[Krow]

There is a logical way to prove skill is a greater factor than luck (also this may sound very obvious to some, but I promise you I was in an argument over this very point.) I had a friend who admitted that there was skill in poker but luck would out weigh skill, there is a falaciy in that argument.

He said that luck would be more than 50% of the game, actually he said that only 25% of the game of poker was skill making 75% luck. So if you admit there is skill than you must admit one player can be more skilled then anouther because a game can't be of skill if all the players have the same chances of winning evertime, (like the game of war 50/50.)

Back to the point first off I belive that tyou can't quantify skill versus luck but for the sake of argument I will use 75% luck and 25% skill. We will say that the game is heads up for simplicity. That means that in this heads up scenario both players in a game that is no skill is 50/50, but the only 50/50 in this is the 75% luck factor making it 37.5/37.5. On top of that is the 25% skill factor 12.5/12.5 if the players are both even matched which is almost never the case. We will say that one player is only slightly more skilled with maybe only a point making it 13.5/11.5. This change would make the odds of winning 51/49 favoring the more skilled player. That means that in the "long-run" say over the course of 100 heads up matches (with perfect heads up matches) played for 100 dollars each game the more skilled player would win 200$ every 100 games or would average 2$ every single game. Thus making the more skilled player the clear victor. Also remember the 75 25 stats are purely theoretical and only for used to explain the point in a statistical analysis.