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

[cuserounder]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking that one step farther, if there was a demonstration of a person who had never played before playing 20 hands and describing what considerations they are making before each decision, then an average player, then a winning player, then a pro. It would be very very clear there was a great deal of skill involved in the decision making. Imagine a new player, who would basically be saying he's not thinking of much.. As opposed to a pro going through the full spectrum of a decision.

Then the correlation between skill and winning needs to be shown, which would be fairly simple with perhaps some hand databases from winning and losing players who have played 100K hands.

[S550]

good post cuserounder. . .i agree the difference in the levels of thinking and the # of factor considered and decisions being made will will very greatly between all 4 ranks (newbie, amateur, serious amateur/semipro, and pro player) well stated post

[aislephive]

[ 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 ]

The problem with that argument is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that argument is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that a point in our FAVOR?

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that argument is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that a point in our FAVOR?

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If we're arguing that any game where there is an easy way to lose means it is a skill based game, it doesn't bode well that luck based games like blackjack would be considered skill games under this set of rules.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that argument is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that a point in our FAVOR?

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If we're arguing that any game where there is an easy way to lose means it is a skill based game, it doesn't bode well that luck based games like blackjack would be considered skill games under this set of rules.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't realize we were placing BJ in the "luckbox" game category... then again, with the LV rules I saw recently, you might have a point.

What am I misinterpreting about this statement:
"is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques"

... other than I wasn't calling BJ a mainly luck game? And even so, if a luckbox game's $$ results can be affected by losing strategies (i.e. lack of skill), then shouldn't that show that poker results, with a lot LESS luck, should be greatly affected by skill?

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that argument is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that a point in our FAVOR?

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If we're arguing that any game where there is an easy way to lose means it is a skill based game, it doesn't bode well that luck based games like blackjack would be considered skill games under this set of rules.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't realize we were placing BJ in the "luckbox" game category... then again, with the LV rules I saw recently, you might have a point.

What am I misinterpreting about this statement:
"is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques"

... other than I wasn't calling BJ a mainly luck game? And even so, if a luckbox game's $$ results can be affected by losing strategies (i.e. lack of skill), then shouldn't that show that poker results, with a lot LESS luck, should be greatly affected by skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Blackjack has some skill decisions, yes. But it is not a game that can be beaten in the longrun (unless you can count cards of course). I don't think what I'm saying is that hard to comprehend, if you're going to make a set of rules that define a "skilled" game, it's going to be completely moot if blackjack would be considered a skill game.

If you don't consider BJ a game of luck, then I don't know what else to tell you but there is no chance we could successfully use blackjack to show why poker is a skill game. There are many more effective arguments that would actually appeal to most Americans.

[UF_Gators]

[ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize we were placing BJ in the "luckbox" game category... then again, with the LV rules I saw recently, you might have a point.

What am I misinterpreting about this statement:
"is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques"

... other than I wasn't calling BJ a mainly luck game? And even so, if a luckbox game's $$ results can be affected by losing strategies (i.e. lack of skill), then shouldn't that show that poker results, with a lot LESS luck, should be greatly affected by skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't call Blackjack a game of 'skill'. True you have the opportunity to make decisions that affect the outcome, but there is a mathematical certainty to every one of those decisions. A complete idiot could sit down at a Blackjack table with a grid showing the statistically best play for each situation and win at a rate approaching about 49% over a large number of hands. Same for anybody else no matter how intelligent or 'skilled'.

The decisions you make in poker involve judgment. There are probabilities involved in drawing, but ultimately you have to make a judgment about the range of hands you opponent could have based on his prior holdings, betting action, apparent emotional state, appearance, etc. Those who have the ability to recognize patterns, remember hands, read people, etc are more 'skilled' at playing poker than the average Joe that can't.

[AaronT]

Hmmm... considering the on-going comparison between blackjack and poker.

If Blackjack is not skilled because Blackjack has a mathmatically optimal play for each decision we have a problem for poker. Poker likewise has a mathmatically optimal play for each decision. There is undoubtably a Nash Equilibrium strategy for the game where each player plays optimally. It's just that the game has yet to be solved. If the argument is that blackjack is not skill based for the reason that mathmatically optimal play exists then that argument should extend to poker as well.

If you don't buy that, consider that once the game is solved one could produce a chart much like those that exist for blackjack that state what to do under any possible situation. Granted it would be a HUGE chart, but it's not inconceivable. The chart would likely also differ in that in many situations the answer would be fold X% of the time, call Y% of the time, and raise Z% of the time instead of always do W.

Aaron

[Skallagrim]

Such a chart would be possible for every game that involves decision making.

Blackjack is a game of chance that allows for the exercise of some skill, but skill alone can never win the game - the cards determine every outcome.

Poker is a game of skill that includes an element of chance. Skill, the decisions of the players, determines most outcomes, but chance has the ability to come in and determine some outcomes.

In both games a mathematically correct model can be devised that allows for the knowledgable players to maximize their expected return based on probabilities, but only in poker can that advantage be further advanced by skilled play which allows you to win hands that pure chance would have otherwise led you to lose.

Finally, poker is a game against other humans, allowing for psychological factors to come into play and varying levels of skill to also affect outcomes. Blackjack is played against the house which cannot be influenced psychologically nor can it vary its level of skill.

Nuff said.

Skallagrim