NC, USA determines poker = chance

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
its just that my skill is so bad you dont want to call it "skill" anymore because you associate the word skill with "good."
I call player actions, whether good or bad, actions of skill. From now on here though, I am just going to call them player actions instead of skill so you wont confuse them with only good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, but part of the problem with blowback that you are receiving may be due to decisions such as this one. You seem to arbitrarily define words or ideas as you choose (unless you're using the generally obsolete defintion of "reason or cause" for skill) and ignore the fact that most people don't define them as you do.

The word skill, for me, implies training, study, and expertise acquired as a result of training/study. Usually this study doesn't lead to BAD skills, so "good" is implicit... otherwise, what is the point of "unskilled"?

I would wager that most people define the word in a similar manner. Therefore, your choice to "redefine" the word skill causes confusion and interferes with what you are trying to say.

Something to consider? You can decide.

edit- of course, evidently Annie Duke defines skill similar to what you do, according to the Wall Street Journal article that came out recently.

[Skallagrim]

"Let's take drawing to a gutshot in limit poker. It can be an awfully long time before you hit your gutshot (getting corect odds, of course). A player could play 30 or 40 or more of these, losing a huge amount that affects his winrate in the negative, or he could hit them a few times in a row affecting his WR in the positive. It doesn't matter which, and we both know that - because we will play enough hands for it to even out.

If I draw to a hand that's going to win 5% of the time, getting $24-$1, then I know that I'll be making a certain amount of money. (.05*24)-(.95*1) = .25 Sklansky$$.

However, if I only play this bet once, then skill doesn't factor into my winrate. I'm willing to bet that me drawing to two-outers in huge pots hasn't evened out to where it should be for those decisions EV-wise, even over 200K hands. Good thing it isn't a routine decsion, since my SD would be huge."


This is absolutely true, and a great example of pot odds. And if this were the only kind of "skill play" in poker, then it would be correct to say "luck short/skill long." But that begs the question, just how big a part of the game is this? How frequently is this the decision you are making. In my game, anyway. I cant call this the most common thought, and even where its present it is only one factor... and most good opponents who have figured things out as much as you know to bet enough to not give you pot odds....

But either way making this decision is an act of skill and involves many other skills to even be able to frame the question.

So I would agree "pot odds are, short term, by their nature, at the mercy of chance, but pay off over the long run."

So now you have explained why sometimes you call with hands most likely to lose on any particular occassion.

But you havent, at least as far as I can see, explained why this means the outcome of most poker hands/games may be due due to chance?

Slallagrim

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its just that my skill is so bad you dont want to call it "skill" anymore because you associate the word skill with "good."
I call player actions, whether good or bad, actions of skill. From now on here though, I am just going to call them player actions instead of skill so you wont confuse them with only good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, but part of the problem with blowback that you are receiving may be due to decisions such as this one. You seem to arbitrarily define words or ideas as you choose (unless you're using the generally obsolete defintion of "reason or cause" for skill) and ignore the fact that most people don't define them as you do.

The word skill, for me, implies training, study, and expertise acquired as a result of training/study. Usually this study doesn't lead to BAD skills, so "good" is implicit... otherwise, what is the point of "unskilled"?

I would wager that most people define the word in a similar manner. Therefore, your choice to "redefine" the word skill causes confusion and interferes with what you are trying to say.

Something to consider? You can decide.

edit- of course, evidently Annie Duke defines skill similar to what you do, according to the Wall Street Journal article that came out recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have come to agree with you, at least as far as 2+2'ers are concerned [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] .

Part of the problem is that I didnt make clear that I am not talking about "skilled persons" which is what you have described above, but rather "acts of skill." A person can perform an "act of skill" by demonstrating good skills or bad skills or by acting unskilled or by showing skill. And of course, my point about poker was that "acts of skill" determine most results.

But this is not to argue the point; linguistics teaches its students that context and connotation are just as important in conveying meaning as is definition. This is how I refine these arguments and I thank you for your help.

Skallagrim

[Quanah Parker]

I realize Wikipedia is not what most judges base their decisions on, none the less it's nice to see these words on the Wiki page for game-of-skill:
"Most games of skill also involve a degree of chance, due to nature, a randomizing device (such as dice, playing cards, a coin flip, or a random number generator) or guessing by the players."

[Benjamin]

Encarta:

[ QUOTE ]
skill (plural skills)


noun
Definition:

1. ability to do something well: the ability to do something well, usually gained through training or experience

2. something requiring training to do well: something that requires training and experience to do well, e.g. an art or trade

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is helpful to look at the actual definition. This is not a legal definition, and I don't know anything much about how the legal definition of skill might change from state to state or whatnot.

Anyway, using the common definitions of skill we can see that the word both means an ability to do something well, and it means the act or art that requires training or experience to do well.

Relating to poker, as previously discussed, folding is a skill. Those who do not have training or experience in poker do not fold when they should. Folding preflop is a skill that is covered in many poker books in the very first chapter, and it is a hallmark of unskilled poker play to not fold nearly as many hands preflop as they should. Folding postflop is also a skill that unskilled players do not do nearly enough of. The most unskilled players will even fail to fold on the river when they literally have no chance of winning: i.e. calling with 33 on a AAKK2 board. We've all seen these incredible, if rare, calls that indicate the person has no clue how to play the game.

Therefor any hand of poker that is decided by a fold is decided by skill.

Where is the hole in this simple logic?

It isn't the whole argument, but I think this is a fundamental building block of a successful argument that poker is predominantly a game of skill, since we can show from large databases that most hands in many poker games are decided by folds.

[Skallagrim]

Thank you Benjamin !

[CPOSteve]

"Therefor any hand of poker that is decided by a fold is decided by skill.

Where is the hole in this simple logic?"

Here's one hole. How many times have you been at a cash game and it gets folded all the way to the blinds, and they decide to chop? It certainly happens a few times a night, right? Now, why did those players fold? Well, if they got dealt 72o part of the reason is the skill necessary to determine that that is not a productive starting hand. BUT, the predominant reason they made that skillful decision is because of the cards they got dealt which is completely dependent on chance.

There is NO doubt that the more skillful a poker player is, the more money they will make. This does not change the fact that they are skillful at playing a game of chance. The underpinning of most of the skillful decisions a player makes are the cards in his hand and the cards on the table which are completely dictated by chance.

I am aware of the assertion that a great poker player doesn't even need to look at his cards to beat weaker opponents. My question is, how many players actually do this on more than an occasional basis? My guess would be, none. The vast majority of skillful decisions that poker players make are based on the cards they are dealt and the cards in the middle of the table.

An example. You're heads up against a rock. He raises preflop and you call with 43o in LP because you KNOW you can bet him off the hand if the flop has the right texture.
What do you do if the flop comes:
a) K-Q-x?
b) 8-x-x?
Do you not play these two flops differently based on your read of the player? That is skill, BUT the decisions are based on the luck of the cards.

In the end, what I'm saying is this. Poker is played with cards, therefore it involves some level of chance. That level of chance varies based on the type of game, the players, the particular hand etc, but it's always there. (Ok, I shouldn't have said "always" because I can think of circumstances where the cards don't factor into a skillful player's decisions. e.g. low M tournament situations. Call it almost always.) It is unique in the casino in that a skillful player is actually +EV, but that does NOT change the fact that luck plays a significant factor in the outcome.

Flame away.

Steve

[Skallagrim]

Steve, you have committed the same error many folks make, only in reverse. Browse around and you will find many folks saying poker is a game of skill because otherwise some people would not be better at it than others....you can find the flaw in that cant you?

Its the same flaw in what you have posted.

As I have said many times, poker is a game that clearly involves both skill and chance. You have said that too.

But just because chance is an element in poker does not make it a "game of chance" any more than the fact that there is a skill element makes it a "game of skill."

The question is, which is the predominant element.

In your example you must realize that there is no rule which requires the folding or calling with 4-3os (and many noobs just love to bluff with that hand...). And maybe you should raise here because the rock only might have A-J and will still fold. So was it the 4-3 or the decision of the player that determined that play? Or a mixture of both? And if both, which was MORE important in determining the outcome, the cards or your skill at reading the other player?

Skallagrim

[CPOSteve]

I think what makes poker a game of chance is the fact that the heart of the game is a "random element."

Whether it's dice or cards or a wheel, a game of chance relies on an element who's behavior is random and conforms to a statistically known set of rules (i.e. all outcomes are equally likely or the outcomes are distributed in a "knowable" format). The ratio of luck to skill in any game of chance exists on a continuum based on the nature of the randomizing element and the rules of the game.

A game of coin flipping between two friends where one is assigned heads and the other tails is 100% luck. Casino games, on the other hand, involve some level of skill. For example, knowing the statistically correct play in blackjack makes a player more likely to win than just playing on your gut. Now the casino has designed the rules in such a way as to make all players statistical underdogs, but the skillful player is less so.

Poker is probably the most difficult game to nail down on this continuum because the luck/skill ratio is constantly shifting. It changes based on game, format, structure and even within a hand. The luck/skill ratio involved in a single nl hand starts high immediately following the dealing of the hole cards and diminishes the closer you get to showdown because more and more information is available to the skillful player as bets are made and cards are revealed.

Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying is a) I agree that poker is a game with a ratio of luck to skill b) I don't know what that ratio is c) I don't think that the ratio is truly "knowable" because of the factors above and d) most importantly I don't think we're going to find a court willing to buy the game of skill argument as long as playing cards are at the heart of the game.

[Skallagrim]

"most importantly I don't think we're going to find a court willing to buy the game of skill argument as long as playing cards are at the heart of the game. "

So bridge for money is gambling?

Not according to this California Court: In re Allen, 59 Cal.2d 5, 377 P.2d 280.

I could also cite for you the Cal. and Missouri cases that hold that poker is not mostly chance.

And a Federal Court decision finding Backgammon a game of skill....

Finally, ever go into a hobby shop and see one of those Military Simulation board games? They have dozens of pages of very complex rules for recreating historical battles with either miniatures or cardboard pieces. Most people without at least a college degree cant even grasp the basics. Yet how do they decide individual conflict within the game? DICE. Must be a game of chance (PS, these simulations are based on what our military uses to plan operations - someone should tell them not to base tactics on games of chance eh?).

And just because you cant or wont help us craft convincing arguments about the predominance of player decisions as the basis of most poker outcomes, that does not mean the rest of us should stop trying.

Skallagrim