Argument: Poker is skill because it matters who you play

[popesc]

Chess-n-flip is very interesting. It illustrates a hurdle that must be overcome with poker. The idea that you can measure the "amount" of chance and the "amount" of skill in a game and add them to get 100% puts us on a path where I don't think poker wins.

But for argument's sake, in chess-n-play, your skill in chess is what determines if your EV is +40, -40 or something in between, so skill is the predominant factor in determining your expectation for the game.

[Skallagrim]

popesc, whats wrong with saying chance in poker is when the cards determine the winner? Since most hands are resolved without seeing all the cards (folding to the winner), that moves most hands out of the chance category right up front.

We can then argue about the % of chance in hands that do go to showdown, and the amount of skill involved in maximizing winnings and minimizing losses, but we are already above 50% not chance.

Skallagrim

And yes, while some people play poker at such small stakes that they do go to the river more than 50% of the time, thats not most poker. Its like trying to determine if baseball is a game of skill by watching a group of overweight 40 yr olds with no training play an afternoon softball game while drinking: they swing wildly at every pitch and its pure luck when they connect. And a little league team would beat them almost every time.

[tautomer]

I think some kind of heads up experiment can be done. Set up a game of a certain number of hands where the hole cards and board cards are known beforehand by the person running the experiment. It needs to be set up such that it is an EV neutral game overall. By that I mean each players average EV is 50% preflop and on all streets by the end. This should reduce variance overall. Obviously you wouldn't want any AA vs KK hands etc. Have matches of skilled players vs novices, skilled players vs skilled players, and novices vs novices. It would be quite an undertaking but I think the results would give very good evidence for skill being the overwhelming factor in poker.

[popesc]

I don't want to break down your argument because I like it. But,

Betting on a given hand is highly (but not completely) correlated with the strength of the hand you are dealt, which is an element of chance. So even hands that are not shown down contain some element of chance.

As soon as the cards are dealt, chance has entered into the equation. And chance is an element on every hand. If we try to get into a debate of percentages, poker won't win. Every hand has some element of chance, and every hand can be played skillfully.

Consider this: In a game of skill played between two equally matched opponents, the result will be determined by chance.

[Skallagrim]

You say this popesc, "If we try to get into a debate of percentages, poker won't win" but why?

If I respond to a chance situation, is my response the result of chance?

If I walk down the street and happen to see a person drop their cell phone, thats chance. My decision to either ignore it, return it to them, or keep it is not chance even though without chance I would never have had to make that decision.

What makes it so hard to accept that a decision about your cards is not chance even though what cards you have are the result of chance?

Just because you routinely fold 2-7 doesnt mean that you have to the next time it is dealt to you.

If you get dealt 2 cards and flip a coin to decide your play, that is chance. If you use your brain, that is skill.

And it is skill even if its the "wrong" play, and it is skill even if your a simpleton who knows little about poker and bets because "its my favorite hand."

Cards are chance, play is skill. Tell me where I am wrong?

[Dire]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying playing poker with a table of fish is an inherently different game than playing with a table of rocks. It's not. It's the exact same game, just your correct strategy and expectation changes.

[popesc]

I don't think you are wrong, I just think that your argument might not convince a judge. It might, but if it doesn't we need more points to raise.

If we talk percentages, people will immediately associate the discussion with chance. In addition, I think poker is too complicated to definitively say that >50% of hands are decided by skill (or >50% are decided by chance).

I agree that every decision in poker requires some skill, and you are put into every situation by chance. I'm definitely going to lose money if by chance I never get into a good situation. I will definitely make money in the long run if I play the game skillfully. I think you can easily show both statements empirically, but neither is convincing in showing poker is predominantly skill.

We need to frame the debate so that we win. Instead of trying to come up with some arbitrary measure that says poker is >50% skill, I think it is easier to show similarities between poker and accepted games of skill, and dissimilarities between poker and accepted games of chance.

[Skallagrim]

Fair enough popesc.

Unfortunately, being less than 50% chance is precisely what most laws require us to prove at present. I would agree that other there are other and better tests, but this is the one the law has given us, and that is not likely to change anytime in the near future.

Skallagrim

PS, I want you to take the argument apart if you can. I want to be able to anticipate any flaws or responses before having to present it to a judge or (preferably) a jury.

And I do appreciate every argument made here. Although I do think the one I have is still the central one precisely because it follows the legal test, all the other arguments are also part of the arsenal. Dont stop them just because I keep bringing you guys back to what the law requires.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to reduce the argument further:

It is the nature of the game itself, not "who you play" which matters.

Your play affects the outcome in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as we stay focused on equating "outcome" with "money won or lost" rather than "hand won or lost"... that might have a chance.

Otherwise, any person will point to someone who was "lucky" enough to catch a 2-outer and win as proof that chance rules all.

[popesc]

I thought the legal test was whether chance was the predominant factor.

I don't know what the legal definition of predominant is, but the dictionary definition is "having greatest importance". Back to my original argument, poker is a game of skill because the relative skill of the players is much more important than the cards.

In your cell phone example, there were two things that happened. By chance, a cell phone was dropped, then you decided what to do with it. 2 things occurred, 1 was by chance, so 50% chance was involved. What you did, though, was much more important than the phone dropping.