Argument: Poker is skill because it matters who you play

[popesc]

Since each player would not be dealt the same cards, your situation is not symmetric.

[CMHPokerMike]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but why not use a computer simulation of some kind to attempt to prove this.

Have two "logics" for computerized (limit) poker players. One to make purely random decisions. The other to make decisions based on a simple set of rules which would roughly approximate the play of someone who had a bit of a clue. (I'm not trying to trivialize how hard that would be.)

Have the randoms play against each other for millions of hands with essentially infinite stacks. Then have a table of 1 rules player against the randoms for millions of hands. Then have a table of all rules players. I would think that the table with 1 rules/9 randoms would have the rules player at a significant advantage. The all-rules/all-random tables should end up with everyone having roughly equal stacks.

Thoughts?

[The Bryce]

This is silly. In order to play good poker you have to accurately assess the likelihood of your opponents actions and then choose the actions that are going to have the highest average expected return. The more accurately you assess your opponents actions, the higher your expected return. The more knowledgeable you are about poker and the better the lines you choose, the higher your expected return. The fact that poker hasn't been proved as a game of skill in court makes me think that someone somewhere has been very lazy.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Oops, I first saw the argument stated by Howard Lederer in a WSJ article. I did not intend to deny you any credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to apologize, maybe its Howard who should give me credit [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] .

Maybe Howard gave it to the WSJ reporter after thinking of it himself (he is a smart man and I have no way of knowing for sure).

And maybe it was only coincidentally after I have been posting it around the web for a few months and had sent it directly to the PPA board.

Seriously, I am far more concerned that this argument, OR SOME BETTER ONE I HAVE YET TO HEAR, gets the job done.

Still, especially if the argument works, it would, of course, stroke my ego to get some credit, but nobody "owns" an argument.

Skallagrim

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe I can help quantify skill elements across the board...

All games in which EV > 0 is achievable have 100% skill. This is a very important fact, so I'll repeat it.

All games in which EV > 0 is achievable have 100% skill.

That's right, 100 percent skill! The ONLY difference between these games is the time frame it takes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Addressed this in another thread.

If the powerball grew large enough such that buying tickets was suddenly +EV, your argument would declare the lottery a skill based game. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Whether it's possible to 'beat' a game or not has nothing to do with whether or not chance predominates skill.

[popesc]

ok, back to the original topic.

Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly chance and where it matters who your opponent is?

Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly skill and where you don't care who your opponent is?

If the answer to each of the above questions is no, then we have a very convincing test that can be applied to games to determine if they are predominantly skill or predominantly chance.

I can't think of a way to answer either question yes.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, back to the original topic.

Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly chance and where it matters who your opponent is?


[/ QUOTE ]

Roshambo

And on another level: slots, lottery, etc.. All offer different odds and chances.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly chance and where it matters who your opponent is?

[/ QUOTE ]
Rock/Paper/Scissors as I mentioned before is definitely a chance game. However, some opponents may be predictable and therefore can be metagamed into losing.

[ QUOTE ]
Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly skill and where you don't care who your opponent is?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't think of one yet. Good argument.

[popesc]

A lottery with different odds is inherently a different game. Given the same lottery, it doesn't matter who sells you the ticket.

[Rastadon]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly chance and where it matters who your opponent is?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about chees-n-flip? Play chess for $40 and then flip a coin for $60. This game is at least 60% chance, but I don't think you want to play a chess gm at it.