Poker is Luck

[Orlando Salazar]

First thing, poker IS game of chance, especially when experienced players go head to head. The person who gets the most setup hands and trapping opportunities will win, even if he's a slightly worse player. CTS has admitted to having 30 bi downswings and running hot over 100k hands, which is more hands than most people will ever play in their life. Yes, over 200k hands, you can def be sure that if someone is up $, that they are good relative to their competition. But the that is not the point. We have a right to gamble because it doesn't infringe on another persons OPPORTUNITY to pursue life liberty and happiness. Poker is still a luck game for most people. Lets not lie to get what we want. Lets be honest and say we have a right to play poker just like we have a right to free speech (used to at least).

[jschell]

Over the long run, poker is a game of skill. Period.

In the short term, poker is mostly chance. What you're talking about in your examples is the short term.

Yes, we should be able to play poker because we are adults and should be able to choose what we do with our money, but poker is also a game of skill (in the long run).

[FatalError]

SALAZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Orlando Salazar]

if you read, I said most people will never see the long run...its quite true.

[Grasshopp3r]

Most people will never win at a lot of things, poker included. Please either acknowledge that short term and long term skill vs. luck is an accepted and tested theory or put your own explanation forward. So far, you seem to be confused on some of the concepts.

The title of your thread should be "Poker is free speech", which I think was where you were going.

[jschell]

[ QUOTE ]
if you read, I said most people will never see the long run...its quite true.

[/ QUOTE ]
That does not affect whether or not poker is a game of skill.

We're all playing the same game. Poker can't be a game of skill for some people and a game of chance for others.

[Orlando Salazar]

I wanted the title to attract attention. I do acknowledge skill wins out if you read my post. But 100k hands is not the long term. Most people will never even play that many hands. So, over the term of the average player's poker life, luck will dominate. If I were a judge, I'd say poker is effectively a luck game for even a knowledgable and skilled player over the short term. 2+2ers who play 400k hands or more a year don't represent the average player.

[mungpo]

You are saying that it is a luck game but can be a skilled game if you play a lot of hands and make good decisions. Sounds like any professional sport.

[ilikeaces86_]

[ QUOTE ]
SALAZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRR

[/ QUOTE ]

[Orlando Salazar]

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying that it is a luck game but can be a skilled game if you play a lot of hands and make good decisions. Sounds like any professional sport.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup. But should we make legal arguments weighted skill (which takes a while to show) or constitutional rights? I say NEITHER cause this country has gone to hell and our constitution is for sale.

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SALAZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRR

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[mungpo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SALAZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRR

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[jschell]

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted the title to attract attention.

[/ QUOTE ]
You clearly didn't start this thread to debate whether or not poker is a game of skill.

Posting on 2+2 is definitely a game of skill. Please don't create threads with misleading titles just to attract attention.

[Orlando Salazar]

Whatev, you're silly. Poker is luck over the average poker players life. 2+2ers are not average players. I think its a stupid argument to say winning poker is skill when most players won't play long enough for that to be true.

[jschell]

Poker is the same game whether you play one hand or one million. You don't change the nature of the game by playing more hands.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its a stupid argument to say winning poker is skill when most players won't play long enough for that to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I think this is a stupid statement.

[repulse]

Yeah, this argument is absurd, at least from a legislative perspective. Notice that this argument clearly addresses quantitative things (the fact that standard error decreases over a larger sample), yet still concludes with an undefined, qualitative classification "luck or skill lol".

Let's refine it and see what happens.

If this argument WERE something that court decisions and laws should be crafted around, then our government would be operating upon a quantitative "luck threshold" of variance-to-mean of lifetime average winrates that determines where the "long term" begins. A casual poker player would probably be well above this threshold (more luck in his lifetime results, since they are over a small sample), while a full-time multitabling 2+2er would be well below this threshold (millions of hands played lifetime).

But assuming the existence/establishment of such a legislated variance-to-mean threshold leads to a lot of ridiculous and convoluted implications. For one, a new type of poker game (with less luck) could be crafted such that the variance-to-mean ratio of an average player's lifetime would be just below the threshold... but then any player who played less hands in their life than the average player would be victim to an illegal amount of variance, oh noes! It appears that basing legislative decisions upon the typical player's lifetime standard error is impossible (or at least inconsistent).

[Orlando Salazar]

hey, nice points.

[Skallagrim]

If I didnt know better, I would think this is a thread started by a troll just to get me going.

The best point so far was made by jschell: when I play golf, its all luck (the ball goes wherever, sometimes good, sometimes bad), when Tiger Woods plays golf, its around 95% skill (the ball almost always goes where he intends). So is golf a game of skill? Not by your reasoning Sallazar, because most golfers are more like me than like Mr. Woods.

You cant say whether a game is mostly luck or skill by concentrating on the player, you have to concentrate on the game. And since golf is mostly about the skill of hitting, golf is a skill game.

Likewise, poker is mostly about decision making; make the right decisions and win more often, make the wrong decisions and lose more often.

You guys who think its luck in the short run are not talking about the game of poker, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR GAME.

You are saying you can only make a difference once in a while. That is because your not as skilled as you think and because of the cards you are getting. BUT THIS POINT IS NOT EVEN RELEVENT TO DETERMINING WHETHER POKER IS A GAME OF SKILL OR NOT.

If you knew the difference between "edge" and "skill" you would instanly know what I am talking about. But you dont, and you wont learn it either. You will keep saying the same old tired, irrelevant truism because you can never admit that you are wrong.

Poker is a game where decisions determine more outcomes than the cards. Decisions are the product of skill. Just because YOUR ability to make decisions only allows you to show an edge over the long run or when you are getting cards does not mean that poker becomes a game of chance. Poker is Poker.

Skallagrim

[Orlando Salazar]

Poker RESULTS over the short term are luck. You are crazy if you think otherwise. I can get $ in as a favorite many times and still lose money. Slanksly/Galfond bux over the short term are skill. But they have to be averaged in OVER TIME to match results with expectation.

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker RESULTS over the short term are luck. You are crazy if you think otherwise. I can get $ in as a favorite many times and still lose money. Slanksly/Galfond bux over the short term are skill. But they have to be averaged in OVER TIME to match results with expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just wrong. People often confuse variance with bad play. If someone plays 200nl as their top limit, that means they have a razor thin edge against their competition, and thus the big swings. Most of the down in those big swings comes not from variance, but from people playing better than they are. If your edge over a game is 2BB/100, then you're going to have huge swings in variance. If your edge is 15BB/100, not so much. Variance does not mean "I played every hand as well as it could be played and still lost money." What it means is "I have some sort of an edge in a game, only it hasn't shown itself in the results in whatever time period." The vast majority of the variance is not caused by bad luck, but by lack of skill. How many losing sessions do you think aba is gonna have at nl100? I'm gonna go with like never.

Salazar, obviously in games with like skilled players (like high stakes) there are going to be large swings, and since the players are so closely matched it will take a while for those razor thin edges that some have to show themselves out. This does not mean that poker isn't a game of skill though. It just means that when the players are pretty much even, anyone can win on a given night...just like any other competitive anything. Even skill levels does not equal luck.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker RESULTS over the short term are luck. You are crazy if you think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
At $10 NL, I will win 9 out of 10 sessions, consistently.
At $1000 NL I will win 1 out of 10 sessions.

Please tell me how that fits into your "poker-is-luck" theory.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker RESULTS over the short term are luck. You are crazy if you think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
At $10 NL, I will win 9 out of 10 sessions, consistently.
At $1000 NL I will win 1 out of 10 sessions.


[/ QUOTE ]

you must have really long sessions if this is true.

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker RESULTS over the short term are luck. You are crazy if you think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
At $10 NL, I will win 9 out of 10 sessions, consistently.
At $1000 NL I will win 1 out of 10 sessions.


[/ QUOTE ]

you must have really long sessions if this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to be a relatively novice player to lose money at 10nl for more than a few hundred hands. The players will stack off will unbelievable hands, never do anything unpredictable, and use a "I HAVE THE FKIN NUTS" line when they get a hand.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker RESULTS over the short term are luck. You are crazy if you think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
At $10 NL, I will win 9 out of 10 sessions, consistently.
At $1000 NL I will win 1 out of 10 sessions.


[/ QUOTE ]

you must have really long sessions if this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to be a relatively novice player to lose money at 10nl for more than a few hundred hands. The players will stack off will unbelievable hands, never do anything unpredictable, and use a "I HAVE THE FKIN NUTS" line when they get a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know a lot about ssnl. the 90% and 10% numbers are too far apart.

[SpleenLSD]

Dumb. Poker is chess + variance.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker RESULTS over the short term are luck. You are crazy if you think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
At $10 NL, I will win 9 out of 10 sessions, consistently.
At $1000 NL I will win 1 out of 10 sessions.


[/ QUOTE ]

you must have really long sessions if this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to be a relatively novice player to lose money at 10nl for more than a few hundred hands. The players will stack off will unbelievable hands, never do anything unpredictable, and use a "I HAVE THE FKIN NUTS" line when they get a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know a lot about ssnl. the 90% and 10% numbers are too far apart.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I've only played (in moments of sheer stupidity) $1000 NL 6 times, and I've won none of those times. So, I was being generous at 10%. I made an assumption that I might perhaps win 1 time in the next 4.

Regardless of the true numbers, the point is that I can consistently beat $10 and not $1000. How does that fit the "poker is luck" theory? It's the same game.

[nineinchal]

[ QUOTE ]
SALAZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRR

[/ QUOTE ]

SALAZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can never overemphasize emphasis.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, poker is mostly chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is not "mostly chance" in the short-term. A game is either chance or skill, it can't be one or the other, and it can't be all luck one day, but then two weeks later its suddenly skill.

Poker is about determining/estimating how much value your opponent believes his hand possesses, and comparing that value to the value of your hand. This is a skill based task.

People who don't do this are playing games of chance, but when I swing a golf club I am playing a game of chance because I suck at golf and never learned proper technique. Does the fact that I suck at golf mean golf is a game of chance?

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
You'd have to be a relatively novice player to lose money at 10nl for more than a few hundred hands. The players will stack off will unbelievable hands, never do anything unpredictable, and use a "I HAVE THE FKIN NUTS" line when they get a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say this is true if you are comparing your winrate to the other players and discounting rake. Rake can be tough to beat in anything $25 and lower on-line in certain games, and probably any live limit game under $5/$10, my datebase has my rake at 9.3PTBB/100 in the $25PLO over a large sample, which, IMO, is pretty sick. I beat those levels and moved up, but honestly it wasn't always easy to beat the the house.

I am digressing, but basically I think the "anyone should crush the micro's except a retard" line is BS

[jschell]

morphball - you are right, my choice of wording there didn't reflect what I meant and wasn't correct.

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, a poker player's results are determined mostly by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
FMP

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
morphball - you are right, my choice of wording there didn't reflect what I meant and wasn't correct.

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, a poker player's results are determined mostly by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
FMP

[/ QUOTE ]

You are getting there, but you are not home yet. All you are really saying is that in the short term a player's results MAY be mostly determined by chance. They MAY also be mostly determined by skill (meaning good OR BAD decisions).

In a small unrepresentative sample either may predominate, over a large representative sample skill will predominate.

Morphball has already pointed out that it is logically impossible for a factor to ALWAYS predominate in a small sample but become a secondary factor just because the sample gets larger.

Skallagrim

[jschell]

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, a poker player's results may be determined mostly by either chance or skill.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damnit, you're right. FMPMP.

I'm not sure why this is being debated in this thread anyways, as Salazar's original point was that we shouldn't have to prove whether or not poker was a "game of skill" because of the freedom of choice that we supposedly have.

[Dunkman]

I didn't mean anyone who can't crush the micros is a retard (I would have claimed that statement 2 years ago, but not now.) However, to a seasoned and experienced player, the game is very straightforward and easy to read. Their mistakes are going to be few and far between, and they'll be getting their money in so good so often it won't take too long before they simply have to be winning.

edit: obviously none of this applies to PLO...that game is all luck (it is to me at least.)

[T Money]

"Luck" is a strange word. I think about it for a little bit and find that the definition isn't really clear to me. Yes, I could google the answer or look it up in OED. But the way it applies to poker is the same way it applies all over.

Is it lucky that you hit your only home run on the day a big league scout visits your high school?
If Kobe misses a clutch shot a the buzzer because a bead of sweat causes his finger tip to slip, is that unlucky? Could he have done anything to prevent that? Practice harder?
When a market swings and a day trader hits it big through no individual action of his own, doesn't he still get his money?

These examples go on and on and on. But the meat of the subject is this. "Luck" influences millions of activities and occupations that we undertake every day, causing "variance" in our performances. But if you work hard at your "craft" (or whatever you want to call it), you will produce positive results over time.

Spending 2 hours at the batting cage every day.
Shooting 200 freethrows after practice.
Spending time at the library or online studying market trends.
Playing thousands or millions of hands of poker.

I don't possibly see how we can begin to legislate an activity based on a concept as abstract and as physically unmeasurable as "luck". Whose going to draw the line? Not me. And I hope not my government.

[Skallagrim]

For Tmoney:

The law actually talks about "chance" not "luck." I use the terms interchangeably, maybe I shouldn't.

"Chance" in poker is easy to define, however: its the distribution of the cards.

Whats a little tougher (I have done it but am not going to repeat it again - you can search) is to determine how much of poker is decided by the random distribution of the cards.

The answer is about 25 to 35%.

Skallagrim

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, poker is mostly chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is not "mostly chance" in the short-term. A game is either chance or skill, it can't be one or the other, and it can't be all luck one day, but then two weeks later its suddenly skill.

Poker is about determining/estimating how much value your opponent believes his hand possesses, and comparing that value to the value of your hand. This is a skill based task.

People who don't do this are playing games of chance, but when I swing a golf club I am playing a game of chance because I suck at golf and never learned proper technique. Does the fact that I suck at golf mean golf is a game of chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your confusion lies herein: A top ranked professional golfer will never lose a golf match to you much less to a novice. A professional poker player may lose every hand he ever plays against a single beginning novice oponnent. If you were the judge how would you rule?

There should be no question that poker is indeed a game consisting of more luck than skill, why people here attempt to rationalize otherwise is baffling.

[jschell]

[ QUOTE ]
There should be no question that poker is indeed a game consisting of more luck than skill, why people here attempt to rationalize otherwise is baffling.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is baffling.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Your confusion lies herein: A top ranked professional golfer will never lose a golf match to you much less to a novice. ... If you were the judge how would you rule?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would rule Wake Up CALL an idiot.

Your confusion lies herein: you are considering a golf "match" the same as a single "hand" of poker. A novice golfer could beat a pro on any single shot, or any single hole, given a certain amount of luck.

You lose.

[willpower101]

what is salazar?

[Tuff_Fish]

Skill or luck? The answer is obvious

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070601/news_lz1c01poker.html

June 1, 2007

Many poker players will tell you that the sweetest chips won come from a bluff.

Second might be those won on a check-raise. The decision to check-raise usually comes down to the strength of your hand. But even when you hold the nuts and it would seem to be an easy choice, you must still consider the likelihood your opponent will go along with the plan by betting, so you don't miss a chance to gain more chips.



AdvertisementPro Andrew Black had such a case during the first level of the 2006 World Series of Poker Main Event. With blinds at $25-$50, Black limped in with K-J off-suit.
“I wouldn't normally limp in with that hand, but early on you have so many chips,” said Black, who won $1.7 million when he finished seventh in the 2005 WSOP Main Event. “Early on, you have a deep stack, and you're in the right frame of mind where you can actually let the hand go.”

Two other players called. The flop came K-5-3, two clubs. Black bet $200.

Table Talk
Fourth street: The fourth board card, also known as the turn.


“I'm happy to take the pot down there if I can,” Black said. “If the guy calls, I proceed cautiously. A guy who's obviously an amateur calls me. I played with him for 20 minutes and I know he's an amateur. He's very nervous. He could have anything. So he could have K-Q. I'm very worried about that. He calls me.”

Fourth street came the king of diamonds, giving Black three kings with a potentially vulnerable kicker.

“This is where it got interesting,” Black said. “I bet $250 and he threw in a $500 chip, but after the $500 was in, he said, 'Raise.'”

When you throw in an oversized chip without saying “Raise” beforehand, you are ruled to be calling the bet.

“I thought, 'He's trying to raise me. Maybe he's got K-Q,'” Black said.

The river came the king of hearts, giving Black quad kings. Should he bet the nuts and hope he gets a call, or should he try to check-raise but risk missing a bet?

“I said, 'All right, let's try to put something on here,'” Black said. “If he was going to try to raise (on the turn), maybe he's such a bad player that there's a chance that he might bet. So, I check and he bets $1,000. I raised him $1,500 and he called me.”

Black's opponent mucked his cards as Black scooped the pot.

“Because of what happened before, I thought there was an outside chance that he would bet and I might win a big pot,” Black said. “I felt that if he wanted to raise, he might follow through. You never know. If he's got a pair, he might unbelievably pay me off. Everybody else at the table knew I had four kings when I raised.”

Tuff

[Auren]

Anyone that claims poker is luck:

I challenge you to heads-up game. Your only options are to check and call. I can do whatever I want. If poker is game of luck then you should have no problem with this since luck will determine the winner.


Problem with determining poker as game of skill is that if that is done shouldn't blackjack be game of skill as well? It is clear that someone who never takes card does lot worse than someone who follows good strategy. So clearly blackjack is also game of skill.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that claims poker is luck:

I challenge you to heads-up game. Your only options are to check and call. I can do whatever I want. If poker is game of luck then you should have no problem with this since luck will determine the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I challenge you to blackjack, and your only option is to hit, I'll win every hand because you'll bust every time. Does this prove blackjack isn't a game of luck?

[Auren]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that claims poker is luck:

I challenge you to heads-up game. Your only options are to check and call. I can do whatever I want. If poker is game of luck then you should have no problem with this since luck will determine the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I challenge you to blackjack, and your only option is to hit, I'll win every hand because you'll bust every time. Does this prove blackjack isn't a game of luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

I added blackjack part to my original post before I read this post. As you see I think so. Clearly blackjack is also game of skill. If you got skill you do better. You never win but skill is still significant.

For game of luck take roulette. I am happy to bet red every time while you can bet whatever you want. Both have exact same chance to win. There is no skill involved at all.

[nineinchal]

[ QUOTE ]
SALAZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRR

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I added blackjack part to my original post before I read this post. As you see I think so. Clearly blackjack is also game of skill. If you got skill you do better. You never win but skill is still significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I win, with skill. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Poker is skill with variance (as is blackjack for a card counter). An easy way to think of it is to compare it to tossing a coin for money, where you win $11 for each time you toss "heads" and lose $10 each time you toss "tails". You'll win long term, of course, as you have a 5% advantage, but you'll often lose short term due to variance. That's how our advantage works.

[Skallagrim]

Blackjack is a game that is influenced by skill, but never determined by it. The phrase the NC court used was incorrectly applied to poker IMHO, but is true of blackjack: its a game of chance where a player can maximize his winnings through the exercise of skill.

The key difference is not the built in house edge that can only be overcome by card counting, the key difference is that your decisions in blackjack can NEVER determine who wins or loses. The cards will always decide the outcomes, and you can only play percentages.

In poker, your (and the other players) decisions CAN decide who wins and loses. Your decision to fold has decided the outcome of your hand independant of the cards; likewise, your decision to raise may decide who wins or loses independant of the cards by inducing your opponents to fold.

Of course we also play percentages in poker - folding is not the whole of the game. But you can NEVER fold or induce your opponent to fold in blackjack (please dont make me respond to a post about "surrendering," it is not the same).

Blackjack is not a game of mostly skill precisely because no amount of skill can overcome the cards. No matter how skilled you are at both strategy and counting if you do not get the cards you will lose. It is not enough to say that you just have to play long enough, because what you are saying is that you just have to play long enough for the cards to approach their statistical probability. That is not something you can overcome or influence.

There is no psychology in blackjack, but there is in poker. And that makes all the differnce.

Skallagrim

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The key difference is not the built in house edge that can only be overcome by card counting, the key difference is that your decisions in blackjack can NEVER determine who wins or loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Methinks you write without thinking. Please reconsider this portion of your post. Hint: Bet Size

[Auren]

[ QUOTE ]


There is no psychology in blackjack, but there is in poker. And that makes all the differnce.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see psychology in horse betting or sports betting either. But those are considered games of skill. So psychology can not be the one thing that decides whether game is of skill or chance.

[tshak]

The point of poker is to make +EV decisions. If someone 4 outters you in the short run, you're still winning in the short run - you won the good gamble. This is especially true with Hold 'Em. The only time that truely unlucky situations occur is when you hit hands like set over set, KK v. AA preflop, etc. These situations, no matter what skill, you can't get away from. Otherwise an expert player can consistantly push their edge. If I make the correct play according to the Fundemental Theory of Poker, I beat my opponent whether or not they get lucky and win the hand.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
If I make the correct play according to the Fundemental Theory of Poker, I beat my opponent whether or not they get lucky and win the hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Those "Sklansky Dollars" are only redeemable via Neteller, good luck with that btw.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The key difference is not the built in house edge that can only be overcome by card counting, the key difference is that your decisions in blackjack can NEVER determine who wins or loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Methinks you write without thinking. Please reconsider this portion of your post. Hint: Bet Size

[/ QUOTE ]

Methinks you should first re-learn how to think and then try and explain to me how the size of your bet can even remotely influence whether YOUR HAND BEATS THE DEALER'S HAND OR NOT.

I know how card counting works, and if you dont get enough wins when the count is good you come out a loser.

And the point of my post is simply to remind you folks that it is possible to win with the worst hand in poker. Not all the time, but enough of a time to make poker more skill than chance.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The key difference is not the built in house edge that can only be overcome by card counting, the key difference is that your decisions in blackjack can NEVER determine who wins or loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Methinks you write without thinking. Please reconsider this portion of your post. Hint: Bet Size

[/ QUOTE ]

Methinks you should first re-learn how to think and then try and explain to me how the size of your bet can even remotely influence whether YOUR HAND BEATS THE DEALER'S HAND OR NOT.

I know how card counting works, and if you dont get enough wins when the count is good you come out a loser.

And the point of my post is simply to remind you folks that it is possible to win with the worst hand in poker. Not all the time, but enough of a time to make poker more skill than chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just can't quit when you are only a little bit behind can you? You do not need the best cards in BJ to win either, you can stand on 4 and if the dealer busts you win. Also where did I(or the rules of BJ) say anything about beating the dealers hand every time is the only way to win at BJ. You can't have your cake and eat it too, unless you want to apply this to poker as well. Then you would be admitting that poker is luck and your false pride will never permit that.

Funny how when you write something down it becomes more difficult to say you never said that!

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

The key difference is not the built in house edge that can only be overcome by card counting, the key difference is that your decisions in blackjack can NEVER determine who wins or loses. The cards will always decide the outcomes, and you can only play percentages.


[/ QUOTE ]

My decisions can never determine whether I win or lose??? This is absurd. Clearly, my most basic decision to hit or stand will influence whether I win or lose.

E.g. I am dealt a 20. I have a decision to make. I can either HIT, and almost certain lose, or STAND, and probably win. Clearly, I have influence over my fate. This decision is obvious, but there are many other decisions that are not as obvious and that many players routinely get wrong, leading them to lose more often than they could if they had made better decisions.

[AlanF1]

aww jeez not this shiit again

[Skallagrim]

I only wish all the people I argue with had the intellectual skill being shown here lately.

Exhibit one: "Just can't quit when you are only a little bit behind can you? You do not need the best cards in BJ to win either, you can stand on 4 and if the dealer busts you win. Also where did I(or the rules of BJ) say anything about beating the dealers hand every time is the only way to win at BJ. You can't have your cake and eat it too, unless you want to apply this to poker as well. Then you would be admitting that poker is luck and your false pride will never permit that."

Do I really have to explain that under the rules of BJ if you have 4 and the dealer busts YOU HAVE THE BEST HAND? Tell me how many times you have been paid off when after all the cards are dealt the dealer had a better hand than yours? I want to know this place.

Exhibit 2: "My decisions can never determine whether I win or lose??? This is absurd. Clearly, my most basic decision to hit or stand will influence whether I win or lose."

Does it take a rocket scientist to understand that "influence" is not the same thing as "determine?" When you chose to hit that decision will make a difference, you will get another card. AND THAT CARD (OR THE NEXT ONE, OR ONE OF THE DEALER'S CARDS) WILL DETERMINE WHO GETS PAID ON THAT HAND. Winning a hand always depends on the cards in BJ.

Anyone know where these guys play poker?

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

Skallagrim,

I'm not sure if it's important or not, but as blackjack was my primary AP game prior to taking up poker (and I do still play blackjack at tne black-chip level), I'll address your reply simply to share some experience.

[ QUOTE ]
Blackjack is a game that is influenced by skill, but never determined by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Card counters have an edge over the house, much as the house has an edge over non-skilled players. While casinos may not be "skilled" simply by offering a negative expectation game to drunken ploppies, they do require various marketing, surveillance, and other core competencies to make a regular profit. Similarly, card counters must have some specific skills, including the ability to count cards without making errors, to know the right amount to bet for the advantage, and to know the proper play deviations for the count. Sometimes the AP must use "cover" to fool the house into thinking he is a ploppy. This is a soft skill used to maximize expectation, as this cover costs money but buys more time. I personally define everything that goes into being a successful AP as "skill". The IRS recognized this in allowing pro blackjack players to file as professional gamblers.

[ QUOTE ]
In poker, your (and the other players) decisions CAN decide who wins and loses. Your decision to fold has decided the outcome of your hand independant of the cards; likewise, your decision to raise may decide who wins or loses independant of the cards by inducing your opponents to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm not sure why my ability to control someone else's play makes something a matter of skill. To be honest, I can influence someone else's odds at blackjack by playing only when the cards to be dealt favor the players and sitting out when they favor the house, causing the ploppies to get more than their fair share of lower expectation hands than they'd have gotten heads-up.

I guess the issue is how you define the word "skill". I think I'm skilled if I can turn any negative expectation game into a positive expectation one via decisions I control. Also, I can prove mathematically that I have a positive expectation over the house. I wish we could do that as straightforwardly for poker.

Finally, the last casino to tell me I can no longer play blackjack at their establishment said it's because I'm a "skilled player".

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I know how card counting works, and if you dont get enough wins when the count is good you come out a loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be hard. I've played only one session of blackjack. It's lasted my whole life, and it won't end until I die. It's been interrupted many times, but I'm easily in the long run (we typically define this as one standard deviation from break-even). The probability of me being a net loser at blackjack, given the number of hands I've played in this "session" is far less than 0.001.

[Skallagrim]

Finally, a smart post.

Dont disagree with anything you have said, Engineer. But what you have said will not, at least legally, lead to the conclusion that blackjack is MOSTLY SKILL. Making money at blackjack is a skill, indeed. But blackjack the game is all probability/chance. Get good at that, and the other skills you describe (and dont get noticed) and you can be a winning blackjack player OVER THE LONG RUN.

But you cant do it without getting the cards. If you are the unluckiest person on earth such that your personal cards were way off the probability charts and are always bad, even counting wont save you. IT STILL DEPENDS ON THE CARDS.

I am not denigrating the amount of skill it takes to be a winning blackjack player. I am saying that winning in blackjack is ALWAYS determined by the cards, though influenced by the player. And what cards you or the dealer get is never a result of skill. And thats true also in poker.

BUT, you will agree with me, you can win (sometimes) in poker regardless of your cards. Thats what pushes poker over the "mostly skill" hurdle and makes it different legally, IMHO.

Skallagrim

[Auren]

[ QUOTE ]

Do I really have to explain that under the rules of BJ if you have 4 and the dealer busts YOU HAVE THE BEST HAND? Tell me how many times you have been paid off when after all the cards are dealt the dealer had a better hand than yours? I want to know this place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly as many times as you have won in poker at showdown when opponent had better cards. At poker you can not win at showdown with worst cards and neither you can in blackjack. But in both games you can win without ever using your cards.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, a smart post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
But what you have said will not, at least legally, lead to the conclusion that blackjack is MOSTLY SKILL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure. If I were arguing in court, I'd like to be able to quantify results mathematically. I just ran a simulation. For a single deck game playing two hands and four rounds per deck (i.e., before the shuffle), I'll average $786.58 per hour at my bankroll. I'll have to play only 6,381 hands before my expected win rate is one standard deviation above even (i.e, to be losing at that point, I'd be over one standard deviation below the mean). At 20,000 hands, I'd be over three SDs from even. At around 40,000 hands, it's mathematically virtually impossible (around 3 in 1,000,000) for anyone playing with the skill level used in the calculation to be losing.

[ QUOTE ]
But you cant do it without getting the cards. If you are the unluckiest person on earth such that your personal cards were way off the probability charts and are always bad, even counting wont save you. IT STILL DEPENDS ON THE CARDS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not thinking in terms of individual sessions, are you? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Anyway, I've seen these blackjack posts here before and avoided replying as I didn't see how it mattered. After all, we're discusing poker being skillful.

[ QUOTE ]
BUT, you will agree with me, you can win (sometimes) in poker regardless of your cards. Thats what pushes poker over the "mostly skill" hurdle and makes it different legally, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be easier when we win the legislation battle and get our fish back!!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tsearcher]

Skallagrim,

Perhaps you should start a thread explaining the legal test you believe most states are using. Define all the terms used in the test. Obviously, the terms the courts are using aren't defined the same way a lot of us are used to seeing them being used.

Then show your proof as to how poker passes the courts' skill test.

This may clear up the air a bit on this discussion. And we would have one place to discuss this rather than spread out over various threads.

P.S. if you have already done this I can't find it. If it's there could you bump your thread?

[Skallagrim]

Here are the 2 links to this argument being discussed in the past:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9566359&page=19&fpart=2& vc=1)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10205719&page=12&fpart=1 &vc=1)

The condensed version:

Over 30 US states define gambling as wagering in any game "where the outcome is determined predominantly by chance."

"Chance" definitely exists in poker (as in all things in life). In poker "chance" is the random distribution of the cards.

Does the random distribution of the cards predominantly determine the "outcome" in poker? We have to further define our terms. Predominanly means mostly. Outcome in poker is winning a hand and/or having the most money after a session.

So now we ask the question this way: Does the random distribution of the cards determine who wins the most hands and/or the most money?

Sometimes they clearly do, BUT JUST AS CLEARLY SOMETIMES THEY DO NOT: WHEN EVERYONE FOLDS TO A SINGLE PLAYER BEFORE ALL THE CARDS ARE DEALT, THE CARDS CANNOT BE SAID TO DETERMINE THAT HAND - THE DECISIONS OF THE PLAYERS DETERMINED THAT HAND.

So now we have also introduced the other part of poker, the decisions (to fold, call, bet or raise) made by the players.

Since we know winning some hands are determined by the cards (a showdown is seen) and some are determined by the players (no showdown is seen), the question becomes "which is responsible for more outcomes?"

In Holdem and Omaha, online samples of hundreds of thousands of hands show that about 60 to 65% of hands are ended before the last card is seen. Objectively then, 60 to 65% of hands in those games are the result of players' decisions, not cards. It does not matter that the cards influence those decisions because influence is not the same as determine.

But there is no need give up on the remaining 35-40% of hands, because player decisions determine a fair number of them too, although this is harder to quantify. When there are more than two players going for a pot, who has folded is a key factor in determining the outcome - often the hand that would have been the best at showdown is folded, usually in response to another player's decison to bet or raise. If you had the second best hand, but raised the best hand out of the pot, and the third best hand didnt suck out so you still won, I say your decisions determined the outcome of that hand.

In fact I would say that only when the lesser hand does suck out, can the hand be said to be determined by the cards. Credit must be given to the skill of "reading" and when your read is right that you have the better hand, I say your read won you that hand, not the cards.

And suckouts can only happen less than 50% of the time, because otherwise they are not suckouts.

So 60% (no showdown) and 51% of the remaining 40% (no suckout) = about 81% of hands being determined by something other than the cards.

And of course the amount of money won or lost is SOLELY the result of a players decisions (except for the tiny percentage from blinds and/or antes).

Poker is therefore not mostly chance.

Skallagrim

This argument does not work with blackjack precisely because the dealer never folds (which the challenged poster above forgot does happen in poker). ALL BJ hands MUST go to showdown.

Let me posit this for you Blackjack afficianados: Suppose blackjack were determined scientifically to be 90% chance and 10% skill, would it still be possible for engineer to beat the game? Of course it would, especially over the long term. Assuming chance evens out, thats 45% of the hands to the house, and 45% to the engineer. In the remaining 10% of situations engineer uses his skill to maximize his wins and 90% of those results go to him. Engineer is winning then 54% of the time at a game that is 90% chance. If you blackjack folks can find a way around that argument, I'll stop excluding blackjack from my lists of games less than mostly skill.

[TheEngineer]

Nice post on poker skill vs. luck. I wrote a letter to Paulson addressing this. Everyone: please see my thread at Letters to write THIS WEEK (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10627857&an=0&page=0#Pos t10627857). I hope everyone here will write this week.

[ QUOTE ]
This argument does not work with blackjack precisely because the dealer never folds (which the challenged poster above forgot does happen in poker). ALL BJ hands MUST go to showdown.

Let me posit this for you Blackjack afficianados: Suppose blackjack were determined scientifically to be 90% chance and 10% skill, would it still be possible for engineer to beat the game? Of course it would, especially over the long term. Assuming chance evens out, thats 45% of the hands to the house, and 45% to the engineer. In the remaining 10% of situations engineer uses his skill to maximize his wins and 90% of those results go to him. Engineer is winning then 54% of the time at a game that is 90% chance. If you blackjack folks can find a way around that argument, I'll stop excluding blackjack from my lists of games less than mostly skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I commented on blackjack being beatable with skill. It is. I agree 100% it should not legally be considered a "game of skill", aside from IRS taxing purposes. The primary differentiation under laws I read is that the vast majority of players do play based on chance.

[tsearcher]

Skallagrim,

Thanks for your detailed reply. Do you think there are some problems with the courts, if any, that only use the winning a hand test?

For example: if I played a top limit HU player, I would win about 50% of the hands. But I would definitely be a loser over any meaningful session.

I think you could say the same thing about a full ring game also. Everyone should be expected to win 1/10 of the hands played. The better players might even win fewer hands, since they will generally be involved in fewer hands.

[TheEngineer]

Here are some articles:

An article that concluded that poker is not predominantly skill: http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/online-poker-skill.htm . /images/graemlins/mad.gif

The DOJ testified in favor of HR 4477, Internet Gambling Prohibit Act, last year. Here's a quote, from http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/DOJ-testimony-4477.htm (also on the DOJ website):

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, the Department of Justice also has some drafting concerns with the legislation, including several of the definitions slated to be added to Section 108 1. For example, since the definition of the term "bet or wager" requires that the activity be "predominately subject to chance," we are concerned whether this definition is sufficient to cover card games, such as poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prof. Prof's blog on poker skill vs. luck: http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/pokerblog/archives/000105.php

WSJ poll, Is Poker Skill or Luck, at http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?p=19799 . 79% voted "skill", 21% voted "luck"

New version of poker called ThwartPoker, claims to have eliminated chance, so it's legal in many states (per them): http://www.thwartpoker.com/thwart/do/help;jsessionid=92BB67985271C669C59C2760B9640FE5

Poker: Skill vs. luck, NYC http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=401540

William E. Baxter Jr. vs. the United States article by Mike Sexton, at http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/14882

[oldbookguy]

Skill or luck, I really think we are not nor is anyone else framing the argument correctly. This has been the basis of my argument from day one of the UIGEA, no need YET to be too upset until we get the rules in place.

The argument should be, is poker any LESS a game of skill than the current 'SKILL' games legally offered on sites such as MSN, AOL & Yahoo that may be played for cash and are regulated / controlled currently under banking and IRS rules already in place.
The legal wagering on these 'SKILL' is permitted in all but 14 states that have laws against them.

Legal wagering skill games include:
Solitaire, Solitaire Poker, Backgammon, Hearts, Spades, Free Cell, other board and card games and children's video games.

Then if the rules are not acceptable (not I as cash is too much) and poker as we play it is included and these other games are continued to be offered as 'SKILL' games then the proper place is the courts.

ALL that the UIGEA should cover are slots, bingo and other games in which there is no direct player to player(s) interaction.

I include slots simply because they are programmed to pay around .90 return on each dollar played (online and in B&M). To be the one who does better is pure chance and there is no skill that can be employed to beat the machine.

[Skallagrim]

The law uses the word "outcome" tsearcher. That word is going to start a court thinking about one hand, but it is a simple thing to say, and courts have said it with respect to other games, that poker is usually played as a series of contests, and so its right to consider a series of hands. But courts wont take this, usually, to consider mathmateical infinity. Thats why I hate the phrase "luck/short term, skill/long term."

First that focuses on only one player, while usually 6 or more are playing. Second, it really means luck CAN predominate in the short term not that it MUST. SKILL (players decisions) CAN ALSO predominate in a short run.

The argument I have accounts for ALL of the players at the table: if any one of them wins through skill (decisions) its a hand for the skill column.

Also, money won is obviously different from hands won, and money is what we care about. But you cant win money without winning hands, and no one can reasonably disagree that controlling how much you win or lose is virtually all skill.

So the fact that, according to my proof, most hands are won through decisions rather than cards, EXPLAINS why better players make more money, they will win more "decision" hands.

The skill to lose less and win more is a skill that has to be put totally seperate from the cards, and cannot be ignored as a key factor in tournament play. But courts generally will only ackowledge that fact as 'skill in the game" but does not, by itself, make the game "mostly skill." (this is precisely what the NC court did recently - my proof was not part of the case though).

The courts will require some means of actually making a difference as to winning the hand. Thats what my proof gives them, at the very least with respect to every hand not shown down.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Skill or luck, I really think we are not nor is anyone else framing the argument correctly. This has been the basis of my argument from day one of the UIGEA, no need YET to be too upset until we get the rules in place.

The argument should be, is poker any LESS a game of skill than the current 'SKILL' games legally offered on sites such as MSN, AOL & Yahoo that may be played for cash and are regulated / controlled currently under banking and IRS rules already in place.
The legal wagering on these 'SKILL' is permitted in all but 14 states that have laws against them.

Legal wagering skill games include:
Solitaire, Solitaire Poker, Backgammon, Hearts, Spades, Free Cell, other board and card games and children's video games.

Then if the rules are not acceptable (not I as cash is too much) and poker as we play it is included and these other games are continued to be offered as 'SKILL' games then the proper place is the courts.

ALL that the UIGEA should cover are slots, bingo and other games in which there is no direct player to player(s) interaction.

I include slots simply because they are programmed to pay around .90 return on each dollar played (online and in B&M). To be the one who does better is pure chance and there is no skill that can be employed to beat the machine.

[/ QUOTE ]

The courts have been mixed. I guess we'll see what happens. Did you write your letter to Paulson yet? I was curious how you phrased your points to him. I posted mine on your other thread. In my letter, I emphasized the fact that this is ambiguous, and the feds shouldn't be involved in trying to enforce unclear state laws.

[repulse]

[ QUOTE ]
...(argument)...Poker is therefore not mostly chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some observations regarding this argument, sort of devil's-advocate and certainly at least a little bit nitty:

1) A table of completely unskilled players (for example, betting/raising/folding with equal probability at each decision point in Limit Holdem) would clearly not always end in a showdown, but this argument suggests that some portion of skill is present in the game despite the fact that none of the decisions made by the players involve any skill at all.

2) I am not sure how this argument applies to a poker game where all the cards were dealt at once. For example, Hypothetical Texas Holdem is played identically to No Limit Holdem, but all 5 of the community cards are dealt faceup at the same time holecards are dealt and there is one round of betting. Certainly this game features most of the skillful elements of poker (value betting, bluffing, psychological considerations, game theory, pretty much everything except drawing hands and suckouts) but still involves some things that would tend to be seen as luck (you are stacking off when your opponent happens to have the straight flush when you have your quads, and his range throughout the betting might be very wide). Certainly the argument is still convincing for the specific case of Texas Holdem and other modern poker games, and it is certainly a fine argument to pursue in the courts, but this seems like a theoretical hole to me.

Take these observations as you will. I acknowledge that logic, theory, mathematics, reason etc. are not necessarily important to convincing legislatures of poker's status as a sufficiently skillful game. I like and understand the argument, and I think it would be a good one for a court setting, though I'd be a bit concerned about the defense pointing out the first of my observations.

[Go_Blue88]

I am so tired of your moronic posts. You're unbelievable.

[Orlando Salazar]

[ QUOTE ]
I am so tired of your moronic posts. You're unbelievable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, 3 pages of responses when i say we shouldn't argue poker playing as a skill but as a constitutional right. Hmmmm....maybe you could learn a thing about getting a discussion going. Idiot.

[Skallagrim]

Rerpulse wrote:
"1) A table of completely unskilled players (for example, betting/raising/folding with equal probability at each decision point in Limit Holdem) would clearly not always end in a showdown, but this argument suggests that some portion of skill is present in the game despite the fact that none of the decisions made by the players involve any skill at all."

This is not nitty, but it is a misunderstanding of what is required. As has been said before, DONT CONFUSE ACTUAL PERSONAL SKILL WITH "ACTS OF SKILL."

To illustrate: when I play golf there is no skill involved (believe me), does that make golf a game of chance? No. The act of swinging a club is an "act of skill" whether I have any ability at it or not. Same is true of decision making in poker. They are acts of skill whether you make good decisions or bad ones. All your unskilled players are still doing acts of skill, they are just doing it with very little actual personal skill.

Your second point is actually better, because there are some forms of poker that may not fit the proof I have constructed. But the proof works very well for Holdem, Omaha, and 7-Stud. I can live with just those games if I have to.

Thanks for the input.

Skallagrim

[JayEmm]

the skill of it all is to put yourself in the best situation to be lucky

[repulse]

Makes sense. Thanks.

[Orlando Salazar]

[ QUOTE ]
the skill of it all is to put yourself in the best situation to be lucky

[/ QUOTE ]
not that this is discussion relevant, but the skill of poker is putting yourself in the position to not need luck, but capitalizing on it when encountered.