How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[kalur]

I'm sorry, but the argument will not save poker, at least in the current form. The problem is that the argument will result in too broad (and unconventional) definition of skill.

Everyone agrees, that if a strategy of random actions will result in EV equal to or very close to the EV of good players, the game has no skill in it and is a game of luck. However, when strategy of random actions will do poorly compared to good players, it does NOT mean that it's a game of skill. Because the skill required could be so small that every normal person without much learning or practicing would play the game with EV equal to the EV of best players. Examples of this have already mentioned in the thread, pointless flower for rock-paper-scissors or for example a new color blue for roulette having 0% of probability of hitting. Using this definition would allow someone to easily create games of skill out of roulette, craps, bingo by some minor adjustments.

It would be more reasonable to define a game of skill as a game where reaching the EV of good players requires a lot of effort for an average person. The effort required to reach the EV of good players would thus define a continuum of games. Some would require more effort, some less. Then one could draw a line somewhere saying that games requiring more than lets say 2 weeks of practice and reading for an average person to reach EV of good players are games of skill. Others are games of luck.

PS Estimation of EV is of course a problem. But it could be done for example taking 500 average people who are not familiar with the game, putting each to a table with good players, letting them play 200 hands each, summing up the results and doing statistical analysis whether the results differ significantly from the hypothesis that the EVs should be the same. Of course for poker, the testing will be expensive, since few very good players are willing to play for free (though this could be used as a simpler definition for game of skill).

[BeerMoney]

Why doesn't a simple P-Value approach work?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about Blackjack? You could easily lose your money on every hand, but if you play perfectly you're still virtually indistinguishable from someone playing craps (assuming enough decks and unfavorable rules).

[/ QUOTE ]

Walking a tightrope must be all luck. Sure, you could easily fall and kill yourself, but if you do it perfectly you're virtually indistinguishable from someone walking on a sidewalk.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly analogy. No one denies that craps is predominantly a game of chance. But say they introduced an insurance bet that would pay 2:1 whenever snake eyes was thrown on the first roll, would that magically transform it into a game of skill? The person playing that insurance is the same as the blackjack player who hits on 17. My obvious point is that aside from bet and strategy deviations based on the count, I don't think that blackjack is a game of skill, despite the potential to lose your money fast if you're an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would adding a lopsided side-game of luck to an existing game of luck turn it into a game of skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's a bad one, since so far all you've done to "show" that blackjack is a game of luck is tell us that you can't differentiate it from craps.

[unfrgvn]

[ QUOTE ]
david REALLY needs to address the blackjack issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blackjack is a game of skill. Why do you think card counters are quickly banned? Aside from that, people that play perfect strategy will fare much better then people who hit or stand based on gut feel.

[jackaaron]

I would wonder what EXACTLY could be done in basketball to decrease skill, but still be part of a legal argument.

Example: If Kobe Bryant, and his teammates only took shots from 80 ft, they would ensure loss. But, would that be right? Instead, should it be that the Lakers players should all wear an extra 160 lbs of weight on their body to dampen their skill?

How do you legally take out skill to show it exists in a legal argument?

I can't guarantee loss in lotteries, nor roulette, but what would I do to attempt that skill exists in those games as well?

[SNOWBALL]

I thought of this a while ago.

[splittter]

Not sure this argument can work.

Obviously, in games of two people if two unskilled players met one of them would still win (or there would be a draw) ... so they couldn't guarantee a quick demise ... so there would have to be a further stipulation that a game is skilled if you can guarantee to lose against a 'skilled' player ... which seems to now be circular ... in fact we're back where we started, how to demonstrate the existence of skilled players.

[jackaaron]

I think the easiest way to intentionally lose at poker is to call every bet (unless it’s in an all in situation), and fold every time to river bets. I guarantee you that I could go into a .01/.02 cent cash game, and these micro limit players would catch on to what I am doing in a matter of 15-20 minutes, and they would completely milk the crap out of me. I could lose my entire bankroll on that one table if I decided to stay long enough (I’m sure the players would no doubt stay long enough).

And, how would this not be acceptable as a way to show that skill exists? Because I could blindly pick lottery numbers, I could blindly pick slots, I could blindly select roulette numbers, and I could not in any way guarantee that I would lose. I could GUARANTEE a loss at poker. In fact, I could guarantee a loss for the next twenty strait years if I played using this method, but during that time, I might have won a few pick 3’s, hit some slots, hit a few numbers in roulette. I would still be losing in all of those, but I will have lost EVERY DIME in poker.


On a related note…I think we need to stop inventing games to prove the point. In the above scenario, I’m talking about no limit, or limit hold’em. The same could happen in Stud, etc.

[splittter]

my point isn't that you can't guarantee loss ... but that you can't guarantee loss generally, only by begging some level of 'skill' on the part of the opponent(s) you face ... even in your example these players demonstrate some ... indeed, if everyone played like you, you wouldn't lose except to the rake (you'd all call pre-flop, and then fold to the button on the river i think) ... and as long as we have to explain the 'skill' of our opponents this argument hasn't gained us anything

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
david REALLY needs to address the blackjack issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blackjack is a game of skill. Why do you think card counters are quickly banned? Aside from that, people that play perfect strategy will fare much better then people who hit or stand based on gut feel.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's counterproductive to argue that blackjack is a game of skill. The whole point of this post is that we're trying to "rescue" poker by finding a line that distinguishes it from other widely accepted games of chance that are heavily regulated and banned as "gambling." The (Mat) Sklansky rule articulated in this thread fails to distinguish poker from run-of-the-mill casino blackjack (as well as from a hypothetical craps game that offers a few really bad bets).

If your line can't make such basic distinctions, I think it's rather useless as a persuasive device, because few people who are skeptical about whether poker is a game of skill would ever accept that (non-counting) blackjack is. At best this "rule" shows that there is some ELEMENT of skill in a game, even though it may be quite small and practically irrelevant to its usual play.