USA Today skill vs luck

Quanah Parker · #1 10-26-2007, 04:47 PM

I swiped this from the legislation forum.
Currently, mostly skill leads the poll at 43%

Poll on USA Today website with a corresponding story about skill v. luck. Please weigh in!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/poker...22-lobby_N.htm

bystander · #2 10-26-2007, 05:10 PM

There is a luck component in poker.. So in legalistic terms - it is a game of chance ... thats why its called 'gambling'
Chess is a pure game of skill..

Henry17 · #3 10-26-2007, 05:19 PM

Skill. There is a luck component but it disappears over a large enough sample. Pretty much any sport I can think of has a luck component.

bystander · #4 10-26-2007, 06:49 PM

The luck factor never 'disappears' with time - it sure is less.
The luck factor say in chess is miniscule and dependent on player's health, fatigue, nervousness etc. So too in other games .

This cop out that over x amount of years its all skill - doesn't work.
Since no way can you define something as a 'game' over a long period (more than a year) and since games must be finite - there is a substantial luck factor.

The WSOP ME clearly shows that.

bigwavedave · #5 10-26-2007, 09:18 PM

"The test of the character of any kind of a game ... as to whether it is a game of chance or a game of skill is not whether it contains an element of chance or an element of skill, but which of these is the dominating element that determines the result of the game, to be found from the facts of each particular kind of game. Or to speak alternatively, whether or not the element of chance is present in such a manner as to thwart the exercise of skill or judgment."

State v. Stroupe (this case was about pool)

xSCWx · #6 10-26-2007, 10:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a luck component in poker.. So in legalistic terms - it is a game of chance ... thats why its called 'gambling'
Chess is a pure game of skill..

[/ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

iheartponeez · #7 10-26-2007, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aspects of chess involve luck?

PartysOver · #8 10-27-2007, 08:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aspects of chess involve luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

For example: on average, you make the optimal move 90% of the time and your opponent makes the optimal move 75% of the time. Sometimes your far worse opponent wins by choosing the optimal moves by "accident"

Rek · #9 10-27-2007, 09:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aspects of chess involve luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

For example: on average, you make the optimal move 90% of the time and your opponent makes the optimal move 75% of the time. Sometimes your far worse opponent wins by choosing the optimal moves by "accident"

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't agree with that. Chess is 100% skill. It is a game of complete information. You can make make a bad decision but thats what it is. Your opponent can make a good move without realising it but you can then counter. I am pretty good at chess and I know I could NEVER beat a world class player - I am not at that level. I could not even beat him through luck if I played him 1000 times.

If I played Phil Ivey heads up 1000 times I would win some of those. Sometimes because I would have played good and sometimes through luck. However, he would still come out on top.

The point is there is a big luck element in poker especially short term. However, good players will come out on top over time. There is the proof that poker is more skill than luck. Chess was a bad example because IMHO there is zero luck in that game. However, almost any other game has a luck element to some degree or another. So why only poker gets accused of being lucky I don't know - oh hold on, do you think it has something to do with the USA goverment not getting their slice of the online action? Nah, that can't be it.

punkass · #10 10-27-2007, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For example: on average, you make the optimal move 90% of the time and your opponent makes the optimal move 75% of the time. Sometimes your far worse opponent wins by choosing the optimal moves by "accident"

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't this skill? If you make the optimal move less, you are not as skilled, no?