How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[David Sklansky]

Reprinted from the Sklansky Forum:

The title is possibly a touch exaggerated but maybe not. You see there is a big debate going on in several venues, internet and otherwise, regarding how much "skill" there is in the game of poker. And the answer to that question may be very relevant to whether the game will become legal in various places. The details of that are off this subject. What this post is about is simply the subject of "skill"
and the conversation I just had with my son Mat, about it.

Few people claim that poker is all luck. Even though in most forms of the game you can't make any decisions that will alter the strength of the cards you hold. However most of the legal arguments that I have encountered (and occasionally have been asked to rebut on the witness stand) merely claim that the skill factor is quite small. That luck predominates. And in most if not all venues, that claim, if correct, would be sufficient to win their case and outlaw poker.

I have always declined to testify, because I realized that the statistical evidence I could give, regarding hourly rates and standard deviations of winning poker players, might backfire. Because of what it says about the length of time required before a pro could be almost sure of being ahead of a decent amateur.

On the other hand that is not really fair. Sure luck predominates in the short run in poker. But that doesn't prove there isn't a lot of skill in the game. It only proves that there isn't much DIFFERENCE in skill between excellent, and merely competant, players. But how does one prove that to a jury? That the luck factor is accentuated because average players are in fact pretty skillful themselves. And right off the top of his head, Mat gave me the answer.

Which is that ONLY IN GAMES OF SKILL CAN A PLAYER GUARANTEE THAT HE WILL QUICKLY LOSE. If for some strange reason he wanted to. Why didn't I think of that? Because of course it is true. You can't guarantee that you will lose in slot machines or keno or roulette or craps just by playing badly.(I'm not counting the artificial plays of betting red and black or pass and don't pass at the same time. Nor am I talking about folding every hand in poker. I'm talking about playing very badly.) Only in games of skill, does horrible play mean a quick demise. (Although there are exceptions such as sports betting).

Thus while you can't show a jury that expert play quickly results in a win, you can show them that in poker the opposite type of play quickly results in a loss. Which should be sufficient evidence to prove that skill is a major part of the game.

Though I would love to name this argument after me, the fact is that Mat thought of it and merely gave me premission to post it for him. Thus it must be named after him. The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument.