How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[Deiwalker]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose that rock,paper,scissors had an additional option, flower that loses to the other 3. Is it a game of skill now because the game now allows a strategy that allows you to lose quickly?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read through a number of replies using this type of comparison, however, that seems completely ignorant of:

"(I'm not counting the artificial plays of betting red and black or pass and don't pass at the same time. Nor am I talking about folding every hand in poker. I'm talking about playing very badly.)" - Sklansky

Adding an "auto-lose" option to a game of chance can only measure up to a player folding every hand they're dealt in poker.

Sklansky's arguement revolves around intentionally trying to succeed at the game without the level of skill to do so. Therefore, how is it possible for 2 players genuinely trying to win at rock, paper, scissors to display any form of skill behind their results? Within poker however, it is possible for someone with marginal skill in the game to consistantly lose (both significantly and rapidly) to a player with a high degree of skill. If the game didn't involve skill, the gulf between the 2 in the form of success/failure would not be evident.

Artificial plays to a game shouldn't apply to the discussion since they could be made in any competitive activity (A Soccer team scoring own goals for example is within the rules of the game) - they don't prove an activity is luck based.

[devilsshadow]

Oh...easy courtroom argument, simply have the judge spend a day on 2+2 reading all the strategy discussion, then, send him over to Pocket 5's, and, specifically, this question (which is typical of the P5 community<<<--P5 IS the middle of the bell curve):

""Harrington on Holdem Vol III page 157?????????
by willmccoy on 2/20/2007 19:18



Solution to problem 21

On page 157 calling with Low (M)

In the middle paragragh starting with LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENDS

If you read this paragragh you will see that Harrington comes up with some interesting numbers,for the top three hands. The only problem i had was trying to figure out the formula to come up with the numbers of the hand holdings. For example you hold AQ so with three players to act behind you, not counting the player utg;there are only three ways to pick up AA or QQ's.

And he also speaks of the percentage a 3%;Could someone please explain the formula that he arrived at to figure these numbers!!!!!!!!!""

(willis amuses us even more later with this gem):

""Thanks for the answer but;He also says that KK has 6 possible ways to be picked up! Now what i am trying to figure out. Is how he arrived with 6 ways for pocket kings, and only 3 for AA and QQ.


I came up with this equation;but i just want to know if it is right or not!!!!!!!



TP =top pair

X =multiplied

H =number of hands yet to act after a raise to BB

WMH =ways to make hands

HNAF =Hands not accounted for




So TP x H =(the percentage%)=(WMH)X 2=(HNAF) example KK or JJ



1x3=3%=3x2=6




Im just trying to figure out how he came up with six ways to make KK; With no kings accounted for in his hand. And only fould 3 ways to make QQ and AA with an A and a Q acounted for. Does the number double are what????????






Willis""




The judge will recognize that SOME forums can't cope with high school math, while SOME forums can't cope with a lack of intelligence.

Talent is born. Skill is acquired. One would think the fact that most pro's started as consistent losers, but LEARNED to be consistent winners, would be more than enough evidence to the fact that YOU NEED TO ACQUIRE SKILL IN ORDER TO SUCCEED IN ANYTHING! that's all.

peace!

sean

[Flybynight33]

I'm sorry, I just don't understand your argument Mr. Sklansky. Surely, in games of luck, one can make decisions to ensure a negative outcome. Blackjack is the perfect example. In the long run, Blackjack is a game where skill improves your chances of winning but in the long run you lose. You can easily cause your own destruction by betting on 17, splitting with 6's against dealer 10 showing etc.

Therefore, your litmus test for skill doesn't hold up.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I just don't understand your argument Mr. Sklansky. Surely, in games of luck, one can make decisions to ensure a negative outcome. Blackjack is the perfect example. In the long run, Blackjack is a game where skill improves your chances of winning but in the long run you lose. You can easily cause your own destruction by betting on 17, splitting with 6's against dealer 10 showing etc.

Therefore, your litmus test for skill doesn't hold up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question of whether you win or lose in the long run is completely seperate from the question of whether the game is luck or skill. If we flip coins and I pay you $2 when it's heads and you pay me $1 when it's tails, has it suddenly become a game of skill because you win in the long run?

[Hockeyfreak]

First of all comparing blackjack to poker is completely absurd, why? Blackjack you are playing vs the house where as poker you are playing vs other players. Blackjack is a game of luck (Unless you consider card counting) plain and simple. You are destined to lose in the long run. IFF you could play blackjack vs other players instead of the house where you'd have a button to see who acts first which is moved around like in poker then blackjack would suddenly become a game of skill. Very simply put blackjack would then become a game of math and calculating your chances/odds is a skill.

Now the argument provided initially was a very valid argument, but there is missing one very important aspect which was not defined. As mentioned beforehand, in blackjack, one could make sure he loses every hand if he wanted, does this make it a game of skill? Yes and no, it is a game of skill to a certain extent. You will lose no matter how good you are because you are playing vs the house, whether you are a good player or not will determine how little you lose, so a good player in the long run will lose less than another player but due to the fact that you are set to lose, this can not be conisered a game of skill per say because even though it is, you will always lose.

Now look at poker, if I want to lose all my money, I can do so very easily just like in blackjack. However, by me doing so, this will make another player a winner. One can assume that at one extremety bad players can be considered players that always want to win and good players players that always want to lose so if the world was made up of only those 2 types the good players would always win in the long run and the bad players would always lose in the long run.

If you look at the poker community over the long run, say you have 5 types of players...

Very bad, bad, ok, good, very good.

Then the Very bad and bad players will pay off the good and very good players while the ok players will stay the same.

For this reason, the game can not be considered as a game of luck, of course luck has something to do with it, but predominately luck is a small portion.

Another fact that I would like to bring about is that a good player would be able to win vs a bad player without EVER looking at his cards.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I just don't understand your argument Mr. Sklansky. Surely, in games of luck, one can make decisions to ensure a negative outcome. Blackjack is the perfect example. In the long run, Blackjack is a game where skill improves your chances of winning but in the long run you lose. You can easily cause your own destruction by betting on 17, splitting with 6's against dealer 10 showing etc.

Therefore, your litmus test for skill doesn't hold up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing game of skill with +EV games. Blackjack is certainly a game of skill, just much more simple than poker since the dealer has set rules to follow, making the only variable the cards -- which is why there can be a set optimal strategy.

By your logic, if a blackjack paid a bit more, it would be a game of skill and otherwise it's not.

[alphatmw]

wait a minute, this is the stupidest thing i've ever read.

give me $1000. i could lose it at roulette or blackjack or craps in less than 1 minute. i could NOT lose it in poker in less than 1 minute. this is painfully obvious, and i'd challenge anyone to prop bet what i've claimed.

[Abones]

hit me, hit me, hit me.

[Hockeyfreak]

[ QUOTE ]
wait a minute, this is the stupidest thing i've ever read.

give me $1000. i could lose it at roulette or blackjack or craps in less than 1 minute. i could NOT lose it in poker in less than 1 minute. this is painfully obvious, and i'd challenge anyone to prop bet what i've claimed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could lose 1000$ in less than 1 min in blackjack but not in roulette or craps... in poker you can lose it as fast as in roulette or craps. You need to provide an argument, what you provided is a statement without backing it up.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
wait a minute, this is the stupidest thing i've ever read.

give me $1000. i could lose it at roulette or blackjack or craps in less than 1 minute. i could NOT lose it in poker in less than 1 minute. this is painfully obvious, and i'd challenge anyone to prop bet what i've claimed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, this roulette table is $1 maximum bet. And this poker game is $500/1k. Hmm.

There isn't some magical dollars-per-minute rate that differentiates chance from luck.