Re: Can a bot settle the luck/skill argument?
OK. What I'm suggesting (still hashing it out) is that the possibility of programming a computer to beat a game proves that game can be beat.
Are humans who beat the game also proof? Yes. But a computer could prove to be a better model for showing this. You can't program a computer to beat craps or roulette. If the deck is shuffled after each hand, you can't program one to beat blackjack.
You can program a computer to beat chess, poker and -- yes -- roshambo. Comparing data of games a computer can beat to data of games a computer can't beat could help convince some that poker is a skill game.
Put simply: If a computer can beat it, tangible skill is a factor. If a computer can't (such is the case with lotteries) then it must be subject mostly to chance.
Forgive me if I'm repeating myself here, but I'm on little sleep and this idea has arrived and left about a dozen times.
|