Poker is Luck

Orlando Salazar · #1 05-29-2007, 01:57 PM

First thing, poker IS game of chance, especially when experienced players go head to head. The person who gets the most setup hands and trapping opportunities will win, even if he's a slightly worse player. CTS has admitted to having 30 bi downswings and running hot over 100k hands, which is more hands than most people will ever play in their life. Yes, over 200k hands, you can def be sure that if someone is up $, that they are good relative to their competition. But the that is not the point. We have a right to gamble because it doesn't infringe on another persons OPPORTUNITY to pursue life liberty and happiness. Poker is still a luck game for most people. Lets not lie to get what we want. Lets be honest and say we have a right to play poker just like we have a right to free speech (used to at least).

jschell · #2 05-29-2007, 02:06 PM

Over the long run, poker is a game of skill. Period.

In the short term, poker is mostly chance. What you're talking about in your examples is the short term.

Yes, we should be able to play poker because we are adults and should be able to choose what we do with our money, but poker is also a game of skill (in the long run).

Orlando Salazar · #3 05-29-2007, 02:11 PM

if you read, I said most people will never see the long run...its quite true.

Grasshopp3r · #4 05-29-2007, 02:45 PM

Most people will never win at a lot of things, poker included. Please either acknowledge that short term and long term skill vs. luck is an accepted and tested theory or put your own explanation forward. So far, you seem to be confused on some of the concepts.

The title of your thread should be "Poker is free speech", which I think was where you were going.

jschell · #5 05-29-2007, 02:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if you read, I said most people will never see the long run...its quite true.

[/ QUOTE ]
That does not affect whether or not poker is a game of skill.

We're all playing the same game. Poker can't be a game of skill for some people and a game of chance for others.

Orlando Salazar · #6 05-29-2007, 02:59 PM

I wanted the title to attract attention. I do acknowledge skill wins out if you read my post. But 100k hands is not the long term. Most people will never even play that many hands. So, over the term of the average player's poker life, luck will dominate. If I were a judge, I'd say poker is effectively a luck game for even a knowledgable and skilled player over the short term. 2+2ers who play 400k hands or more a year don't represent the average player.

mungpo · #7 05-29-2007, 03:08 PM

You are saying that it is a luck game but can be a skilled game if you play a lot of hands and make good decisions. Sounds like any professional sport.

morphball · #8 05-30-2007, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, poker is mostly chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is not "mostly chance" in the short-term. A game is either chance or skill, it can't be one or the other, and it can't be all luck one day, but then two weeks later its suddenly skill.

Poker is about determining/estimating how much value your opponent believes his hand possesses, and comparing that value to the value of your hand. This is a skill based task.

People who don't do this are playing games of chance, but when I swing a golf club I am playing a game of chance because I suck at golf and never learned proper technique. Does the fact that I suck at golf mean golf is a game of chance?

jschell · #9 05-30-2007, 06:09 PM

morphball - you are right, my choice of wording there didn't reflect what I meant and wasn't correct.

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, a poker player's results are determined mostly by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
FMP

Skallagrim · #10 05-30-2007, 06:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
morphball - you are right, my choice of wording there didn't reflect what I meant and wasn't correct.

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, a poker player's results are determined mostly by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
FMP

[/ QUOTE ]

You are getting there, but you are not home yet. All you are really saying is that in the short term a player's results MAY be mostly determined by chance. They MAY also be mostly determined by skill (meaning good OR BAD decisions).

In a small unrepresentative sample either may predominate, over a large representative sample skill will predominate.

Morphball has already pointed out that it is logically impossible for a factor to ALWAYS predominate in a small sample but become a secondary factor just because the sample gets larger.

Skallagrim