Poker is Luck

[Tuff_Fish]

Skill or luck? The answer is obvious

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1c01poker.html

June 1, 2007

Many poker players will tell you that the sweetest chips won come from a bluff.

Second might be those won on a check-raise. The decision to check-raise usually comes down to the strength of your hand. But even when you hold the nuts and it would seem to be an easy choice, you must still consider the likelihood your opponent will go along with the plan by betting, so you don't miss a chance to gain more chips.



AdvertisementPro Andrew Black had such a case during the first level of the 2006 World Series of Poker Main Event. With blinds at $25-$50, Black limped in with K-J off-suit.
“I wouldn't normally limp in with that hand, but early on you have so many chips,” said Black, who won $1.7 million when he finished seventh in the 2005 WSOP Main Event. “Early on, you have a deep stack, and you're in the right frame of mind where you can actually let the hand go.”

Two other players called. The flop came K-5-3, two clubs. Black bet $200.

Table Talk
Fourth street: The fourth board card, also known as the turn.


“I'm happy to take the pot down there if I can,” Black said. “If the guy calls, I proceed cautiously. A guy who's obviously an amateur calls me. I played with him for 20 minutes and I know he's an amateur. He's very nervous. He could have anything. So he could have K-Q. I'm very worried about that. He calls me.”

Fourth street came the king of diamonds, giving Black three kings with a potentially vulnerable kicker.

“This is where it got interesting,” Black said. “I bet $250 and he threw in a $500 chip, but after the $500 was in, he said, 'Raise.'”

When you throw in an oversized chip without saying “Raise” beforehand, you are ruled to be calling the bet.

“I thought, 'He's trying to raise me. Maybe he's got K-Q,'” Black said.

The river came the king of hearts, giving Black quad kings. Should he bet the nuts and hope he gets a call, or should he try to check-raise but risk missing a bet?

“I said, 'All right, let's try to put something on here,'” Black said. “If he was going to try to raise (on the turn), maybe he's such a bad player that there's a chance that he might bet. So, I check and he bets $1,000. I raised him $1,500 and he called me.”

Black's opponent mucked his cards as Black scooped the pot.

“Because of what happened before, I thought there was an outside chance that he would bet and I might win a big pot,” Black said. “I felt that if he wanted to raise, he might follow through. You never know. If he's got a pair, he might unbelievably pay me off. Everybody else at the table knew I had four kings when I raised.”

Tuff

[Auren]

Anyone that claims poker is luck:

I challenge you to heads-up game. Your only options are to check and call. I can do whatever I want. If poker is game of luck then you should have no problem with this since luck will determine the winner.


Problem with determining poker as game of skill is that if that is done shouldn't blackjack be game of skill as well? It is clear that someone who never takes card does lot worse than someone who follows good strategy. So clearly blackjack is also game of skill.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that claims poker is luck:

I challenge you to heads-up game. Your only options are to check and call. I can do whatever I want. If poker is game of luck then you should have no problem with this since luck will determine the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I challenge you to blackjack, and your only option is to hit, I'll win every hand because you'll bust every time. Does this prove blackjack isn't a game of luck?

[Auren]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that claims poker is luck:

I challenge you to heads-up game. Your only options are to check and call. I can do whatever I want. If poker is game of luck then you should have no problem with this since luck will determine the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I challenge you to blackjack, and your only option is to hit, I'll win every hand because you'll bust every time. Does this prove blackjack isn't a game of luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

I added blackjack part to my original post before I read this post. As you see I think so. Clearly blackjack is also game of skill. If you got skill you do better. You never win but skill is still significant.

For game of luck take roulette. I am happy to bet red every time while you can bet whatever you want. Both have exact same chance to win. There is no skill involved at all.

[nineinchal]

[ QUOTE ]
SALAZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRR

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I added blackjack part to my original post before I read this post. As you see I think so. Clearly blackjack is also game of skill. If you got skill you do better. You never win but skill is still significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I win, with skill. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Poker is skill with variance (as is blackjack for a card counter). An easy way to think of it is to compare it to tossing a coin for money, where you win $11 for each time you toss "heads" and lose $10 each time you toss "tails". You'll win long term, of course, as you have a 5% advantage, but you'll often lose short term due to variance. That's how our advantage works.

[Skallagrim]

Blackjack is a game that is influenced by skill, but never determined by it. The phrase the NC court used was incorrectly applied to poker IMHO, but is true of blackjack: its a game of chance where a player can maximize his winnings through the exercise of skill.

The key difference is not the built in house edge that can only be overcome by card counting, the key difference is that your decisions in blackjack can NEVER determine who wins or loses. The cards will always decide the outcomes, and you can only play percentages.

In poker, your (and the other players) decisions CAN decide who wins and loses. Your decision to fold has decided the outcome of your hand independant of the cards; likewise, your decision to raise may decide who wins or loses independant of the cards by inducing your opponents to fold.

Of course we also play percentages in poker - folding is not the whole of the game. But you can NEVER fold or induce your opponent to fold in blackjack (please dont make me respond to a post about "surrendering," it is not the same).

Blackjack is not a game of mostly skill precisely because no amount of skill can overcome the cards. No matter how skilled you are at both strategy and counting if you do not get the cards you will lose. It is not enough to say that you just have to play long enough, because what you are saying is that you just have to play long enough for the cards to approach their statistical probability. That is not something you can overcome or influence.

There is no psychology in blackjack, but there is in poker. And that makes all the differnce.

Skallagrim

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The key difference is not the built in house edge that can only be overcome by card counting, the key difference is that your decisions in blackjack can NEVER determine who wins or loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Methinks you write without thinking. Please reconsider this portion of your post. Hint: Bet Size

[Auren]

[ QUOTE ]


There is no psychology in blackjack, but there is in poker. And that makes all the differnce.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see psychology in horse betting or sports betting either. But those are considered games of skill. So psychology can not be the one thing that decides whether game is of skill or chance.

[tshak]

The point of poker is to make +EV decisions. If someone 4 outters you in the short run, you're still winning in the short run - you won the good gamble. This is especially true with Hold 'Em. The only time that truely unlucky situations occur is when you hit hands like set over set, KK v. AA preflop, etc. These situations, no matter what skill, you can't get away from. Otherwise an expert player can consistantly push their edge. If I make the correct play according to the Fundemental Theory of Poker, I beat my opponent whether or not they get lucky and win the hand.