How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

Reprinted from the Sklansky Forum:

The title is possibly a touch exaggerated but maybe not. You see there is a big debate going on in several venues, internet and otherwise, regarding how much "skill" there is in the game of poker. And the answer to that question may be very relevant to whether the game will become legal in various places. The details of that are off this subject. What this post is about is simply the subject of "skill"
and the conversation I just had with my son Mat, about it.

Few people claim that poker is all luck. Even though in most forms of the game you can't make any decisions that will alter the strength of the cards you hold. However most of the legal arguments that I have encountered (and occasionally have been asked to rebut on the witness stand) merely claim that the skill factor is quite small. That luck predominates. And in most if not all venues, that claim, if correct, would be sufficient to win their case and outlaw poker.

I have always declined to testify, because I realized that the statistical evidence I could give, regarding hourly rates and standard deviations of winning poker players, might backfire. Because of what it says about the length of time required before a pro could be almost sure of being ahead of a decent amateur.

On the other hand that is not really fair. Sure luck predominates in the short run in poker. But that doesn't prove there isn't a lot of skill in the game. It only proves that there isn't much DIFFERENCE in skill between excellent, and merely competant, players. But how does one prove that to a jury? That the luck factor is accentuated because average players are in fact pretty skillful themselves. And right off the top of his head, Mat gave me the answer.

Which is that ONLY IN GAMES OF SKILL CAN A PLAYER GUARANTEE THAT HE WILL QUICKLY LOSE. If for some strange reason he wanted to. Why didn't I think of that? Because of course it is true. You can't guarantee that you will lose in slot machines or keno or roulette or craps just by playing badly.(I'm not counting the artificial plays of betting red and black or pass and don't pass at the same time. Nor am I talking about folding every hand in poker. I'm talking about playing very badly.) Only in games of skill, does horrible play mean a quick demise. (Although there are exceptions such as sports betting).

Thus while you can't show a jury that expert play quickly results in a win, you can show them that in poker the opposite type of play quickly results in a loss. Which should be sufficient evidence to prove that skill is a major part of the game.

Though I would love to name this argument after me, the fact is that Mat thought of it and merely gave me premission to post it for him. Thus it must be named after him. The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

Sound argument.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

Would showing a single game of skill where Mat is incorrect be enough to disprove The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument? If so I hereby lay claim to be the first to disprove your theorum.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

Nice work sir. That's some nice backward, out of the box thinking which I never would have considered.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would showing a single game of skill where Mat is incorrect be enough to disprove The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument? If so I hereby lay claim to be the first to disprove your theorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you waiting for? Lead with your argument so it can be debated and perhaps refuted.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

I like David's humor in the naming of the Argument.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

David,

Can't this be applied to BlackJack as well? Clearly, you cannot win at blackjack (sans card counting), but one player can lose money faster than another (hitting on 19 and such). I know here in CA, Blackjack is a game of skill, but we all know it's not a game you can beat longterm.

EDIT: I suppose this assumes that winning long-term is requisite for being a game of skill. To discount my own argument, you could introduce a game of poker with a 20% uncapped rake. No player in the world could beat it long term, but some players could lose faster than others.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are you waiting for? Lead with your argument so it can be debated and perhaps refuted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am afraid David will attempt to weasel his way out if I let the cat out of the bag before he answers. There will in fact be no debate once I name the skill game, in fact there are several but one should work just fine.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Can't this be applied to BlackJack as well? Clearly, you cannot win at blackjack (sans card counting), but one player can lose money faster than another (hitting on 19 and such). I know here in CA, Blackjack is a game of skill, but we all know it's not a game you can beat longterm.

EDIT: I suppose this assumes that winning long-term is requisite for being a game of skill. To discount my own argument, you could introduce a game of poker with a 20% uncapped rake. No player in the world could beat it long term, but some players could lose faster than others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you can win or not doesn't make it a game of skill or not. BJ could easily be +EV without counting if BJ pays 2/1 instead of 3/2. That doesn't change the skill equation. If you want a game with no skill try Baccarat. Pure luck.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

Thank you Mr. Sklansky for another weapon in the battle to keep/make poker legal. I truly like this argument and will use it. I am an attorney who often has occassion to work in this field.

I would also be interested in how you would respond to the skill v. chance argument if it were phrased in this manner: Does chance account for over 50% of the results (of individual hands) in Poker?

I ask it this way because many state laws define games of chance as those in which chance predominantly determines the outcome. Thus if the outcome is determined by things other than chance (not just skill) more than 1/2 the time, poker is not gambling as legally defined (in those states).

My experience with poker is that the chance element, the random distribution of the cards, does not determine the outcome over half the time. In my games (mostly cash NL hold-em) it hardly seems that 1/2 the hands actually go to showdown becasue of the player's actions of betting, raising, bluffing and folding. And even in those hands that do go to showdown, player actions are still determining most of the outcomes becasue the skilled player gets his money in when his math and psychological skills tell him he has the best hand, and often he has bet out others who might have beaten him. And when he has the best hand, he usually wins because, of course, having the best hand before the showdown means precisely that he has the hand most likely to win. Suckouts happen of course, but do suckouts determine the winner over 50% of the time? Of course not. That is how I intend to present my case the next time I am called upon to do so, and I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the way I have phrased the question.

Thank you anyway for your help on this subject.

A skiiled player cannot win at video poker, which allows mistakes
 

That a monkey can play craps as well as anyone does not mean that games it cannot play are "skill" games.

Sit a monkey at a video poker machine and it will make "mistakes", but ultimately will do just as well as a mistake free player IF the game has a negative trend.

For a game to be predominantly skill, skill must be sufficient to beat the rake or time charges for playing, not just other players. After all, the game is NOT about how many hands you win or play, but how much money you win from play.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

As much of a fan I am of yours, I still think this is, at best, a weak argument. If I were to play blackjack poorly, I would lose money a lot quicker than if I were to play perfectly. And there is no doubt to whether blackjack is gambling or not. It could easily be argued that there is as much skill in poker as there is in sports betting. I know people that make a living off of both.

I think as a famous poker player you are in the spotlight right now. Your guidance and words of wisdom are heard by all. However, this case has no bearing on whether there is an element of skill involved. The lottery and horse racing do not have any skill whatsoever and they are legal. LOBBYING IS THE ONLY KEY. None of your arguments really matter. If the population started placing millions of dollars in wagers on their own golfing ability, politicians would crack down on it. That is the way it is.

Good thing in our country we can buy our own rights. And we will. Thousands of players should organize a playing session outside the capitol on their laptops. Then they will have to deal with the issue at hand.

Re: A skiiled player cannot win at video poker, which allows mistakes
 

As a pratical matter, I agree with Milton. But as a legal matter (and I dont defend that this is the law, just note that it is), whether you actually can or cannot win money at the game over time is irrelevant. Its whether chance determines the outcome (winner) anytime (in some states), sometimes (in some states), or most of the time (in most states).

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

Not a bad argument to show that skill is a major element of poker. I recall one poster in the Leg. forum had a similar idea about a week ago. However, as others have said, this demonstration of skill could also be applied to blackjack. So, more is needed, because the key difference between poker vs. blackjack and other casino games, IMO, is that only in poker can a skillful player win long term.

Re: A skiiled player cannot win at video poker, which allows mistakes
 

"Sit a monkey at a video poker machine and it will make "mistakes", but ultimately will do just as well as a mistake free player IF the game has a negative trend."

If the machine was 100.1% vs optimal play the Sklansky argument is very analogous.

Are you saying that 99% machines are not games of skill but 101% are?

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would showing a single game of skill where Mat is incorrect be enough to disprove The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument? If so I hereby lay claim to be the first to disprove your theorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. We are talking about arguments to persuade juries. Not logic theorems. The point of the argument is to show that games where luck seems to predominate can still be games of much skill. Because that fact is masked by the close equality of skill among practitioners. But even if it takes a long time for great skill to show, the necessity of skill can also be demonstrated by pointing out how quickly lack of skill shows.

Re: A skiiled player cannot win at video poker, which allows mistakes
 

..

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

Sklansky's "Fundamental Theorum of Losing"....I love it.

Won't sell a single book but might save poker.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

I don't think this theory works as a stand-alone argument for the simple fact that there are other casino games that can't be beaten long-term, but if you played them poorly you would lose quicker (blackjack, video poker).

But as an addition to other theories it could certainly add to the overall argument.

Re: A skiiled player cannot win at video poker, which allows mistakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
For a game to be predominantly skill, skill must be sufficient to beat the rake or time charges for playing, not just other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Why?

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

People are conflating "skill-based game" with "game it is possible to win at in the long run." Blackjack absolutely IS a skill-based game, although impossible to win in the long run (yeah, okay, assume the deck is reshuffled every hand).

Me pitching a curveball to Derek Jeter is a skill based game too, but I absolutely will not win it in the long run.

So, the blackjack example does not defeat Sklansky's theorem here, because skill is a factor in blackjack - skill ultimately decides how quickly you will lose. If Jeter homers off of me 70 times out of 100, that doesn't mean it was out of my control.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

I have a question:

Chess is widely accepted as a skill game, yet computer programmers have written a program that can beat a human...to my knowledge a computer program has not beaten a professional poker player.

Thoughts?

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would also be interested in how you would respond to the skill v. chance argument if it were phrased in this manner: Does chance account for over 50% of the results (of individual hands) in Poker?

I ask it this way because many state laws define games of chance as those in which chance predominantly determines the outcome. Thus if the outcome is determined by things other than chance (not just skill) more than 1/2 the time, poker is not gambling as legally defined (in those states).

[/ QUOTE ]
There are many hands you can never win by any method. There are also many hands where it is virtually impossible to lose except by deliberate dumping. But that doesn't mean there is no skill involved in those hands.

You need to strongly make the argument that poker is about winning money, not pots. An "outcome" is the *amount* of money won or lost. Once the politician or juror accepts this principle it is easy to see that skill plays an important role in determining the outcome of most hands.

Side issue: Poker is not a game at all. It is actually a generic name for a large class of games many of which are quite different from each other. There is no obvious reason why an old precedent that (e.g.) 5-card draw is a game of chance should be applied against the operator of a NL holdem game. Presumably this issue can be relitigated for every form of poker and cash game versus tournament as well. This is especially powerful for someone accused of running a tournament as the "outcome of the game" must mean the whole tournament and not just a single hand.

Side issue 2: Win rates are a red herring. Two chess masters of near equal strength playing a long match may experience a win rate very near breakeven. That doesn't mean chess is not a game of skill. It just means they have the same amount of skill. Forget all the 2 BB/100 stuff. Really terrible 6-max LHE players can easily lose 10-15 BB/100 in real online games (check a PT database). There can be a 20 BB/100 difference in win rate between an expert and an awful player sitting at the same table (+5 vs. -15). That's the real measure of the advantage a highly skilled player has over a terrible player. That's the amount of skill in the game.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
People are conflating "skill-based game" with "game it is possible to win at in the long run." Blackjack absolutely IS a skill-based game, although impossible to win in the long run (yeah, okay, assume the deck is reshuffled every hand).

Me pitching a curveball to Derek Jeter is a skill based game too, but I absolutely will not win it in the long run.

So, the blackjack example does not defeat Sklansky's theorem here, because skill is a factor in blackjack - skill ultimately decides how quickly you will lose. If Jeter homers off of me 70 times out of 100, that doesn't mean it was out of my control.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying we should be able to get a skill-based exemption for blackjack too? I think some of the legal terms talk about a predominance of skill vs. luck in determining the result of the game. The result of blackjack is losing to the house. We need more than the Sklansky Theorem to show that skillful poker play results in winning against other players.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

I have a simple point: It takes enough skill in the game to know what a fold is, and how & when to do it. This action alone could save or lose more money in teh long-run. Does that not constitute a game of skill?

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
No. We are talking about arguments to persuade juries. Not logic theorems. The point of the argument is to show that games where luck seems to predominate can still be games of much skill. Because that fact is masked by the close equality of skill among practitioners. But even if it takes a long time for great skill to show, the necessity of skill can also be demonstrated by pointing out how quickly lack of skill shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, Juries decide issues of fact, they do not make statutory interpretations. This issue will be decided by how legislators choose to craft statutes on [online] gambling, and how judges interpret the law, not by any jury. To the extent that there are any legislators who have an open mind on this issue, and are persuaded that it makes any difference whether a game is governed by or subject to chance, then this is a decent point to raise. But frankly, I don't think this distinction matters to anyone but poker players who want to consider themselves something other than gamblers.

I am a consistent winning player, but I harbor no illusions despite the fact that I have a long term skill edge against most opponents that, at the end of the day, I am still gambling.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

is this really the case? if it can be proven in court that poker is game of "skill" where luck just explains the variance and the better players are on track to consistantly win then it will be neglect to the new war on online gambling?

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]

Though I would love to name this argument after me, the fact is that Mat thought of it and merely gave me premission to post it for him. Thus it must be named after him. The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

now we are thinking. addictontilt, this angle is even better than my theory on how to save poker.


theres a reason why we dont all play 5-10 NL and it's not because all of us don't have the bankroll. it's because the average millionare will get eaten up 10 times worse than he would at a blackjack table. especially if short-handed poker.


1 sport i can think of that seems to be based on chance is baseball. the very best hitter gets a hit roughly only 10% of the time more than the guy that is about to get cut.

the market dictates what the players are worth and some teams have salaries 10 times of others but yet this only adds up to 95-100 wins ( and that's not a given) that's = to 9-7 in the nfl. or 46 wins in the NBA.

you could take a double A team (the royals kinda are) and they will enjoy more succuss in that league than a group of average poker players playing against just some descent 5-10 NL players.

this debate on poker can't be compared to sports but to say it's a game more of chance is insane.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

How about using some of the enormous PT databases that have been built up datamining to show the clear correlation between winrate and playstyle over millions and millions of hands. Would this kind of evidence hold any water in a court?

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

How in the hell does this save us from those states where gambling is illegal per se? Thanks but no thanks - there has to be some nationwide clarification on this or the funding mechanisms will be DOA. Sklansky - i love your books (small stakes hold em is my bible) - but this issue is not about skill versus no skill - cause states can just enact legislation like la and wa.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

And that is why we buy your books, Sir.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

I'm only addressing the issue regarding the fact that pros can have losing weeks even though there is great skill involved. I have no idea how much that helps the overall fight.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

Gotcha - myself trying to work through the issues as to the possibility for some general exemption for the majority of us to play online - and it seems a dark picture at least in the short term.

But for you guys - good news - i have more down time to buy and read your books.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]


Which is that ONLY IN GAMES OF SKILL CAN A PLAYER GUARANTEE THAT HE WILL QUICKLY LOSE. If for some strange reason he wanted to. Why didn't I think of that? Because of course it is true. You can't guarantee that you will lose in slot machines or keno or roulette or craps just by playing badly.(I'm not counting the artificial plays of betting red and black or pass and don't pass at the same time. Nor am I talking about folding every hand in poker. I'm talking about playing very badly.) Only in games of skill, does horrible play mean a quick demise. (Although there are exceptions such as sports betting).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is total bunk.

So if you added a little trash bucket as part of the roulette board and you could opt to just throw your chips in the garbage, it would be a game of skill? What about blackjack? You can definitely play terrible blackjack on purpose and lose almost every hand. Or maybe your argument is that blackjack is a game of skill? It seems hard to call something a game of skill, where skill is measured as ability to maximize EV, if the highest EV decision available is to not play it (I know you can win at blackjack by counting, for sake of argument lets say its internet blackjack). I'm pretty sure there are endless examples of games, real or hypothetical, that don't feel like they should count as games of skill where you can lose consistently on purpose.

I'm having a harder time coming up with games of skill where you can't lose consistently on purpose. I actually don't think there are any. If playing badly didn't make you lose, it wouldn't be a game of skill. In chess, and surely lots of other games of skill, no matter how badly you play you'll need some cooperation from your opponent to ever lose, but thats not a real counterexample.

I guess what I'm saying is that being able to lose on purpose is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a game to be a game of skill. I think you do have to show that you can play meaningfully well (for instance, better than another person who is also making an informed, good faith effort to play well) for it to be a game of skill. All that being able to lose on purpose proves is that the game involves decisions, some of which are better or worse than others.

But juries are full of stupid people who don't understand logic, so in court your argument would probably be quite strong.

EDIT: I read through the responses and I guess the consensus is that this argument says blackjack is a game of skill and thus not a counter example. Whatever, even if blackjack is a game of skill, there has to be some point along the continuum where it goes from game of skill to game with some decisions that you can make incorrectly if you really want to but that doesn't actually involve any skill. But the latter game would still fit your criteria for skill games, so I think they are insufficient criteria.

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

the only defense that is not a game of skill would be in a heads up NL sit and go. perhaps o doyles turbo..lol ( 1 minutes blinds)

Joe 7-11 manager ( who doesn't know the rules to poker)
vs
the top pro

Joe stalls so the blinds go up every hand or 2 but
goes all in preflop no matter what evey hand.

at what point does the pro finally get a hand he wants to call with?? hand 3, 6?? since a pocket pair for the pro odds wise is 17-1 longshot ( and 2's and 3's would likely be coin flips) it's safe to say that when the pro calls he could very well only be 60% favorite. in some cases higher, some cases even an underdog.

the pro will win this hand more than not but he has donked off perhaps a few hundred in blinds if he didn't find a good hand early. so he still has to win another hand and can't afford to fold many before calling.

in this format Joe sit and Go (who thought they invited him to trade baseball cards) would win what %? it would depend on what cards the pro would be willing to take a stand with. my guess is Joe would win 40% or more??

Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
 

If I were in front of a jury, I would draw an analogy to sports. Everyone is aware that highly-ranked teams sometimes lose to lower-ranked teams, but this doesn't mean that rankings and records are based simply on luck. A batter has x% chance (on average) of getting a hit and a quarterback has x% chance of completing a pass. The actual stats for games will sometimes be much higher or lower than this. While Rex Grossman will sometimes have a better day than Peyton Manning, this doesn't mean that both quarterbacks are equally skilled or that football is a game of luck.

No, I am saying the argument fails because it confuses people
 

No, David. I am saying that the argument fails because it confuses people. (I think that Plato's cave story had something along the same lines.)

I am illustrating that the argument for demonstrating "skill" fails. It is an analogy which applies only when the rake/hold/payout conditions are favorable.

If you try and define skill by reference to winning or losing, you are bringing into question the definition of "winning or losing". For most poker players, playing itself is "winning", and entertainment is the payout. The financial outcome attendent to "skill" misses the point. A player who enjoys the game is 'winning", whehter or not he makes money at it.

Building a political argument on "skill/winning" defined as winning money is foolish. Entertainment/television built poker's popularity, popularity can equate to potential political clout. Arguments based upon deliberately losing, aside from their other flaws, are never going to "save" anything.

Re: No, I am saying the argument fails because it confuses people
 

Does this mean Netteller will pay me my monies?

Re: No, I am saying the argument fails because it confuses people
 

In my opinion, no one has made a good enough argument to disprover this theory. Blackjack is a game of skill, so that point doesn't exist.

I could name a hundred games where this holds true, and I haven't heard anyone name 1 game of skill that you couldn't lose right away if you wanted to.

That being said... This whole argument probably won't do a thing to convince officials of this fact. Any argument will help none the less.