Ratio between skill and luck

[F 350 7.3]

I play no limit hold em. What is considered to be the ratio between skill and luck?

[TheLoser]

When I play I rely on my 100% skill as I have no luck whatsoever

[Mike]

Hold'em was designed with a closer ratio of luck and skill, that is why the game is so popular versus Stud or Omaha where skill is the most important.

As to the ratio, well imo, it depends on how lucky you are compared to your opponents. ;-)

[CaseS87]

short term a lot of "luck"
long term no "luck"

thread over.

[whoisthedrizzle]

There's no ratio of skill to luck, and I may be wrong here, but I don't think there's any more or less skill involved in hold em as compared to other forms of poker. It's just that the skills most vital to stud or omaha are different than those most important to hold em.

[dogmeat]

[ QUOTE ]
that is why the game is so popular versus Stud or Omaha where skill is the most important.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this - are you saying "luck" is more important at Hold'em?

Skill is most important in any poker game, and stud often tends to be a game where players draw-out on you MORE often than hold'em (although you hold'em only players here probably won't believe it).

A poor player at stud my have more "luck" in winning some pots because they are working with their own cards, not community cards like hold'em - but the truth is, there is no real luck-factor in the long run.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[multious]

it seems to me that the average person is retarded

[dwedeking]

[ QUOTE ]
When I play I rely on my 100% skill as I have no luck whatsoever

[/ QUOTE ]

[CaseS87]

the entire point is that luck is an absolutely meaningless word the way most people interpret it's meaning.

[Alobar]

amazingly enough, its actually pretty close to the golden ratio, which is like 1.61 to 1. There was a big write up on this in a science magazine (I believe it was mentioned in cardplayer as well), talking about randomness and games of chance. They werent able to prove it exactly matches the golden ratio, they got it to within like .3 or something. They said it was because for it to exactly match they would have to have someone playing PERFECT poker, and since they cant know exactly what that is they will never be able to match them up perfectly, but they are pretty sure its a match, or at least very close to. It was Phil Ivey and Annie duke they used to run the experiments with, they watched them play vs random players over the internet (who didnt know they were playing against ivey or duke).

If I get bored later ill see if I cant find the article through google, it was actually a really interesting read.