"Poker is a game of chance"

[Zele]

You can kind of quantify it by looking at your "Sharpe Ratio", which is your WR/SD. Obviously this quantity depends on the time frame you're looking at. Let's say at LHE my WR = 1.5 bb/100 and sd = 17 bb/100, then my SR is 0.09, and over 100 hands LHE is 8% skill and 92% luck (for me). Of course this depends on a particular definition of luck.

Over 10,000 hands, my WR and SD are 150 and 170 bb/10,000, respectively, so we could say over this period poker is 47% skill and 53% luck.

[nickg1532]

[ QUOTE ]
baseball at the mlb level is highly luck dependant.
In a sense nobody says barry bonds sux because he makes an out 65 percent of the time.
Pujols has 0 for 15 slumps.

I think baseball is a great comparison in some sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a baseball player i have to agree. it's by nature a very streaky game. i've always thought baseball was somewhat analagous to poker, in that luck plays a factor to an extent in the short-run

[CrayZee]

Why is that people's brains malfunction when you have a game mixed w/ skill and luck? Some people just don't want to consider that it's a combo and only understand games of pure skill and pure luck (e.g., chess and fair coin flips).

Skill takes precedent in the long run; erratic luck fluctations in the short run. Making good decisions in the short-term lead to +EV long-term results the closer you go to infinity in terms of hands dealt (assuming you are generally stronger than the competition, etc.). Yada yada yada yada yada yada....

[TStoneMBD]

poker is more like 75% skill and 25% luck. if someone has 0 skill it would mean they go allin preflop every hand. with someone doing that, you would have give or take a 75% equity edge against the player assuming you are well skilled. its when players of equal skill start playing against each other than poker becomes a game of luck. a player of 0 skill level is a 75% underdog to a player of infinite skill level with a 25% luck factor whereas 2 players of equal skill level have a 0% advantage and are playing with a 100% luck element.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
"Poker is 90% luck"

what's your reply to that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaningless imprecise statement. Suggests that the person who uttered this statement is weak in quantitative reasoning.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
"Poker is 90% luck"

what's your reply to that?

[/ QUOTE ]

i used the following analogy to my brother's gfs folks.

imagine two players, the best in the world and the worst player in the world.

they play one hand. what % of the results from this match is luck? probably like 60/40 or something.

now they play 100 hands. then 1000, then 100000 etc.

eventually the limit of the ratio of Luck/Skill goes to 0 as the # of hands played in this setup goes to infinity.

so "poker is 90% luck" isn't a specific enough statement to really respond to other than to explain the example above.

in the long run, poker is skill. in the short run, it's large portion of luck.

another determinant of the "amt of luck" in poker is your own personal sharpe ratio (ratio of expectation divided by your standard deviation). as that ratio increases, the "amt of luck" in the short term decreases to some minimum non zero value.

Barron

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Poker is 90% luck"

what's your reply to that?

[/ QUOTE ]

i used the following analogy to my brother's gfs folks.

imagine two players, the best in the world and the worst player in the world.

they play one hand. what % of the results from this match is luck? probably like 60/40 or something.

now they play 100 hands. then 1000, then 100000 etc.

eventually the limit of the ratio of Luck/Skill goes to 0 as the # of hands played in this setup goes to infinity.

so "poker is 90% luck" isn't a specific enough statement to really respond to other than to explain the example above.

in the long run, poker is skill. in the short run, it's large portion of luck.

another determinant of the "amt of luck" in poker is your own personal sharpe ratio (ratio of expectation divided by your standard deviation). as that ratio increases, the "amt of luck" in the short term decreases to some minimum non zero value.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

i heard a better analogy on here once

poker is like a game of chess for $1. except after the game, you flip a coin for $100. at the end of the day, whether you win or lose is dependent on the coin flip.

at the end of your life, whether you win or lose is dependent on your chess skill.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
"Poker is 90% luck"

what's your reply to that?

[/ QUOTE ]



"You got that right."

[Black winter day]

[ QUOTE ]
"Poker is 90% luck"

what's your reply to that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I reply "Add the word tournament to that statement and i will agree".

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Poker is 90% luck"

what's your reply to that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I reply "Add the word tournament to that statement and i will agree".

[/ QUOTE ]

The person interviewing you then shoots you in the face and pisses on your remains. How do you respond?