Comparison with baseball as an argument that poker is a game of skill?

[UpstateMatt]

These analogies - baseball, scrabble - are not valid. You can't take an average person, toss him into a baseball game or scrabble game with experts, and expect him to have any chance to compete, particularly if he makes stupid decisions. In poker, he can.

It doesn't matter that inferior players can beat better players at baseball or scrabble. In poker, the luck is strong enough that utter novices can beat the world's experts in the short term. That's not true in scrabble, and it's definitely not true in baseball.

[BIG NIGE]

I would argue that it is true in scrabble. An average guy could be dealt seven tiles that make a word that's easy to see, and stick it onto the expert player's "S", get a huge score, and get an insurmountable lead. Or, the expert could draw all vowels while the average player gets all the high-value tiles and lands on triple word/letter all the time.

Baseball is different because the players are first and foremost entertainers, not competitors. There are plenty of cases in sports where fans go out to see teams that consistently lose year after year (with maybe a good season thrown in every few years), if they are in big markets. There are also some owners who refuse to spend top dollar for the best players, because they are most concerned about making a profit instead of winning. And while an average guy thrown into a baseball game would look out of place if he played a whole game, he could get "lucky" and connect on a swing to hit a base hit or even a home run if he's strong enough. Or he could be in the right place at the right time and make a diving catch in the outfield. Of course if you kept playing him eventually it would become obvious that he doesn't belong (just like with some minor league players who do well for a game or two, but are unable to sustain their level of play and quickly fall back to earth). This is analogous to an average or bad poker player getting lucky in one hand or even one session, but the longer he plays, the more certain he is to lose all his money.

[yahboohoo]

All the best games -- my favorite games -- combine chance with skill:

* Cribbage
* Backgammon
* Poker
* Hearts
* Gin

In these games, I almost entirely evaluate my opponents by the amount of luck they need to win. I look at two specific factors:
(1) The number of times they put themselves in positions that require some degree of luck; and
(2) The magnitude of luck required in each specific situation.

Skilled players minimize both factors (both defensively and offensively), while unskilled players and risk-taking gamblers put themselves in short- and long-odds situations too often.

Skilled players are able to recognize, respond and exploit their opponents tendencies (whatever they may be: conservative and risk-averse, degenerate gambler, etc.), forcing unskilled players to pursue unfavorable situations as they attempt to neutralize the advantage.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
These analogies - baseball, scrabble - are not valid. You can't take an average person, toss him into a baseball game or scrabble game with experts, and expect him to have any chance to compete, particularly if he makes stupid decisions. In poker, he can.

It doesn't matter that inferior players can beat better players at baseball or scrabble. In poker, the luck is strong enough that utter novices can beat the world's experts in the short term. That's not true in scrabble, and it's definitely not true in baseball.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody is trying to say they are totally analogous, just that on the spectrum poker lies much closer to scrabble etc than it does to spinning a roulette wheel.

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
"If a guy flops quads he's obviously not folding."

While this is true in all but truly sci-fiction scenarios, I thought poker was made up of more than one player? Doesnt some one else have to make decisions for there to be play?

If the guy goes all in with quads and everyone folds to him, what won his hand, his quads, his bet or everyone else's decision to fold? And since he could have got the same result with the same bet with 2-7os, how can the cards be the determining factor in that outcome?

What if some guy calls with a staight flush draw? What if he hits it?

What you call the Lederer argument (which I call my argument since I posted it way before Howard mentioned it to the press) is still the best argument going.

A players reaction to their cards is not the same thing as the cards playing themselves. If it were, we wouldnt need any strategy (or this site) beyond a simple flow chart, would we?

Skallagrim

PS - the baseball analogy is actually a very good one in terms of statistics and also how each opponents level of skill is important to quantifying how much skill determines the outcome of a game or tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument or Lederer's or whoever you want to attribute it to, sucks. The fact that most hands don't go to showdown doesn't prove anything. Imagine a heads up poker game with a 2 card deck, one ace, one king, whoever gets dealt the ace wins. Add in some betting so it never ever goes to showdown.

I hate these arguments. Theres obviously some luck and some skill in poker. "Mostly skill" isn't sufficiently specific to make a convincing argument. If the fact that the best players tend to win isn't proof that poker is mostly skill, none of these silly arguments about losing on purpose or hands not going to showdown do any good.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
(I think there is a similar amount of luck in poker and baseball)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there isn't.

[Skallagrim]

Ike, you just dont get it do you?

I didnt create the argument, Courts and legislatures created the argument: if poker is mostly chance, its illegal gambling except at a licensed casino (or in very few states, a home non-raked game). If its illegal gambling, its covered by the UIGEA and I will ask you again whether this argument matters after all the funding for online poker dries up.

But the real problem you have is an inability to see the distinction between a decision BASED on cards and a decision DETERMINED by cards. I dont know you at all, but I will tell you if you play poker where your decisions are determined by cards, you are an entry level player and easily beatable by more skilled players who will take advantage of your predictability.

A serious student of poker knows that (his) cards are only one factor in any decision.

Every other aspect of poker is NOT CHANCE, whatever you want to call it.

If you dont like my argument, come up with your own.

Otherwise, if you are playing a game you believe is mostly chance, well why study it? You either get the cards or you dont right....There is nothing I like more than seeing someone who believes that statement sit at my table.

Skallagrim

[Mendacious]

Skallagrim, respectfully, though I undertand the luck/skill argument is a Court or Legislative creation, I think most of what I see on this totally misses the real purpose of the distintion. OK, fine, Poker = Scrabble, or Poker = Baseball, whatever. That doesn't help us. It is not like a plethora of States make it legal to wager on the outcomes of scrabble and baseball-- such that if they are in, we are in. You can play Baseball, Scrabble & Poker all day long, you just can't wager on them in most states.

In my view, the intention of most States is to make WAGERING illegal-- with a few limited and licensed expections such as lottery, horse racing dog racing, Indian Casinos, etc. However, there are too many "legitimate" activities that share similarities with "wagering" such that a backdoor exists in the law to differentiate these things from traditional gambling. By this I mean- trading, bonuses, contests, etc.

IMHO it is misfocusing our efforts to try to "backdoor" poker through a luck/skill exception that clearly was not intended to apply to a wagering game like poker. Rather, we should spend our efforts getting legislatures to explicitly approve a licensed and regulated version of our game. Legalizition of poker wagering needs to be accomplished through grassroots support, lobbying, and not lawyering.

-- and this is coming from a cardplaying lawyer himself.

[Skallagrim]

Mendacious, I dont disagree that we all should be working towards a legislative solution. But until that happens, poker being a game of skill is our only legal leg to stand on.

But I disagree that this is an impossible task. 2 state Courts have already accepted the argument, 1 has ruled against it, and it is making its way through NC Courts as we speak.

Consider this, if I sit down in a public park and set up a table for people to play me, for money, a game of chess, am I gambling?

How about when you and I go to the golf course and agree to play a round for $20, or even $5 a hole?

How about when my mom plays her weekly bridge game for a penny a point?

When people wager against each other on games (clearly accepted as being) of skill, no law is violated (except in a few unique states) and no one gets upset.

I want to see poker placed in that category and taken out of the category that treats it as equal to slots, blackjack and/or the lottery. And the legal key to doing that is convincing folks that its skill, not chance, that makes the bigger difference in poker. And that, I believe, requires only people understanding that how you play the game is a bigger factor in determining your outcome than the cards you are dealt.

Even if we lose this argument in Court (God forbid), any advancement in people understanding skill in poker will help the legislative agenda too.

Skallagrim

[mtgordon]

Skallagrim,

Nobody that disagrees with your argument is saying that the cards completely determine the outcome. However, you can't say that the just because a hand doesn't reach showdown it means the cards weren't important. It's a combination of the two that matters.

In fact I would say that the skill comes from knowing when to check/bet/call which is largely influenced by the community cards (obviously in combination with your cards, and your opponent's previous actions and likely future actions).