How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't heard anyone name 1 game of skill that you couldn't lose right away if you wanted to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chess, now you can't say that anymore.

[ongo30]

How do you figure. You can easily lose quickly in chess if you were trying to. That actually helps this argument, because everyone knows chess is a game of skill. The better player wins most of time. I could easily lose a chess game in 3 moves against a good opponent.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you figure. You can easily lose quickly in chess if you were trying to. That actually helps this argument, because everyone knows chess is a game of skill. The better player wins most of time. I could easily lose a chess game in 3 moves against a good opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explaining is so much work, you cannot easily lose if the other person is not trying to win now can you? You can easily come to a draw game but you cannot simply easily lose without the cooperation of the other player. Boxing is the same, you can easily come to a draw but you cannot easily lose without full cooperation from your oponnent.

[Befolder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you figure. You can easily lose quickly in chess if you were trying to. That actually helps this argument, because everyone knows chess is a game of skill. The better player wins most of time. I could easily lose a chess game in 3 moves against a good opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explaining is so much work, you cannot easily lose if the other person is not trying to win now can you? You can easily come to a draw game but you cannot simply easily lose without the cooperation of the other player. Boxing is the same, you can easily come to a draw but you cannot easily lose without full cooperation from your oponnent.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a poor argument. The same could be said for playing someone heads up. They could play terribly and open fold everytime instead of trying to beat you.

[Skallagrim]

A lot of you guys are making good points bit missing the key issue as it relates to "saving poker." To save poker (in most states becasue of the state law) we need to show that poker is NOT MORE THAN 50% chance. I ask you to respond to that directly. Folks on these boards are here (mostly) because they are serious about poker. HOW MANY OF YOU FEEL THAT MORE THAN 50% OF YOUR RESULTS WERE DUE TO CHANCE (the random distribution of the cards)?

In this analysis, exclude every hand that did not go to showdown (cause there the player actions, even if they were influenced by their cards, determined the outcome, not the cards).

Also thanks to Stellerwind for pointing out that in poker its not just who wins, but how much they win. Certainly this aspect of the game is due more to player actions then the cards themselves. I disagree though, that some distribution of cards will ALWAYS reult in a loss - you might get that guy to fold his aces even with your 2,3 os [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

And as for the blackjack argument, well that does show the limits of Sklansky's theorum, I think, because it points out that the theory applies to ANY game with skill, not just games that are mostly skill. That blackjack has SOME skill is clear, but the skill in blackjack does not determine who wins or loses, the cards do. Blackjack skill is just knowing what plays to make to take maximum advantage of the probablities associated with the cards. This is not like poker where the player's actions can indeed determine the winner despite the cards.

At some point, I predict, this will be litigated in Court. If we can prove poker is less than 50% chance, we will ahve established the legality of poker in about 2/3rds of the states, and excluded play from those states as being covered by the UIGEA. When 2/3rds of americans can legally play poker, only those left in the most nanny-state/religious right states will be excluded, and probably there only until the state figures out a way to make money from the game (like happened with lotteries).

[Befolder]

Shouldn't the mere fact that the distribution of cards to each player over the long term is equal say something. If everyone receives their fair share of full houses and suck outs, which we do, then the cards become a null factor don't they?

If you take ten players at a table and systematically set them up in the exact same 1000 situations. The luck factor says that the chips will be even again after those 1000 trials. We all know that's not true because a skillful player will make good laydowns when he needs to, or make that value bet on the river, thus extending his advantage over the non-skilled player.

If the cards are random and even, then another factor must be responsible for the difference in winnings/losses between players.

It's absurd to think that I've had four positive years because I'm on an incredible streak of luck.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a poor argument. The same could be said for playing someone heads up. They could play terribly and open fold everytime instead of trying to beat you.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point, that is why it is the perfect argument to refute the initial concept of this thread. As far as persuading a jury I am not even an attorney and am confident I could sway them to not accept the Sklansky family argument.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of you guys are making good points bit missing the key issue as it relates to "saving poker." To save poker (in most states becasue of the state law) we need to show that poker is NOT MORE THAN 50% chance. I ask you to respond to that directly. Folks on these boards are here (mostly) because they are serious about poker. HOW MANY OF YOU FEEL THAT MORE THAN 50% OF YOUR RESULTS WERE DUE TO CHANCE (the random distribution of the cards)?


[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of comments:

1) I am not sure where the "50%" rule is coming from, can you please site to something that explains this, and who makes this determination?

2) To the extent that this rule exists in any jurisdiction, it is always subject to change (both in our favor and against).

3) Personally, on a micro level I think poker is far less than 50% skill, and on a macro level much greater. I think you will typically find that most people think it takes somewhere near 50,000 hands to start to get a reliable indication of your winrate. The need for such a large sample tends to support the argument that poker is tremendously more susceptible to luck than skill. Keep in mind that the VAST majority of people who have played poker will never play 50,000 hands over their lifetime.

4) The "skill" argument is one of the weakest arguments and has the least chance of gaining any political traction. I think it is widely held that only 8% or so players are winning players long term-- that is to say are skillful enough to beat other players and the rake. Clearly in a rake environment to whatever degree "skill" is involved this game is only +ev for the vast minority of people and the "house". For society it is -ev, unless you factor in considerations such as personal freedom.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't heard anyone name 1 game of skill that you couldn't lose right away if you wanted to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chess, now you can't say that anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

His wording was poor -- you could easily make yourself lose in chess though, just not in the first few turns. It is very easy to put yourself in a check-mate position if you are trying.

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a poor argument. The same could be said for playing someone heads up. They could play terribly and open fold everytime instead of trying to beat you.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point, that is why it is the perfect argument to refute the initial concept of this thread. As far as persuading a jury I am not even an attorney and am confident I could sway them to not accept the Sklansky family argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a matter of law though? Deciding whether poker is in fact caught under a statute as a game of chance seems to be entirely a matter of law for a judge, not a jury.