Comparison with baseball as an argument that poker is a game of skill?

[Self Made]

I haven't been in this forum much recently, so I don't know which arguments for poker as a game of skill have been discussed. I am familiar with some:
- the "my son saved the world" argument [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]: (you can choose to play badly and lose, unlike in, say, slots)
- the Howard Lederer argument (that's what I call it anyway, since I read about it in an interview with him): basically, most hands don't go to showdown at high levels, so what does the random draw of cards have to do with it?

Here's another one, to demonstrates the basic point that there's luck in everything:

Present a scenario to a judge where the better entity only wins 60% or so of the time, and performance can vary by hundreds of percent from session to session. Ask him if that's a game of luck. He'll probably say yes. Tell him he just called baseball a game of luck, and performance pay for professional baseball players must be illegal gambling.

[KurtSF]

While the comparison is actually good (I think there is a similar amount of luck in poker and baseball), it is also pointless. Gamblers /= athletes, no matter what kind of "luck" is involved.

[KurtSF]

Then again, baseball players /= athletes either, but you know what I mean.

[mtgordon]

As a side not Lederer's argument isn't very good either. If a guy flops quads he's obviously not folding. Just because we don't know what cards a person had because it didn't reach showdown doesn't mean the cards didn't have any affect on the outcome.

I would much rather compare it to sports.

[Skallagrim]

"If a guy flops quads he's obviously not folding."

While this is true in all but truly sci-fiction scenarios, I thought poker was made up of more than one player? Doesnt some one else have to make decisions for there to be play?

If the guy goes all in with quads and everyone folds to him, what won his hand, his quads, his bet or everyone else's decision to fold? And since he could have got the same result with the same bet with 2-7os, how can the cards be the determining factor in that outcome?

What if some guy calls with a staight flush draw? What if he hits it?

What you call the Lederer argument (which I call my argument since I posted it way before Howard mentioned it to the press) is still the best argument going.

A players reaction to their cards is not the same thing as the cards playing themselves. If it were, we wouldnt need any strategy (or this site) beyond a simple flow chart, would we?

Skallagrim

PS - the baseball analogy is actually a very good one in terms of statistics and also how each opponents level of skill is important to quantifying how much skill determines the outcome of a game or tournament.

[Chump Change]

A comparison I thought of recently (2 actually, 1 being backgammon but i'm sure that's already been discussed) is to scrabble.
There is a random distribution of tiles but from then on the skill takes over. A good player will make use of bad tiles and beat an unskilled player and when two elite players (or two of the same relative skill) play the outcome will usually be decided by tile distribution (variance). Still, a reasonably skilled player can beat an elite player on any given day, but the more skilled you become the less luck you realize there is and most amateurs think the game is, while not predominately, a bunch of luck. There are even terms for running good and bad.
I don't think this notion will blow anybody away but it's still interesting how one is viewed as wholesome and there are money tournaments and matches for money all over, while the other is under government heat.

[Grasshopp3r]

I hate scrabble, but that is an excellent analogy.

Don't forget about bridge. There is a bridge club next to my office.

effin degen scrablers and bridgers. I would throw them under the bus, too.

[Skallagrim]

Thanks Chump Change, the scrabble analogy is really good and quite on point. I will add that to the mix.

[Chump Change]

Aye, when you get to the intermediate level there is a concept call rack balancing. In simplest terms this is making a play that is weak but gets rid of troublesome letter combinations so you can get a nice balanced rack and have the capability to make strong plays later. This compares to poker in the sense that you're not forced to play every hand from every position, and a hand that can be played horribly in one situation (say, limp-calling suited connectors UTG) can be played profitably (raising some limpers OTB) in another.

There is the chance that now baseball and scrabble are gonna be outlawed, but i'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[mo42nyy]

theres a ton of similarities b/w baseball and poker
short term you can do everything wrong and succeed or do everything right and fail
in the long term you need to do everything right

Its frustrating when your pitching and give up a cheap broken bat bloooper or hit a rope right at someone-but if you are constantly making good pitches and hitting the ball hard youll be fine.