help on proving poker is not about luck
 

I want to create a graph to show to a friend to prove that poker is not about luck in the long run

for example, if I have the following data over reasonable sample size (does sample size even matter here? but let's say 50k hands at 1/2)
winrate = 5ptbb/100
SD/100 = 45ptbb

I want a graph that shows on Y Axis the % of likelihood that you will be a winner and X Axis the number of hands you played. I would imaging the graph should start around 50% and moving very close to 100% after 100k hands

Also, if possible, a graph that shows medium/average (even better if it's possible to get numbers of 25%, 50%, 75%) $$ won on Y Axis over # of hands played on X Axis.

Can someone good with stats help me generate those graphs or give me some hint on how to get the numbers (formulas, links).

Thanks a lot!

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

the median player loses and alot of the players above him lose too

rake

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

medium here is not the player's level, but luck factor. The player level is determined by winrate + SD

I am assuming the $$ won calculated over a # of random event should be a bell curve, and 25%, 50%, 75% would be 3 points on that curve. if we use the giving winrate (5ptbb/100) and SD (45ptbb/100), I am guessing even the 25% point should be a sizable winner over 100k hands. Oh, and rake shouldn't be a factor as it is already included in the winrate

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

I doubt a game where short term result track long term win rates could be very popular at all. Since in such a game, the losing player loses all the time (not a lot each time, but slowly and surely), what make you think they would want to play such a game?

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

If all players at the table have equal ability, the game is 100% luck.

It doesn't matter if all of the players are experts, or noobs.

What you need to do is corelate the EV with the difference in players skill.

That would explain why table selection is a valuable skill.

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

An alternative would be to demonstrate that skill is a big factor in a simpler game. For example, you could play a few rounds of one card limit poker (which is relatively easy to solve) against him, and see how he fares.

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

simple dumb argument.
chess is all skill - lots of books written about it.
bingo is all luck - none or very feww books written about it.

lots of books written about poker, thus....

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
simple dumb argument.
chess is all skill - lots of books written about it.
bingo is all luck - none or very feww books written about it.

lots of books written about poker, thus....

[/ QUOTE ]I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT!

ROULETTE AND CRAPS ARE GAMES OF SKILL TOO!

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

no one here knows how to create those graphs??

I thought the first graph could be created using a formula similar to the Risk of Ruin calculation? can anyone who's familiar with that calculation give me some suggestions? thanks!

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
ROULETTE AND CRAPS ARE GAMES OF SKILL TOO!

[/ QUOTE ]

Er, how many professional roulette players can you name?
(Who aren't casino owners, I mean.)

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ROULETTE AND CRAPS ARE GAMES OF SKILL TOO!

[/ QUOTE ]

Er, how many professional roulette players can you name?
(Who aren't casino owners, I mean.)

[/ QUOTE ]Lots of books = game of skill, obv

Refer to above post

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

You need to present the known formulas that show that if you play this many hands the probability of you winning if you are this or that much a better player than your opponents on average is X. That will prove that the luck factor is more or less not dominating.

The other thing you need to prove is that there's enough skill in poker. You need to present the skill factors and show that they are significant, also proving that the opponents on average (weighted average) are that much worse than you are.

Presenting your PT stats helps.

If the one who you are trying to prove it to has no brain, you will fail. If the other has a brain, there is more or less a possibility that he would already understand.

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

Quote:
ROULETTE AND CRAPS ARE GAMES OF SKILL TOO!



Er, how many professional roulette players can you name?
(Who aren't casino owners, I mean.)

Lots of books = game of skill, obv

Refer to above post

[/ QUOTE ]

There are lots of books about how to win the lottery. Hardly makes it a game of skill. Just means there are plenty of fish willing to believe that buying a book makes winning more probable.

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

Searching Amazon.com, books only:


Poker: 56,187 Results

Craps: 48,917 Results

ROULETTE: 19,233 Results

Blackjack: 11,581 Results

Lotto: 8,078 Results




POKER WINS

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

In a game of poker you have to make one or sometimes as many as seven decisions, each of which gives you choices (bet, raise, call or fold). In some games the bet amounts varies as well.

So lets take the assertion "Poker is all about luck" and put it to the test.

This means, that you can make ALL of these decisions randomly and be guaranteed to have exactly the same win rate as someone who actually thinks about what they are doing. You could raise with every hand to the river. Or fold every hand before the flop. All with equal success.

This is true of picking numbers for the lottery, and its true about roulette too (with 1 tiny exception).

You dont need a graph to prove its not true about poker.

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

ycjason, while a graph is a nice idea, it fails to actually demonstrate to your friend exactly how the luck factor can be overcome by skilled play.
If your friend is sophisticated enough to look at a PT graph and actually grasp it's meaning, he's sophisticated enough to understand a verbal explanation of how luck can be overcome in poker.
Explain to him that every action yields a certain Expected Value, or EV. A skilled player will constantly make decisions with Positive EV, or +EV. With each additional +EV decision a player makes, his potential earnings increase. After a large enough sample of +EV decisions have been executed, the probability of having lost money becomes infinitesmally small.
If your friend cannot grasp this verbal explanation, no graph is going to help him.
Also ycjason, I would say that the majority of random people you meet on the street are incapable of grasping this kind of logic, so don't get your hopes up too high of 'converting' your friend into an EV believer.

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

I would have to aggree with Donkeyradish, what you are trying to express would not easily fit into a graph, hell probably could be a book in and of itself and not cover all the necessary topics, as there are many factors that equate into the skill level of a player.

Discipline in their play, from hole card to selection, to sticking with the correct calls, even though they are itching to gamble.

Understanding of the game, gambling theory, odds and statistics, not to mention experience. Then there are understanding of other topics, psychology, metagame, reading peoples actions etc

And last but not least the application of all the above on the felt, you can know all the above but if you are lacking certain ingrediants, luck becomes more and more of a factor.

Finally, do not be fooled or allow the person that you are trying to provide this to be fooled. Poker IS a game of chance, hence the reason why it is called gambling, but when you have experience and skill on your side overall luck becomes a lesser factor in win rate over time.

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
I want to create a graph to show to a friend to prove that poker is not about luck in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I'm your friend I say, "Well aren't you lucky, you can afford to buy me a beer."

I think the "making a living" aspect is a pretty good arguement. Nobody makes a living at craps, slots or roulette. Some can make a living at blackjack. They can do this through card counting and book strategy, which is a skill.

It should actually be a simple as explaining that poker players make decisions. If your friend believes that everybody receives the same amount of luck, then you could explain that better decisions will result in that player's good luck earning more money and his bad luck losing less money (than the bad decision maker).

If he still doesn't believe you, then by all means invite him to the casino and wish him luck.

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the "making a living" aspect is a pretty good arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's an awful argument. If some casino was paying 3:1 on roulette bets on black, I could make a living playing it. That doesn't mean it's suddenly a game of skill, just because it's +EV.

On a similar note, if the poker room suddenly started charging 10x rake, it'd kill your ability to make a profit. That doesn't change the amount to which luck is a factor.

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the "making a living" aspect is a pretty good arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's an awful argument. If some casino was paying 3:1 on roulette bets on black, I could make a living playing it. That doesn't mean it's suddenly a game of skill, just because it's +EV.

On a similar note, if the poker room suddenly started charging 10x rake, it'd kill your ability to make a profit. That doesn't change the amount to which luck is a factor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those are some pretty unrealistic "ifs".

But whatever, the "making a living" point of view has worked for me when explaining poker and skill to friends and family.

Re: help on proving poker is not about luck
 

If you have MS Excel create a table with the following columns headings: Hands, Expected Win, Lower Limit, Upper Limit.

In the hands columns fill in 0-500,000 at 10,000 hand increments.

In the expected win column put in your expected win. This will be (hands/100)*(win rate). I would enter your win-rate in a seperate cell that you reference so you can change it easily.

In the lower limit column enter (expected win)-2*(square root(hands/100))*(standard deviation). You can use a different number of standard deviations if you like, but 2 is standard.

In the upper limit column enter (expected win)+2*(square root(hands/100))*(standard deviation). You can use a different number of standard deviations if you like, but 2 is standard.

Now use the chart wizared to plot the expected win, lower limit and upper limit verus number of hands. You should notice that it takes quite a few hands for the lower limit to get above zero.

These graphs represent the range of results a player with the given WR and SD might experience. Note that it is not necessarily correct to then say that if you have expericenced these statistics that your true WR is within the range of the upper and lower limit.

Paul