NC, USA determines poker = chance

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt AA and I get dealt KK. What determines the winner - chance or skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the flop comes QQ3 the answer is skill.

One of the problems in this argument is the different types of poker played and the amount of skill vs. luck for each. For example, Doyle Brunson (I believe) once said that he could win money playing no limit and never looking at his cards as long as the other players didn't know he wasn't looking. I believe that is true. Not just of Doyle, but of other really skilled players. If so, then poker is a game of skill.
Unfortunately, a lot of people have experience playing 1-3 no foldem holdem. In a game like that, yes, luck will appear to have a much larger part... but only as long as every player plays every pot and doesn't fold.

If poker was a game of pure chance then you would see the house taking a side and the players playing against the house. But they don't. The house knows it can't win based purely on the odds of chance, so it devised a different scheme to make money off of poker - the drop. That alone should show that poker is a game of skill.

Moreover, no one ever made a living playing craps. The fact that there are plenty of professional poker players out there should show that it is a game of skill.

We need to point to the millions of decisions that are made in a typical poker session. Check, raise, call, fold, how much to raise, whether to raise, should I fold, should I call, how will calling affect the next street, what if I bet now, what will my opponents think I have, what has my betting pre-flop told my opponents about what that next card could have done for my hand, how are my opponents feeling right now, is that guy on tilt, what do I think he thinks I think he has, the list is endless.
What goes on in the head of person playing a slot machine? I hope I get three sevens, I hope I get three sevens, I hope....
There is a great deal of difference between playing poker and playing cards. Playing poker requires skill, playing cards requires hope and luck. I hope my flush is good, I hope my flush is good.... The unskilled player must rely on and hope for good luck. The skilled pro can make money without luck.

I too disagree that luck is a factor short term. Sit me down at a table with Doyle, give us equal numbers of chips, make the game no limit, and I will be busted in ten minutes.

Of course luck plays a part, but it plays a part the same way it does on a golf course. You can hit a good shot and get a bad lie, that is luck. You can have a bird fly overhead when you hit the ball, luck. You can have a gust of wind come along just as you hit your shot, luck. But you better believe that skill will eventually win out. Sure, you need both. Even Tiger won't win if a bird gets in the way of his ball (poor bird) at a critical moment, but I am still going to bet on him in the next tourney.

[Jeffiner99]

Or how about this argument. A monkey can win money playing a slot machine. A monkey can win money playing roulette (if you teach him to throw his chips at the board). A monkey can win at Craps (again, teaching him to throw checks on the layout).

But a monkey cannot win one hand of poker. Even if he got dealt the nuts he would have to make the decision to call. That takes skill. I have seen plenty of players throw away the nuts in Omaha because they couldn't read their cards. Hell, I have seen plenty of DEALERS push the pot to the wrong player. You don't have to know the rules of Craps to make money at it. A bunch of six year olds have the same odds as anyone else in a slot tournament. Just let them sit down at a game of poker. (ok, play for cookies, I am not trying to corrupt the youngsters, just making a point here).

Poker is about making decisions. Knowing the right decisions to make takes skill. Even a lucky tourist who is getting hit with the deck must have some skill.

Trust me, I don't care how lucky my sister gets she would never win a hand. She thinks the World Series is played with real money and you can cash out anytime you want. She also called me the other day to ask what "check" means.

So you get my point...

[Dunkman]

I think we give a little too much credit to variance sometimes. I know, for me, a substantial amount of my variance is attributed to 1) playing when I'm not focused and 2) tilt. Also, at the highest game I'm rolled for my variance can take big swings, but if I move down a couple limits I can pretty consistently crush every game.

This thread is a great discussion of the issue and a great read. Thanks to everyone who is contributing!

[va1halla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt AA and I get dealt KK. What determines the winner - chance or skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

I play 30,000 hands of Omaha hi/low and win 4 big bets per 100 hands. What played more of a role - chance or skill? Do most poker players play one hand and leave the table?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's skill even with one hand played. If you lose less money on a given hand than another player would on the same hand that's still a win for you correct ?

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt AA and I get dealt KK. What determines the winner - chance or skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

I play 30,000 hands of Omaha hi/low and win 4 big bets per 100 hands. What played more of a role - chance or skill? Do most poker players play one hand and leave the table?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's skill even with one hand played. If you lose less money on a given hand than another player would on the same hand that's still a win for you correct ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you could play the hand optimally (in terms of expected value) and lose more to a bad beat than a less skillful player who folds. For the record, it's clear to me poker is a skill game, but I have no patience for debating idiots (anyone who thinks it is a game of luck) so I have no clue how to argue the case.

[TheMathProf]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is as much a game of skill as chess.

In chess the board is the same, pieces are the same, possible actions are the same, and the player's decisions make the outcome.

In poker the "board" is just more nebulous than chess. The "board" in poker is all possible starting hands, all possible situations, all possible flops, all possible turns, all possible rivers, etc.

Each player is on an equal footing, each player will receive the exact same distribution of cards in the exact same situations (long term). THAT is the chess board in poker.

Your decisions determine everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

To take this analogy further, which I think is a good one:

Poker is often described as having three levels of thinking, which if I recall them correctly are: "What do I have?", "What do I think he has?", and essentially, "What do I think he thinks I have?" Most of your average poker players never advance much beyond Level I, or in some rare cases Level II.

When you play most amateur players in chess, there are also these same three levels of thinking, except they revolve around the planning in the position. "What am I going to do?", "What do I think he's going to do?", and in the third case, "Which is more important: What he's going to do or what I'm going to do? Can I make my response to what he's going to do help what I'm going to do?" Which is why some of the strongest moves in chess are moves that often seem to be merely reactionary moves that are also deceptively attacking moves.

And the truth is that chess, even though it's a game of perfect information, can be a game of bluffing as well. Sometimes, strong moves that are technically unsound from a mathematical expectation perspective (i.e. the move nets me a loss of material against best play) are the best moves in an actual position against actual opponents, because they require that level of precision to survive. It's a "Yes, I know I could fold and cut my losses, but I also don't think you can see that calling me with an underpair is good here."

[Our House]

Another example...

Say you're in a game with 5 other players. You notice that they all fold every single hand unless they have AA. They never adjust or alter their play. Your skilled mind picks up on that and now you know that clearly the best strategy is to raise every single hand preflop to take the blinds and to fold when anyone calls/raises you.

NOW there's no showdown for you. No more "luck of the draw." No more situations where the cards matter. UNLESS, the judges can say the luck element is whether or not your opponents get AA dealt to them. (I seriously hope these judges/juries don't think it's 50/50...either they get dealt AA or they don't [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) Even if they bring up that luck element, very very simple math will show them that they're wrong. Raising every hand in this case is a guaranteed winning strategy.

[Our House]

Oh, the other thing they might say is "nobody plays that way."

Sure, and "nobody" plays weak starting hands preflop. And "nobody" ever doesn't raise the nuts last to act on the river. And "nobody" ever folds the winning hand because they misread the board.

I don't think a judge's expertise qualifies them to make assumptions or statements about the quality of peoples' play when they're trying to determine skill vs. chance.

[JPFisher55]

I think the judges in this case applied a standard that a game has to be almost all skill to not be a game of chance. They used the short term results to determine that under NC law poker is a game of chance. They ruled that in NC, only games in which skill determines every short term result can be games of skill.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
They used the short term results to determine that under NC law poker is a game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
This argument is not valid. "Short term" in undefined.

[ QUOTE ]
They ruled that in NC, only games in which skill determines every short term result can be games of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, define short term and we have a legitimate ruling. Otherwise, it's BS.