help on proving poker is not about luck

[ycjason]

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!

[sawseech]

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

rake

[ycjason]

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

[ycjason]

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?

[mykey1961]

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.

[rufus]

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.

[99killed]

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....

[T50_Omaha8]

[ 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!