Poker is Luck

[jschell]

morphball - you are right, my choice of wording there didn't reflect what I meant and wasn't correct.

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, a poker player's results are determined mostly by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
FMP

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
morphball - you are right, my choice of wording there didn't reflect what I meant and wasn't correct.

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, a poker player's results are determined mostly by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
FMP

[/ QUOTE ]

You are getting there, but you are not home yet. All you are really saying is that in the short term a player's results MAY be mostly determined by chance. They MAY also be mostly determined by skill (meaning good OR BAD decisions).

In a small unrepresentative sample either may predominate, over a large representative sample skill will predominate.

Morphball has already pointed out that it is logically impossible for a factor to ALWAYS predominate in a small sample but become a secondary factor just because the sample gets larger.

Skallagrim

[jschell]

[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, a poker player's results may be determined mostly by either chance or skill.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damnit, you're right. FMPMP.

I'm not sure why this is being debated in this thread anyways, as Salazar's original point was that we shouldn't have to prove whether or not poker was a "game of skill" because of the freedom of choice that we supposedly have.

[Dunkman]

I didn't mean anyone who can't crush the micros is a retard (I would have claimed that statement 2 years ago, but not now.) However, to a seasoned and experienced player, the game is very straightforward and easy to read. Their mistakes are going to be few and far between, and they'll be getting their money in so good so often it won't take too long before they simply have to be winning.

edit: obviously none of this applies to PLO...that game is all luck (it is to me at least.)

[T Money]

"Luck" is a strange word. I think about it for a little bit and find that the definition isn't really clear to me. Yes, I could google the answer or look it up in OED. But the way it applies to poker is the same way it applies all over.

Is it lucky that you hit your only home run on the day a big league scout visits your high school?
If Kobe misses a clutch shot a the buzzer because a bead of sweat causes his finger tip to slip, is that unlucky? Could he have done anything to prevent that? Practice harder?
When a market swings and a day trader hits it big through no individual action of his own, doesn't he still get his money?

These examples go on and on and on. But the meat of the subject is this. "Luck" influences millions of activities and occupations that we undertake every day, causing "variance" in our performances. But if you work hard at your "craft" (or whatever you want to call it), you will produce positive results over time.

Spending 2 hours at the batting cage every day.
Shooting 200 freethrows after practice.
Spending time at the library or online studying market trends.
Playing thousands or millions of hands of poker.

I don't possibly see how we can begin to legislate an activity based on a concept as abstract and as physically unmeasurable as "luck". Whose going to draw the line? Not me. And I hope not my government.

[Skallagrim]

For Tmoney:

The law actually talks about "chance" not "luck." I use the terms interchangeably, maybe I shouldn't.

"Chance" in poker is easy to define, however: its the distribution of the cards.

Whats a little tougher (I have done it but am not going to repeat it again - you can search) is to determine how much of poker is decided by the random distribution of the cards.

The answer is about 25 to 35%.

Skallagrim

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the short term, poker is mostly chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is not "mostly chance" in the short-term. A game is either chance or skill, it can't be one or the other, and it can't be all luck one day, but then two weeks later its suddenly skill.

Poker is about determining/estimating how much value your opponent believes his hand possesses, and comparing that value to the value of your hand. This is a skill based task.

People who don't do this are playing games of chance, but when I swing a golf club I am playing a game of chance because I suck at golf and never learned proper technique. Does the fact that I suck at golf mean golf is a game of chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your confusion lies herein: A top ranked professional golfer will never lose a golf match to you much less to a novice. A professional poker player may lose every hand he ever plays against a single beginning novice oponnent. If you were the judge how would you rule?

There should be no question that poker is indeed a game consisting of more luck than skill, why people here attempt to rationalize otherwise is baffling.

[jschell]

[ QUOTE ]
There should be no question that poker is indeed a game consisting of more luck than skill, why people here attempt to rationalize otherwise is baffling.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is baffling.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Your confusion lies herein: A top ranked professional golfer will never lose a golf match to you much less to a novice. ... If you were the judge how would you rule?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would rule Wake Up CALL an idiot.

Your confusion lies herein: you are considering a golf "match" the same as a single "hand" of poker. A novice golfer could beat a pro on any single shot, or any single hole, given a certain amount of luck.

You lose.

[willpower101]

what is salazar?