USA Today skill vs luck
 

I swiped this from the legislation forum.
Currently, mostly skill leads the poll at 43%


Poll on USA Today website with a corresponding story about skill v. luck. Please weigh in!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/poker...22-lobby_N.htm

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

There is a luck component in poker.. So in legalistic terms - it is a game of chance ... thats why its called 'gambling'
Chess is a pure game of skill..

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

Skill. There is a luck component but it disappears over a large enough sample. Pretty much any sport I can think of has a luck component.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

The luck factor never 'disappears' with time - it sure is less.
The luck factor say in chess is miniscule and dependent on player's health, fatigue, nervousness etc. So too in other games .


This cop out that over x amount of years its all skill - doesn't work.
Since no way can you define something as a 'game' over a long period (more than a year) and since games must be finite - there is a substantial luck factor.

The WSOP ME clearly shows that.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

"The test of the character of any kind of a game ... as to whether it is a game of chance or a game of skill is not whether it contains an element of chance or an element of skill, but which of these is the dominating element that determines the result of the game, to be found from the facts of each particular kind of game. Or to speak alternatively, whether or not the element of chance is present in such a manner as to thwart the exercise of skill or judgment."

State v. Stroupe (this case was about pool)

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a luck component in poker.. So in legalistic terms - it is a game of chance ... thats why its called 'gambling'
Chess is a pure game of skill..

[/ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aspects of chess involve luck?

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

All the options are irrelevant because there is no stated timeline.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

This skill vs. luck thing has gone on forever. Anyone with half a brain can see that poker is clearly a game of skill. ----It's at least as much or more so than other "skill" games such as baseball---look at the 2007 baseball season. The best team record for the season was 96 wins and 66 losses. So they won 59.3% of their games. For the last 5 months, I have won 61% of my poker sessions. Clearly poker is more skillful of a game than baseball...

So even with the best baseball team in the league, it's practically a coinflip for whether they are going to win each game or not, especially since most teams are closer to 50% win rates. So, i SUPPOSE the only responsible thing to do is to ban the game of baseball permenantly, because it is CLEARLY a game of chance, and theirfore evil and will destory families...

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aspects of chess involve luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

For example: on average, you make the optimal move 90% of the time and your opponent makes the optimal move 75% of the time. Sometimes your far worse opponent wins by choosing the optimal moves by "accident"

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aspects of chess involve luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

For example: on average, you make the optimal move 90% of the time and your opponent makes the optimal move 75% of the time. Sometimes your far worse opponent wins by choosing the optimal moves by "accident"

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't agree with that. Chess is 100% skill. It is a game of complete information. You can make make a bad decision but thats what it is. Your opponent can make a good move without realising it but you can then counter. I am pretty good at chess and I know I could NEVER beat a world class player - I am not at that level. I could not even beat him through luck if I played him 1000 times.

If I played Phil Ivey heads up 1000 times I would win some of those. Sometimes because I would have played good and sometimes through luck. However, he would still come out on top.

The point is there is a big luck element in poker especially short term. However, good players will come out on top over time. There is the proof that poker is more skill than luck. Chess was a bad example because IMHO there is zero luck in that game. However, almost any other game has a luck element to some degree or another. So why only poker gets accused of being lucky I don't know - oh hold on, do you think it has something to do with the USA goverment not getting their slice of the online action? Nah, that can't be it.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
This skill vs. luck thing has gone on forever. Anyone with half a brain can see that poker is clearly a game of skill. ----It's at least as much or more so than other "skill" games such as baseball---look at the 2007 baseball season. The best team record for the season was 96 wins and 66 losses. So they won 59.3% of their games. For the last 5 months, I have won 61% of my poker sessions. Clearly poker is more skillful of a game than baseball...

So even with the best baseball team in the league, it's practically a coinflip for whether they are going to win each game or not, especially since most teams are closer to 50% win rates. So, i SUPPOSE the only responsible thing to do is to ban the game of baseball permenantly, because it is CLEARLY a game of chance, and theirfore evil and will destory families...

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is not sound because MLB teams compete against other teams in their general skill range. What would the win rate of a professional or collge baseball team be if they compteted against a local softball team and took it seriously?

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
This argument is not sound because MLB teams compete against other teams in their general skill range. What would the win rate of a professional or collge baseball team be if they compteted against a local softball team and took it seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

[/ QUOTE ]

80-20 for the niece.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

[/ QUOTE ]

80-20 for the niece.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL yeah she is pretty damn good

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aspects of chess involve luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

For example: on average, you make the optimal move 90% of the time and your opponent makes the optimal move 75% of the time. Sometimes your far worse opponent wins by choosing the optimal moves by "accident"

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't agree with that. Chess is 100% skill. It is a game of complete information. You can make make a bad decision but thats what it is. Your opponent can make a good move without realising it but you can then counter. I am pretty good at chess and I know I could NEVER beat a world class player - I am not at that level. I could not even beat him through luck if I played him 1000 times.

If I played Phil Ivey heads up 1000 times I would win some of those. Sometimes because I would have played good and sometimes through luck. However, he would still come out on top.

The point is there is a big luck element in poker especially short term. However, good players will come out on top over time. There is the proof that poker is more skill than luck. Chess was a bad example because IMHO there is zero luck in that game. However, almost any other game has a luck element to some degree or another. So why only poker gets accused of being lucky I don't know - oh hold on, do you think it has something to do with the USA goverment not getting their slice of the online action? Nah, that can't be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

while chess is a complete information game, to play the game well, it depends on heavily on how many moves you can calculate ahead, but there is a human limit to that calculation. Many times in the game, even the best player has to make a guess as to whether one move is better than the other or not. So there is certainly luck involved as well.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This argument is not sound because MLB teams compete against other teams in their general skill range. What would the win rate of a professional or collge baseball team be if they compteted against a local softball team and took it seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

[/ QUOTE ]

Worse. What would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my trained chimp who knows only one move: pre-flop all-in?
Do you think Phil Ivey will win more matches than the professional baseball team?

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
For example: on average, you make the optimal move 90% of the time and your opponent makes the optimal move 75% of the time. Sometimes your far worse opponent wins by choosing the optimal moves by "accident"

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't this skill? If you make the optimal move less, you are not as skilled, no?

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

Currently 41% say chance or mostly chance. This is why we will never run out of fish.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This argument is not sound because MLB teams compete against other teams in their general skill range. What would the win rate of a professional or collge baseball team be if they compteted against a local softball team and took it seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

[/ QUOTE ]

Worse. What would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my trained chimp who knows only one move: pre-flop all-in?
Do you think Phil Ivey will win more matches than the professional baseball team?

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a trained chimp? cool. And I take it from your comments that it can beat you. Guess thats why you cannot accept poker is skill. The skilled player will come out on top over an extended run.

What's your chimp's name? And when did you marry it?

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a luck component in poker.. So in legalistic terms - it is a game of chance ... thats why its called 'gambling'
Chess is a pure game of skill..

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such think as "luck". What you people are talking about is "variance". A long period of downside variance or a highly unlikely event (like a perfect-perfect suckout) is only "bad luck" because you choose to call the event that. There is no "bad luck" particle in the universe or "bad luck" force that causes these events. They are just the result of the statistical reality that random events are not uniformly random but bunch from time to time. And, that even highly unlikely events like "perfect perfects" do occur given a large enough sample size.

I play about 30,000+ hands per month and haven't had a losing month in over 4 years. Either poker is a game of skill or I'm "lucky" to cosmically unlikely degree.

The problem is simple. For most players their edge (if they have one) against the competition is either smaller than the variance so that it may take a long time to measure their relative skill, or their edge is smaller than the rake so that being a good player still makes them a lifetime loser.

The issue then is over what period or time, or number of hands you are defining for. Clearly for any single hand of poker the variance or "luck" component is a tidal wave compared to the skill component. Unfortunately judges tend to look at this. It's only if we can convince them to look at it from the perspective of the player who plays 100's of thousands of hands that the skill component predominates. Since most players don't play that many hands, for most players poker is a game of chance.

Look at it this way. When I walk up to the craps table, I'm gambling. When the casino books my bet at the same table, they are not.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a luck component in poker.. So in legalistic terms - it is a game of chance ... thats why its called 'gambling'
Chess is a pure game of skill..

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such think as "luck".

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand what is considered luck in poker. It refers to uncertain future events that are beyond the control of any skill.
Bystander never argued poker is not a game of skill. He only explained why the law treats poker as a game of chance.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This argument is not sound because MLB teams compete against other teams in their general skill range. What would the win rate of a professional or collge baseball team be if they compteted against a local softball team and took it seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

[/ QUOTE ]

Worse. What would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my trained chimp who knows only one move: pre-flop all-in?
Do you think Phil Ivey will win more matches than the professional baseball team?

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a trained chimp? cool. And I take it from your comments that it can beat you. Guess thats why you cannot accept poker is skill. The skilled player will come out on top over an extended run.

What's your chimp's name? And when did you marry it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making a strawman argument.
I never said that poker is not a game of skill. I never said a skilled player will not come out on top in the long run. I only said that it involves a certain amount of luck. Significantly more than the aforementioned chess or baseball. Anyway who tries to argue that away clearly does not understand the game of poker.
And the fact that you equate having a pet to beastiality says a lot about either yourself or your reasoning abilities. You will know which one it is.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a luck component in poker.. So in legalistic terms - it is a game of chance ... thats why its called 'gambling'
Chess is a pure game of skill..

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such think as "luck".

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand what is considered luck in poker. It refers to uncertain future events that are beyond the control of any skill.
Bystander never argued poker is not a game of skill. He only explained why the law treats poker as a game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "law" determines whether or not something is a game of skill based on whether chance or skill is the predominate factor in who wins.

I guess what I was trying to say was that over the short run the variance of the cards is more a determinant of who wins then the skill of the player (depending on the game, more for limit poker, less for plo8). Over the long run (10's of thousands of hands minimum) skill will predominate over the variance of the cards for most players.

Judges are human, they tend to have biases. Because poker can be looked at as either a long term or short term affair they can call the game anything they want and technically be right.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

In my country the determination wether a game is a game of skill or a game of chance is based on the dominance of the luck factor in a single game. Therefore it is irrelevant to argue in a court that in the long run skill will prevail.
I assume judges and lawmakers in other jurisdictions might have a similar perspective.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
Currently 41% say chance or mostly chance. This is why we will never run out of fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I saw that stat the same way. Unfortunately, most of the US Reps and Senators are fish.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are making a strawman argument.
I never said that poker is not a game of skill. I never said a skilled player will not come out on top in the long run. I only said that it involves a certain amount of luck. Significantly more than the aforementioned chess or baseball. Anyway who tries to argue that away clearly does not understand the game of poker.
And the fact that you equate having a pet to beastiality says a lot about either yourself or your reasoning abilities. You will know which one it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Louis, you are clearly a sensitive soul who takes offence very easily. I know that chimp would not have married you - she is not blind.

If you read my post I implied that short term there was a huge luck factor involved in poker but long term it is skill. Your intial post IMHO was implying that poker was luck. You may not have meant it but that is the way it came across. Your posts afterwards seem to indicate that we both believe the same thing - luck short term and skill long term.

This can be said for any sport including baseball which is where you then waded into the argument. Yes, I agree that baseball is less luck short term than poker. And chess is less luck short term than baseball. And there will be many other examples with varying degrees of luck short term. However, the point surely is that if it is skillful long term that is the overidding factor in terms of luck v skill.

If you decide to play bingo, for example, it is luck short term, luck long term and -EV very long term.

Now, who decides how much luck v skill is needed in a single game to determine it as a game of skill. Is there a % set down. I don't think so. The only reason poker has been deemed luck is because the USA could not regulate the online games and get their share of the tax revenue.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

Thanks for posting this, man, I hope that Wexler bill goes through.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

"It certainly has elements of skill," said Keith Whyte, executive director of The National Council on Problem Gambling, "but the predominant element has to be chance. Otherwise, it wouldn't be gambling."

I just saw this. I hate these reductionist, nanny state SOBs.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

Yeah, let's invite them to play with bonuses and restroom action.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

Why don't we just schedule a statistically significant number of HU matches between members of Congress and poker pros. Let the Congressmen explain afterwards how it was mostly luck that they were taken to the cleaners.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]
"It certainly has elements of skill," said Keith Whyte, executive director of The National Council on Problem Gambling, "but the predominant element has to be chance. Otherwise, it wouldn't be gambling."

[/ QUOTE ]
What he is overlooking here is that for a winning player it is NOT gambling.

Re: USA Today skill vs luck
 

[ QUOTE ]



What aspects of chess involve luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are chess tournaments put together? Is there a draw to determine who plays who?

How you are seeded would determine how far you got and even whether you win. If you are strong against player A and weak against player B, while player A is strong against player B, whether A and B play each other first before playing you may decide whether you win the tournament or not.