How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[David Sklansky]

Reprinted from the Sklansky Forum:

The title is possibly a touch exaggerated but maybe not. You see there is a big debate going on in several venues, internet and otherwise, regarding how much "skill" there is in the game of poker. And the answer to that question may be very relevant to whether the game will become legal in various places. The details of that are off this subject. What this post is about is simply the subject of "skill"
and the conversation I just had with my son Mat, about it.

Few people claim that poker is all luck. Even though in most forms of the game you can't make any decisions that will alter the strength of the cards you hold. However most of the legal arguments that I have encountered (and occasionally have been asked to rebut on the witness stand) merely claim that the skill factor is quite small. That luck predominates. And in most if not all venues, that claim, if correct, would be sufficient to win their case and outlaw poker.

I have always declined to testify, because I realized that the statistical evidence I could give, regarding hourly rates and standard deviations of winning poker players, might backfire. Because of what it says about the length of time required before a pro could be almost sure of being ahead of a decent amateur.

On the other hand that is not really fair. Sure luck predominates in the short run in poker. But that doesn't prove there isn't a lot of skill in the game. It only proves that there isn't much DIFFERENCE in skill between excellent, and merely competant, players. But how does one prove that to a jury? That the luck factor is accentuated because average players are in fact pretty skillful themselves. And right off the top of his head, Mat gave me the answer.

Which is that ONLY IN GAMES OF SKILL CAN A PLAYER GUARANTEE THAT HE WILL QUICKLY LOSE. If for some strange reason he wanted to. Why didn't I think of that? Because of course it is true. You can't guarantee that you will lose in slot machines or keno or roulette or craps just by playing badly.(I'm not counting the artificial plays of betting red and black or pass and don't pass at the same time. Nor am I talking about folding every hand in poker. I'm talking about playing very badly.) Only in games of skill, does horrible play mean a quick demise. (Although there are exceptions such as sports betting).

Thus while you can't show a jury that expert play quickly results in a win, you can show them that in poker the opposite type of play quickly results in a loss. Which should be sufficient evidence to prove that skill is a major part of the game.

Though I would love to name this argument after me, the fact is that Mat thought of it and merely gave me premission to post it for him. Thus it must be named after him. The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument.

[SplawnDarts]

Sound argument.

[Wake up CALL]

Would showing a single game of skill where Mat is incorrect be enough to disprove The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument? If so I hereby lay claim to be the first to disprove your theorum.

[Befolder]

[ QUOTE ]
Would showing a single game of skill where Mat is incorrect be enough to disprove The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument? If so I hereby lay claim to be the first to disprove your theorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you waiting for? Lead with your argument so it can be debated and perhaps refuted.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you waiting for? Lead with your argument so it can be debated and perhaps refuted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am afraid David will attempt to weasel his way out if I let the cat out of the bag before he answers. There will in fact be no debate once I name the skill game, in fact there are several but one should work just fine.

[JuntMonkey]

I like David's humor in the naming of the Argument.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Would showing a single game of skill where Mat is incorrect be enough to disprove The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument? If so I hereby lay claim to be the first to disprove your theorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. We are talking about arguments to persuade juries. Not logic theorems. The point of the argument is to show that games where luck seems to predominate can still be games of much skill. Because that fact is masked by the close equality of skill among practitioners. But even if it takes a long time for great skill to show, the necessity of skill can also be demonstrated by pointing out how quickly lack of skill shows.

[daedalus]

Sklansky's "Fundamental Theorum of Losing"....I love it.

Won't sell a single book but might save poker.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
No. We are talking about arguments to persuade juries. Not logic theorems. The point of the argument is to show that games where luck seems to predominate can still be games of much skill. Because that fact is masked by the close equality of skill among practitioners. But even if it takes a long time for great skill to show, the necessity of skill can also be demonstrated by pointing out how quickly lack of skill shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, Juries decide issues of fact, they do not make statutory interpretations. This issue will be decided by how legislators choose to craft statutes on [online] gambling, and how judges interpret the law, not by any jury. To the extent that there are any legislators who have an open mind on this issue, and are persuaded that it makes any difference whether a game is governed by or subject to chance, then this is a decent point to raise. But frankly, I don't think this distinction matters to anyone but poker players who want to consider themselves something other than gamblers.

I am a consistent winning player, but I harbor no illusions despite the fact that I have a long term skill edge against most opponents that, at the end of the day, I am still gambling.

[Befolder]

Nice work sir. That's some nice backward, out of the box thinking which I never would have considered.