[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of you guys are making good points bit missing the key issue as it relates to "saving poker." To save poker (in most states becasue of the state law) we need to show that poker is NOT MORE THAN 50% chance. I ask you to respond to that directly. Folks on these boards are here (mostly) because they are serious about poker. HOW MANY OF YOU FEEL THAT MORE THAN 50% OF YOUR RESULTS WERE DUE TO CHANCE (the random distribution of the cards)?

In this analysis, exclude every hand that did not go to showdown (cause there the player actions, even if they were influenced by their cards, determined the outcome, not the cards).

Also thanks to Stellerwind for pointing out that in poker its not just who wins, but how much they win. Certainly this aspect of the game is due more to player actions then the cards themselves. I disagree though, that some distribution of cards will ALWAYS reult in a loss - you might get that guy to fold his aces even with your 2,3 os [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

And as for the blackjack argument, well that does show the limits of Sklansky's theorum, I think, because it points out that the theory applies to ANY game with skill, not just games that are mostly skill. That blackjack has SOME skill is clear, but the skill in blackjack does not determine who wins or loses, the cards do. Blackjack skill is just knowing what plays to make to take maximum advantage of the probablities associated with the cards. This is not like poker where the player's actions can indeed determine the winner despite the cards.

At some point, I predict, this will be litigated in Court. If we can prove poker is less than 50% chance, we will ahve established the legality of poker in about 2/3rds of the states, and excluded play from those states as being covered by the UIGEA. When 2/3rds of americans can legally play poker, only those left in the most nanny-state/religious right states will be excluded, and probably there only until the state figures out a way to make money from the game (like happened with lotteries).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the limit players are going to hate me for saying this, but I honestly feel like limit has a lot more luck involved than no limit, and with the high amount of showdowns in limit as opposed to no limit, I could easily see someone calling limit more than 50% luck in determining the outcome of hand, and no limit less than 50% luck. Maybe not high stakes limit tho. I dunno.