WSJ: Harvard Ponders Just What It Takes to Excel at Poker

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the most effective argument is to start two players out with $X. Have one player employee strategy, have the other purposefully try to lose it all as fast as possible.

This should clearly demonstrate there are winning and losing strategies and by simple implication, skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this meeting, Lederer suggested a similar proof that is also probably a bit more rigorous. Suppose your opponent employed a completely skill-less strategy, ie choosing randomly whether to raise, fold, or call at every decision point, without regard to the strength of his hand or anything else. Lederer claims he can demonstrate mathematically that he could beat this strategy 96.5% of the time ON ANY GIVEN HAND.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lederer's strategy is to bet/re-raise at every decision point. Opponent will usually fold at some point, plus Lederer wins half the showdowns.

[xxx]

nice article

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing Howard mentions is that most poker pots are won without ever showing a hand... so how could that be considered a game of "luck".

I thought of that argument first.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and didn't Annie's argument come from Sklansky's son?

[PokerAmateur4]

I am disappointed greatly whenever I see someone saying that contacting representatives etc. is a waste of time. Here, a bunch of people contact this representative, then we get a bill:
From the article:
"
Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler says he has drafted a more specific bill after being besieged by poker players in his South Florida district. "My bill will say that poker is a skill," he says."

[demon102]

obviously poker is a game of skill, I can beat everyone in this thread and everyone that posts in 2+2!!! that should be enough that poker is a game of skill.

[Uglyowl]

The article is in the top 5 most popular articles at the journal, so it is getting quite a look at.

[bobhalford]

If poker is recognized as a game of skill, does that have any bearing on it's legalization?

There was a time when pinball was illegal because it was considered gambling. They had to bring a pinball machine into the courtroom to demonstrate the skill involved. Perhaps a similar argument needs to be made in order to legalize poker.

[rando]

Everyone who clicks on that link should vote in the poll, right now 76% skill, 24% luck... not to shabby!

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is recognized as a game of skill, does that have any bearing on it's legalization?

There was a time when pinball was illegal because it was considered gambling. They had to bring a pinball machine into the courtroom to demonstrate the skill involved. Perhaps a similar argument needs to be made in order to legalize poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

If poker is legally recognized as a game of skill then it is perfectly legal to play it for money, both online and live, in about 35 states. The other 15 or so states either outlaw poker specifically, or have laws so broad (like SC - cant play ANY card game for money) that the skill v. luck debate wont apply.

And I totally agree with you as to the right courtroom tactic. Part of any case presentation should include a walk through of 10 or 20 hands with expert commmentary on what the players were thinking and deciding as they chose their actions. Too many people think that its always "I got these 2 cards, I must do this" and no more.

I think a judge or jury actually hearing ALL of the considerations Phil Ivey makes before deciding to fold, bet, call or raise, would go a long way in convincing them that poker is mostly a skill game.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am disappointed greatly whenever I see someone saying that contacting representatives etc. is a waste of time. Here, a bunch of people contact this representative, then we get a bill:
From the article:
"
Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler says he has drafted a more specific bill after being besieged by poker players in his South Florida district. "My bill will say that poker is a skill," he says."

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

By the way, Wexler went from being our enemy in 2000 to being with us against HR 4411 to cosponsoring HR 2046 (the Frank bill) to considering authoring his own legislation. Similarly, Peter King went from voting for HR 4411 and allowing UIGEA into the Safe Port Act to cosponsoring the Frank bill. This shows the power of educating our representatives.