chess or poker

[Equal]

[ QUOTE ]
chess and it's not close. There is ZERO luck factor in chess. The better player will win in the short run AND long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an argument for there being luck in chess. Say you are playing against an amateur. This amateur continually makes his moves based on flawed logic, lack of experience or whatever, but he just happens to make the optimal move each time. Now is that luck? Where he accidently makes the right moves but for all the wrong reasons?

[samoleus]

Hold 'Em, the fact that there is much more of a luck factor in poker than in chess does not mean that it requires less skill than chess. It simply means that the better chess player will beat the worse chess player more often than the better poker player will beat the worse poker player. But that does not mean that poker requires less skill. I think you are making too loose of a correlation there.

[ggbman]

You'de have to check with him, i am pretty sure it was not in the US though.

[Requin]

I'm surprised there was never a 2+2 chess tourney, I'm sure there's alot of posters who play. I think curtains used to be a GM or something if I'm remembering right.

[Prevaricator]

i'd say poker. i was a chess player before i got into poker as well, and i used tournament winnings from chess to start playing poker.

the reason I say poker, is that chess is about memorization more than anything. While having a good memory is important in poker too, the chess board is static, whereas you must constantly adjust to unique opponent's tendancies. the key to being good at chess is recognizing similar positions you've been in before and using the information you already know in order to make a good decision. if you are up against an unknown in poker, its impossible to do this, and you must adapt quickly if you want to win.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
Megenoita, there is no way that a player can win at poker simply by "being random" or by "pushing around" when the situation does not call for it. Poker requires much more skill than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that a player can win in poker by "simply" being random. What I mean is that in poker, there are many strategies a poker player can employ that will win him pots and keep people on their toes, and they're pretty simple--they don't take a lot of intelligence to work. The reason that it works is because opponents have exploitable weaknesses that, although they are strong aside from this one or two obvious deficiencies, those are enough to make the opponents profitable to play against.

If you are comparing world class players against world class players, I think you can argue for poker being as intricate as chess. But at most levels, I don't think it is-it's too simple to win.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
chess and it's not close. There is ZERO luck factor in chess. The better player will win in the short run AND long run.

Samo,

Pro athlete? Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

it does not follow that because there is more luck in poker, there must also be less skill.

[Megenoita]

Not only that, but there's really not luck in poker theoretically. If samo and I play head's up, whether I win or not, he was the better player, and he played better.

[Little_Jim]

Probably chess, although poker against near-perfect opponents would get pretty deep.

Quick Recap on Samoleus, for those who haven't been keeping up:

Uber 49/27ish super-successful LAG, to the tune of 6 million+

Pro Soccer player

Pro Chess Player

Holds down job + family

Donates 2 mil to cancer research + drops 2 mil on a crib

Has the most unbelievable parlay of events in a 6 hour session (far beyond any powerball odds)

Planet of origin still unknown

[invisibleleadsoup]

who did you play football for samoleus?