Another way to think about relative importance of skill v luck at pkr

[dfan]

Assume three players decide to play for one week (7 days, 8 hr sessions each day) at the 2-5 NL game at the Bellagio.
Player 1: top level pro (Ivey, Negreneu, Brunson, etc.), Player 2: reasonably skilled amateur (say tends to win overall at online $1/$2NL)
Player 3: completely new to the game (learned the rules and the rank order of hands and has watched a few poker games on TV).

If poker were all luck of course the odds are extremely high that all 3 players would be down $ at the end of the week because of rake. But in real life, what would you estimate as the probabilities that each player will be up $ or down $ at the end of the week? Alternatively, what odds would you need before you would be willing to bet on each player to be a winner at the end of the week?

[Reef]

top level pros probably wouldn't care about 2/5. If they did probably an 80%. type 2 70%. type 3 20.87%

[dfan]

Reasonable numbers, although I would put the probability that the complete beginner being ahead after 7 8-hour sessions at that game a lot lower.
I guess my rankings would be:
1: 90%
2: 70%
3: 5%

While not all poker players would agree on the exact numbers, all would agree that there is a wide gap in the probabilities of player 1 and player 3 being winners at the end of the week. The point is - if poker is not PRIMARILY game of skill, how can such disparate outcomes be expected after only one week of play?

I just think some version of this "mental experiment" could be useful in getting across to the lay person (or lawmaker or juror) why poker outcomes, even across a fairly short time frame, depend heavily on the skills of the players.

[Pov]

Check out Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth.

[TerminalOrbit]

If I were betting on this 3-handed showdown, I'd expect something like this as a payout presuming unlimited bankrolls and attention-spans for the players on the proposition bet that each would be in-the-black at the end of 56-hours of play:

Pro 1:5
Amateur 7:1
LiveOne: 52:1

[dfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I am not able to do that at the moment, can you tell me what he says in a nutshell?

[dfan]

[ QUOTE ]
top level pros probably wouldn't care about 2/5. If they did probably an 80%. type 2 70%. type 3 20.87%

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually when I was playing there over the xmas holidays, I was told by the dealers that Gus Hansen did come out of the high stakes "Bobby's Room" to play 2/5 with the hoi polloi from time to time. However, it was reported that this only occurred when there were hot chicks at the table.

[ispiked]

Aren't we off on a tangent about the 2/5 NL thing, or is that really a key part of your question? Judging from your topic, it seems like your main question relies on what role luck plays in the game; the stakes should be ignored if this is the case.

Edit: That said, given the amount of time you've alloted for this proposition, I'd definitely say that the pros. would win. In the long run, luck isn't going to help you -- no matter how lucky you are.