

Right? I mean, you're not supposed to lose with 44 vs. AA every single time you go up against it.

[popesc]

My problem with the original argument is that if you apply it to casino table games generally thought of as chance it makes them look skillful.

For instance, if I knew the dealer's hole card in BJ, and the cards that I could hit with, then I would make perfect decisions. I know that I don't make perfect decisions without this information, and therefore when my hand is "best" I don't always win. (Although I'm not sure this would affect 50% of my decisions).

We would need a lot of analysis to see if this is even a good test, and if you were to explain this to a judge you'd lose her once you started talking statistics.

Edit: fixed a grammer mistake, probably have others.

[EGO]

OK, I get it now.

- A game of skill requires some decision making that affects the outcome.
- Poker is a game which the outcome is affected by decisions.

Hence:

Poker is a game of skill.

----

Maybe someone else could come up with a better definition of skill, or rework my argument into a framework that makes more logical sense.

Edit: I'm not sure I like Mat's idea anymore, since I could devise a strategy that was guaranteed to lose in other games, like roulette. Just about any gambling game that isn't lottery-like, in fact.

[Skallagrim]

You got the first part EGO.

The second part is: how do you show that poker is MOSTLY determined by skill (thats what the law requires to remove it from gambling laws).

Skallagrim

[EGO]

Mostly skill? As in more than half skill?

In perusing my poker library for discussios of luck, I rediscover that TOP talks about this in Chapter 1.

[ QUOTE ]
... expert players do not rely on luck. They are at war with luck. They use their skills to minimize luck as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I don't own any of Mason's books that talk about standard deviations, but from what I understand it's a statistical measurement of luck (among other things) when applied to poker.

If poker players are at war with luck, then it should stand to reason that they are trying (perhaps unconsciously) to lower their standard deviation in a game. Lower than a random hand, that is.

What is the standard deviation in terms of winrate for someone who plays every hand, or at least more than is recommended - i.e., an unskillful player?

I find that when I'm "running well", my SD is very low, often under 8 or 9BB/100, while when I'm running badly it's often over 17 or 18BB/100.

Hell, I don't even know if any of this applies, but it seems that if a person can affect their SD to a certain degree (N degrees, perhaps), then what amount of N does a person have to affect his SD by to count as "mostly skill".

Food for thought, maybe.

[yahboohoo]

Sklansky's idea reframes the discussion in a thought-provoking way. Everyone who plays poker well believes poker is a "game of skill." Fine, but proving it is a game of skill isn't the issue.

The government claims jurisdiction in situations where a monetary sum is awarded based on at least 50% luck/chance. Simply put, Sklansky is suggesting it is irrelevant what the other 51% of the game is, as long as the courts accept that luck/chance is less than or equal to 49.99% of the game.

I like the idea, if only because it stimulates thoughts and discussions about poker from a different perspective. Many of the "luck vs. skill" arguments imply that these are the only two factors, and that the debate hinges on where you draw the line between the two. I think Sklansky's idea challenges that assumption. For instance, do you bundle "psychology" and "math" all under the "skill" umbrella? I suppose you can. Sklansky is merely saying it doesn't matter.

My hunch is that the courts will reject most of the systems people suggest to prove the % of luck. Statistically valid proof should apply to all forms of poker (7S, NL, HE, etc.), all limits and consider all hands, whether shown down or not. There may be some difference between tournaments and cash games, but my intuition says there isn't.

That Banker in The Big Game had as much of a theory on what poker "is" as anyone. His theory was that poker was (100%?) psychology, and that there was a certain amount of money that would make anyone fold, even the superskilled pros. He was curious to see how a seasoned pro would react to a $1,000,000 bet. Would the pro "play his game," or crumble under the pressure?

Good poker players will have a hard time admitting that their game is actually affected by their psychological relationship to money. Many/most players loosen up at lower-than-normal limits and tighten-up at higher-than-normal limits. At the farthest extreme limits (say 1penny-2penny and $50,000-$100,000 blinds), the decisions you'd be making would almost be entirely psychological (not logical and mathematical).

Like it or not, we are emotional beings who struggle against very basic, primordial instincts like fear and greed. Inasmuch, you could argue that the "skill" in poker hinges on one's ability to detect and exploit the psychological tendencies of one's opponents. You could have the math aspect of the game licked --as well or better than Sklansky-- and still be a sucky, losing poker player.

EDIT: Ask yourself this question. Could you bluff [insert the value of your house here] on the river? How does your answer relate to the "luck" debate?

[Skallagrim]

So yahooboo, agreeing that what is legally required is showing that less than 50% of poker outcomes are determined by chance, what is wrong with the following proof:

Chance in poker is the random distribution of the cards. If all the cards are not played, and one's opponents cards are never seen, can the random distribution of the cards be determining the outcome? If the answer there is no, and since over 50% of poker outcomes in real money Hold-em, Omaha and 7-Stud are determined when all but one folds (and hence not all the cards are seen) poker must be less than 50% chance.

[EGO]

I was thinking a similar thought last night, before going to bed...

"Are we incorrect in assuming that poker is a game of only luck and skill? Are there other elements that come into play besides these two."

I hadn't thought of the psychological bit, but I'm not sure it matters. Proving that poker is less than 50% luck might be easier than proving that skill is more than 50%.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking a similar thought last night, before going to bed...

"Are we incorrect in assuming that poker is a game of only luck and skill? Are there other elements that come into play besides these two."

I hadn't thought of the psychological bit, but I'm not sure it matters. Proving that poker is less than 50% luck might be easier than proving that skill is more than 50%.

[/ QUOTE ]

No disrespect EGO, but this is because you (and others) keep equating "Skill" with "good/correct play." Me, I think its skill whenever a human is exercising a human ability. Psychology is a good example; if i take a read on my opponents generally, and see things that give me information on their thinking, and act on that information, I would maintain that I am engaging in an act of skill EVEN IF I AM COMPLETLEY WRONG AND SCREW UP THE HAND AND EVERYONE THINKS I AM AN IDIOT.

But since I cant get you guys to see that, you have taught me precisely what I said above: from now on I speak about proving its less than 50% chance, which, legally, is just as good.

Skallagrim

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]

But since I cant get you guys to see that,

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said already... (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10294636&Main=10205719#P ost10294636)

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
So yahooboo, agreeing that what is legally required is showing that less than 50% of poker outcomes are determined by chance, what is wrong with the following proof:

Chance in poker is the random distribution of the cards. If all the cards are not played, and one's opponents cards are never seen, can the random distribution of the cards be determining the outcome? If the answer there is no, and since over 50% of poker outcomes in real money Hold-em, Omaha and 7-Stud are determined when all but one folds (and hence not all the cards are seen) poker must be less than 50% chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
To be clear, are you saying that the majority of poker hands are folded without a showdown, ergo chance, mathematics and probability are not significant factors? Essentially that the actual cards themselves are irrelevant in 51%+ of poker hands?

If so, this is certainly an argument I can get behind. The problem is, the courts won't necessarily agree with the stipulation that "51%+ hands are folded without a showdown." As someone may have pointed out earlier, what about NoFoldem Holdem? What about HU, where many hands get to the showdown?

The courts seem to believe poker is a game where the players compete with each other to see who has the best hand at the end. They will likely remain trenchant in their belief that decisions you and I make during the course of a poker game are going to be "51%+ influenced by the cards we're dealt, and the cards on the board." But my decision to bluff the turn has nothing to do with the cards in my hand. It's the same thing when everyone check-check-checks the turn and the river to my button. I'm betting because I can (and because I think they'll all fold).

Poker is more like the game of Chicken, and Chicken isn't a game of chance. It's a psychological game of nerves, testing to see who flinches first. In those hands where a player isn't holding the absolute nuts (certainly less than 50% - lol), poker is a game of nerve.

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]
... and since over 50% of poker outcomes in real money Hold-em, Omaha and 7-Stud are determined when all but one folds (and hence not all the cards are seen) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe this is true? Or is this something you are trying to prove with the databases?

I can't imagine it would be true for limit games or games with high antes or rakes.

Would a poker game then be illegal if it went to show down more than 50% of the time?

[Skallagrim]

Its true from my personal experience in all but freerolls and microlimit. I think all would agree that its true for No Limit.

I have seen 2 databases (one posted in this forum by TruePokerCEO, in the last Sklansky thread) that show around 2/3rds of hands are finished before the last card.

And I do not concede that hands that do go to showdown are chance results - but thats a seperate argument.

Skallagrim

[EGO]

I just had an idea.

I remember reading an analogy of poker to a sport, one that is fairly unlikely - curling. Those guys with their little brooms sweeping off micrometers of ice to nudge the stone a bit one way or the other - sounds just like poker.

Luck would be the stone, of course. Skill would be the brooms, applying their tiny edge to modify luck, and starting hands would be the guy who pitches the stone. Put it this way, if you pitch your stone towards the wall of the rink (play 72o frequently), then no amount of sweeping (poker skill), will be enough to change the momentum of the stone (you can't overcome luck in this case).

... or something like that. If curling is primarily a skill game, then poker certainly is. I think the analogy is certainly closer than golf or baseball.

Despite what the NC law says, I'm not sure we even need to prove that poker is over half skill. I'm not certain that it is (I've gone into that) for most players.

------

Another idea, regarding the long term/short term argument.

How many hands would an expert have to play in order to book a win over that stretch (with something like a 99% confidence)? I see questions like this all the time in the maths forums - How many people do you have to ask to get two people with the same birthday - those sorts of questions. These answers seem pretty reliable.

A related question would be: How many hands would an expert have to play in order for his winrate over those hands to become equal to his previous lifetime winrate? For example, if an expert is a 2BB/100 winner on December 31 (over something like 500K hands), how many hands would he have to play for his winrate to normalize from the next day on to his previous 2BB/100, within a high confidence rate?

Somebody get BruceZ in here, already!

[Skallagrim]

Now I think you are going a little to far afield EGO.

The test is not whether Poker is a game of skill for any particular player, or even the mythical "average" player.

The test has to center on the nature of the game itself (as TruePokerCEO said before).

Do the rules of poker and the random distribution of the cards mean that chance is the predominant factor in determining the outcome of poker? Thats the legal test we are stuck with.

[cmcneilly]

Sorry, coming late to the party, but if skill applies to both good and bad decisions, than what about creating a bot that makes random decisions (fold, call, bet/raise equally) and turn it loose (with site permission of course)? Not sure how you would than equate that back to >50% of skill.

[yahboohoo]

How about this question:

"How much of poker is not getting unlucky?"

- lol

[Fold 4 Value]

How about asking someone to read TOP, cover to cover, and then state if they think it is a game of luck or not.

While this wouldn't answer the "how much" luck is involved question it would be a solid start.

Maybe David could send Autographed copies of TOP to our elected officials. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Tuff_Fish]

Check out this article. This is a weekly poker column that appears in the San Diego Union Tribune every Friday.

poker article (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070511/news_lz1c11poker.html)

“That's the lesson in every hand,” Madsen said. “You're going to make money in poker if you learn to read the person. The cards do matter in certain situations, but in the long run, everybody gets the same cards, so it's how you play them against certain people.”

Poker is a game of skill.

Tuff

Oops
.

[TimTimSalabim]

I haven't read through all of the threads on this topic. Has anyone considered the angle that poker players have backers?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
How about asking someone to read TOP, cover to cover, and then state if they think it is a game of luck or not.

While this wouldn't answer the "how much" luck is involved question it would be a solid start.

Maybe David could send Autographed copies of TOP to our elected officials. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a bad idea. If someone can compile names and addresses and work out the right strategy as far as an accompanying letter and the best way to get it to them, I'll provide the books and the signature.

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe David could send Autographed copies of TOP to our elected officials. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't get legislators to read bills before they vote on them. How are you going to get them to read TOP?

[Fold 4 Value]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about asking someone to read TOP, cover to cover, and then state if they think it is a game of luck or not.

While this wouldn't answer the "how much" luck is involved question it would be a solid start.

Maybe David could send Autographed copies of TOP to our elected officials. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a bad idea. If someone can compile names and addresses and work out the right strategy as far as an accompanying letter and the best way to get it to them, I'll provide the books and the signature.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

I found address lists for the House and Senate.

As far as a strategy, I'm not sure about that. The directories I found are for the reps DC office. Not sure if thats the best place to send them or not.

I'll research the process later in the week when I have more time, busy with finals this week.

Anybody done anything like this before or know if there are any obvious legal issues here?

I'd say the letter should say what is enclosed, include a short bio, and ask them to spend some time with the book. Maybe a excerpt on the letter? reference the UIGEA?



House, different formats on upper right (http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html)

Senate (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)