[UF_Gators]

[ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize we were placing BJ in the "luckbox" game category... then again, with the LV rules I saw recently, you might have a point.

What am I misinterpreting about this statement:
"is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques"

... other than I wasn't calling BJ a mainly luck game? And even so, if a luckbox game's $$ results can be affected by losing strategies (i.e. lack of skill), then shouldn't that show that poker results, with a lot LESS luck, should be greatly affected by skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't call Blackjack a game of 'skill'. True you have the opportunity to make decisions that affect the outcome, but there is a mathematical certainty to every one of those decisions. A complete idiot could sit down at a Blackjack table with a grid showing the statistically best play for each situation and win at a rate approaching about 49% over a large number of hands. Same for anybody else no matter how intelligent or 'skilled'.

The decisions you make in poker involve judgment. There are probabilities involved in drawing, but ultimately you have to make a judgment about the range of hands you opponent could have based on his prior holdings, betting action, apparent emotional state, appearance, etc. Those who have the ability to recognize patterns, remember hands, read people, etc are more 'skilled' at playing poker than the average Joe that can't.