|
|
#51
05-09-2007, 11:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: WSJ: Harvard Ponders Just What It Takes to Excel at Poker
[ QUOTE ]
Blackjack is a game of chance that allows for the exercise of some skill, but skill alone can never win the game - the cards determine every outcome. [/ QUOTE ] The cards do NOT determine the important outcome, which is money won/lost. Same as poker (but much, much simpler for BJ, of course). But we've hit on this before, so I won't rehash. 
|
|
#52
05-09-2007, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WSJ: Harvard Ponders Just What It Takes to Excel at Poker
[ QUOTE ]
Our goal isn't to prove to a judge that skilled poker players win long-term. Rather, we have to satisfy some legal definition of skill, which varies from state to state. [/ QUOTE ] Interesting- I would have thought that the goal you said we don't want WAS the best way to prove that poker takes more skill than "luck"
|
|
#53
05-10-2007, 10:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WSJ: Harvard Ponders Just What It Takes to Excel at Poker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Arggghh, NO! Players collect MONEY by getting others to fold or by having the best hand. [/ QUOTE ] ??? Collecting money = winning, right? [/ QUOTE ] No, not really. [/ QUOTE ] So you can have -BB/100 stats and still be winning? What are you talking about? [/ QUOTE ] Of course not- you answered your question for me. Think about what that -BB rate means, as far as the type of player and the number of hands involved in vs. won... [/ QUOTE ] OK, so the problem is he missed the "long term" aspect.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
