|
|
#42
04-17-2007, 11:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Luck vs. Skill test...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Luck versus skill is a red herring anyway. Anyone who said it's an important legal point is misdirecting you. Poker is hated by some US politicians and judges because they're lunatic moralists or because it allows money to leave America. I don't know of a third reason. [/ QUOTE ] This has absolutely nothing to do with my post. [/ QUOTE ] It is no surprise that fraac has said something that has nothing to do with your post. He seems to be doing that very consistently lately! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] 
|
|
#43
04-18-2007, 01:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Luck vs. Skill test...
Your basic question is seriously flawed as others have pointed out already and the odds of Ivey beating the guy are NEVER close to 100 or 99%, not even 90%.
Ignoring the fact that you cant establish a hypothesis the way you tried to, and just explaining the "flaw within the flaw": After about (this is just a random number) 50,000 hands vs the same opponent the new guy would ve learned enough to compete (especially vs the same opponent), "skill vs. luck" is no more valid, you cant estimate how quick the new guy would learn... 200k hands LIVE HU is more than enough play to say someone could be an expert in this particular style. If they`d play 12h/day EVERY DAY and avg. 1 hand/ 1.5min., (if you chose REAL human players you cant let em play 24/7)they could play close to 200k hands in a year! If you want "skill vs. luck" you need to let Ivey play vs. NEW brand new guy 1,2,3,4,x (every y hands the NEW guy has to change). But that`s just one of the flaws, think about what happens when the new guy changes every y hands... There is no doubt that skill AND luck play a roll, but it is impossible to say 100%, not even 99%. You just cant prove it...It`s all assumptions...
|
|
#44
04-18-2007, 04:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Luck vs. Skill test...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Luck versus skill is a red herring anyway. Anyone who said it's an important legal point is misdirecting you. Poker is hated by some US politicians and judges because they're lunatic moralists or because it allows money to leave America. I don't know of a third reason. [/ QUOTE ] This has absolutely nothing to do with my post. [/ QUOTE ] It is no surprise that fraac has said something that has nothing to do with your post. He seems to be doing that very consistently lately! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Maybe you two aren't aware, but there's a utility called "quick reply," which allows you to make a post quickly and without going to another page. When this is done, the post shows as a reply to the most recent previous post. This is likely what happened.
|
|
#45
04-18-2007, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Luck vs. Skill test...
[ QUOTE ]
Your average f’ing Joe doesn’t have a Wiki article on him you twit. [/ QUOTE ] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_joe
|
|
#46
04-18-2007, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Luck vs. Skill test...
[ QUOTE ]
Your basic question is seriously flawed as others have pointed out already and the odds of Ivey beating the guy are NEVER close to 100 or 99%, not even 90%. Ignoring the fact that you cant establish a hypothesis the way you tried to, and just explaining the "flaw within the flaw": After about (this is just a random number) 50,000 hands vs the same opponent the new guy would ve learned enough to compete (especially vs the same opponent), "skill vs. luck" is no more valid, you cant estimate how quick the new guy would learn... 200k hands LIVE HU is more than enough play to say someone could be an expert in this particular style. If they`d play 12h/day EVERY DAY and avg. 1 hand/ 1.5min., (if you chose REAL human players you cant let em play 24/7)they could play close to 200k hands in a year! If you want "skill vs. luck" you need to let Ivey play vs. NEW brand new guy 1,2,3,4,x (every y hands the NEW guy has to change). But that`s just one of the flaws, think about what happens when the new guy changes every y hands... There is no doubt that skill AND luck play a roll, but it is impossible to say 100%, not even 99%. You just cant prove it...It`s all assumptions... [/ QUOTE ] you think there's a greater than 10% chance that some average joe would be as good or better than phil ivey after 200k hands? you're joking right? maybe there's a small chance that our average joe turns out to be one of the best few players in the entire world after some practice, but 1) the chances of that happening are much much lower than 1%, and 2) even if it did, wouldn't that mean the guy was competitive because he was skilled (as opposed to lucky)? is basketball a game of luck b/c michael jordan is quite lucky to have his incredible natural gifts?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
