Where is the chance/skill cusp for Hold'em?

[soon2bepro]

But what if not all players play with a complete lack of skill?

In any game of skill with no inside luck (outside luck is irrelevant), the best player wins tournament (the best player is the one who played the best during the tournament). This doesn't happen in poker. If you put the best 100 players to play a hold'em limit tournament, the result will probably be decided mostly by chance. Even if they play 100 such tournaments, the overall result will be mostly guided by chance.

In your example, you make the bad players have no skill at all, but when they have a dot of common sense, you need to play more hands against them to get a clear edge.

In any case, I don't know how to calculate this, I was just trying to point out what I said above.

[madnak]

Your definition would not exist based on any kind of rigorous mathematical framework, at least not at its base. You'd probably want to use some common assumptions or something along those lines, and use the math to work from there.

Legal distinctions are frequently very arbitrary from a rational standpoint, and rely on cultural assumptions and subjective judgment calls. It's not always quite so bad as "I know it when I see it," but it's frequently not far off.

Thus, the standard for evaluating a measure of "the amount of skill involved" is its intuitive appeal and palatability, rather than its logical consistency. Sad but true.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
But what if not all players play with a complete lack of skill?

In any game of skill with no inside luck (outside luck is irrelevant), the best player wins tournament (the best player is the one who played the best during the tournament). This doesn't happen in poker. If you put the best 100 players to play a hold'em limit tournament, the result will probably be decided mostly by chance. Even if they play 100 such tournaments, the overall result will be mostly guided by chance.

In your example, you make the bad players have no skill at all, but when they have a dot of common sense, you need to play more hands against them to get a clear edge.

In any case, I don't know how to calculate this, I was just trying to point out what I said above.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if the contest is changed to headsup? everything else stays the same. an entire match could be played in about 1-2 hours online.

ray

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Your definition would not exist based on any kind of rigorous mathematical framework, at least not at its base. You'd probably want to use some common assumptions or something along those lines, and use the math to work from there.

Legal distinctions are frequently very arbitrary from a rational standpoint, and rely on cultural assumptions and subjective judgment calls. It's not always quite so bad as "I know it when I see it," but it's frequently not far off.

Thus, the standard for evaluating a measure of "the amount of skill involved" is its intuitive appeal and palatability, rather than its logical consistency. Sad but true.

[/ QUOTE ]

mad,

same question. what if the X=221 and the contest whas headsup?

if the game is mostly luck then we'd each win the sng about half the time. but if you're much better than i am then you'd win much more often.

ray

[Torgeir23]

wouldn't the best way to 'legalize' poker, or to get politicians to view poker as a game of skill, be to draw parallels to the stock and options market and show how the two forms of 'gambling' aren't that different? Too drunk and high to draw any parallels right now

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't the best way to 'legalize' poker, or to get politicians to view poker as a game of skill, be to draw parallels to the stock and options market and show how the two forms of 'gambling' aren't that different? Too drunk and high to draw any parallels right now

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd say that for 3 or more chairs then the stock market parallel begins to be appropriate.

for headsup, chess is a better comparison.

ray

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't the best way to 'legalize' poker, or to get politicians to view poker as a game of skill, be to draw parallels to the stock and options market and show how the two forms of 'gambling' aren't that different? Too drunk and high to draw any parallels right now

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd say that for 3 or more chairs then the stock market parallel begins to be appropriate.

for headsup, chess is a better comparison.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There is still plenty of luck involved in HU matches. Not as much, admittedly, as 6max or FR, but it is still an element.

HU still should be comparable to the stock market analogy, because your edge comes from volume and consistent overall positive ROI. Tournaments might well be described as a finite chaotic system.

[Torgeir23]

How then about the options and futures market? Couldn't u view your hand as a call option on the pot. You are basically betting on the flop turning in your favour. I really can't see how poker differs from the new innovations in financial markets, like weather options for example. It is allowed to bet on the weather now and it's organised on exchanges. How does that differ from, in a gambling perspective, from poker.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't the best way to 'legalize' poker, or to get politicians to view poker as a game of skill, be to draw parallels to the stock and options market and show how the two forms of 'gambling' aren't that different? Too drunk and high to draw any parallels right now

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd say that for 3 or more chairs then the stock market parallel begins to be appropriate.

for headsup, chess is a better comparison.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There is still plenty of luck involved in HU matches. Not as much, admittedly, as 6max or FR, but it is still an element.

HU still should be comparable to the stock market analogy, because your edge comes from volume and consistent overall positive ROI. Tournaments might well be described as a finite chaotic system.

[/ QUOTE ]

fortuna,

just wanna make sure that you know that the theoretical match being discussed here is:

221 hands of limit holdem played headsup with no change in stakes. if you already knew this then please ignore this reminder.

ray

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't the best way to 'legalize' poker, or to get politicians to view poker as a game of skill, be to draw parallels to the stock and options market and show how the two forms of 'gambling' aren't that different? Too drunk and high to draw any parallels right now

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd say that for 3 or more chairs then the stock market parallel begins to be appropriate.

for headsup, chess is a better comparison.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There is still plenty of luck involved in HU matches. Not as much, admittedly, as 6max or FR, but it is still an element.

HU still should be comparable to the stock market analogy, because your edge comes from volume and consistent overall positive ROI. Tournaments might well be described as a finite chaotic system.

[/ QUOTE ]

fortuna,

just wanna make sure that you know that the theoretical match being discussed here is:

221 hands of limit holdem played headsup with no change in stakes. if you already knew this then please ignore this reminder.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this be swayed slightly by uneven distribution of equal starting hands across such a narrow range? If not, then I suppose there's nothing random in poker.

Must've been distracted by that stoned and drunk lobbyist up there and put it in that context. That's not a strong enough argument to present before a court.

If it isn't strong enough for the court, surely it isn't strong enough for a formal proof of logic...