How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[Wongboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And as I have posted earlier, the better question to ask is, does chance determine the result over 50% of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite get what you are saying here. It seems obvious that the answer to this question is a resounding YES. How could it be otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you play more than 50% of your hands? If you fold a hand, then your results on that hand have been primarily determined by skill (your decision to fold).

[Artsemis]

I think the key is that people play good enough in poker (in general) that on any given hand, more than 50% of the outcome is luck and that's what you guys are looking at.

If you take a great player, or even average (since there isn't so much difference between their skill levels) and a terrible player, it is well more than 50% skill that determines the outcome.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
Though I would love to name this argument after me, the fact is that Mat thought of it and merely gave me premission to post it for him. Thus it must be named after him. The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please don't name it the Sklansky Poker Skill Argument.

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question:

Chess is widely accepted as a skill game, yet computer programmers have written a program that can beat a human...to my knowledge a computer program has not beaten a professional poker player.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

game of complete information vs game of incomplete information

[jjacky]

renamed to "our house poker skill argument".

[rutang]

This his been an interesting thread to read through, but the fact is the "sklansky poker skill argument" doesn't do anything except attempt to redefine what "skill" means, and poorly at that. Do you really want whether or not someone can lose quickly to be the factor by which we judge skill in games? whether or not a game of luck has elements that allow a player with no concept of the general strategy has nothing to do with how much skill the game has.

I would like to address the "50% skill" arguments, though. You see, the way poker usually gets shafted is by too small of a statistical sampling determening whehter or not it is a game of skill. In a single hand, poker is far less than 50% skill, in most formats. (this changes depending on what game you play, but i'm talking in general) I have an 18 VPIP in limit holdem, and whether or not I fold a hand is determined somewhere around 95% of the time by the cards I'm dealt. so, in a given hand, luck is more than an 80% determiner if I even have a chance to play...

but over the course of a session, or many sessions, the thing that will impact my results more than anything else is not the hands I was dealt, but the selectivity that I used in playing in the first place. the bigger the sampling involved, the more skill that would be involved. If you are trying to defend that poker is more than 50% skill, you have to make sure the sampling is defined to properly present poker.

A great analogy to do this is baseball, and on almost every level of baseball. A pitch, an At Bat, An Inning, or a game is determined more by luck than by skill. even when a pitch throws a pitch that is easy to put in play, If the hitter can't knock it out of the park, luck determines more than anything else whether or not he gets a hit. In any given at-bat, Ichiro, the most skilled hitter in baseball, is only 15-20% more likely to get a hit than the bottom 10% of hitters in the MLB. (my math and statistics might be a little off here, but you get my point) and the best team in baseball is probably only 20 or 30 percent more likely to win a single game than the worst team in the MLB. There was a rule change for postseason play, because many people argued that the Mets lost a postseason series because they got "unlucky" and had thier first game of the previous series rained out, negatively affecting thier rotation.

So the trick to the 50% argument is getting a proper sampling size. Every Jury is full of people who think that Baseball is a game of skill rather than luck. Use the Baseball analogy to ensure that the parameters for determining skill are not set unfairly against poker.

In a wider view, I feel that allowing the argument to be whether or not poker is about skill plays into the hands of those who are attacking us. That's like the people who argue Marijuana should be legal because it's got good effects, ceding that it's ok to make a drug illegal if it's bad enough for you.

The issue isn't whether or not Poker is enough of a game of skill that it's okay for our government to let us play, but whether or not our government recognizes that it's not within thier scope of legitimate power to determine whether or not the luck involved in an action has any bearing on our legal rights to participate.

We shouldn't be seperating ourselves from those who are also being attacked by our government because they are sports bettors or craps players, All of our rights are equally being attacked. Poker players aren't unfairly being included in this legislation, this legislation is wrong from it's inception, and I wouldn't want to give up the moral highground here so that we can just not be the ones who are assaulted THIS TIME.

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of you guys are making good points bit missing the key issue as it relates to "saving poker." To save poker (in most states becasue of the state law) we need to show that poker is NOT MORE THAN 50% chance. I ask you to respond to that directly. Folks on these boards are here (mostly) because they are serious about poker. HOW MANY OF YOU FEEL THAT MORE THAN 50% OF YOUR RESULTS WERE DUE TO CHANCE (the random distribution of the cards)?

In this analysis, exclude every hand that did not go to showdown (cause there the player actions, even if they were influenced by their cards, determined the outcome, not the cards).

Also thanks to Stellerwind for pointing out that in poker its not just who wins, but how much they win. Certainly this aspect of the game is due more to player actions then the cards themselves. I disagree though, that some distribution of cards will ALWAYS reult in a loss - you might get that guy to fold his aces even with your 2,3 os [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

And as for the blackjack argument, well that does show the limits of Sklansky's theorum, I think, because it points out that the theory applies to ANY game with skill, not just games that are mostly skill. That blackjack has SOME skill is clear, but the skill in blackjack does not determine who wins or loses, the cards do. Blackjack skill is just knowing what plays to make to take maximum advantage of the probablities associated with the cards. This is not like poker where the player's actions can indeed determine the winner despite the cards.

At some point, I predict, this will be litigated in Court. If we can prove poker is less than 50% chance, we will ahve established the legality of poker in about 2/3rds of the states, and excluded play from those states as being covered by the UIGEA. When 2/3rds of americans can legally play poker, only those left in the most nanny-state/religious right states will be excluded, and probably there only until the state figures out a way to make money from the game (like happened with lotteries).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the limit players are going to hate me for saying this, but I honestly feel like limit has a lot more luck involved than no limit, and with the high amount of showdowns in limit as opposed to no limit, I could easily see someone calling limit more than 50% luck in determining the outcome of hand, and no limit less than 50% luck. Maybe not high stakes limit tho. I dunno.

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
This his been an interesting thread to read through, but the fact is the "sklansky poker skill argument" doesn't do anything except attempt to redefine what "skill" means, and poorly at that. Do you really want whether or not someone can lose quickly to be the factor by which we judge skill in games? whether or not a game of luck has elements that allow a player with no concept of the general strategy has nothing to do with how much skill the game has.

I would like to address the "50% skill" arguments, though. You see, the way poker usually gets shafted is by too small of a statistical sampling determening whehter or not it is a game of skill. In a single hand, poker is far less than 50% skill, in most formats. (this changes depending on what game you play, but i'm talking in general) I have an 18 VPIP in limit holdem, and whether or not I fold a hand is determined somewhere around 95% of the time by the cards I'm dealt. so, in a given hand, luck is more than an 80% determiner if I even have a chance to play...

but over the course of a session, or many sessions, the thing that will impact my results more than anything else is not the hands I was dealt, but the selectivity that I used in playing in the first place. the bigger the sampling involved, the more skill that would be involved. If you are trying to defend that poker is more than 50% skill, you have to make sure the sampling is defined to properly present poker.

A great analogy to do this is baseball, and on almost every level of baseball. A pitch, an At Bat, An Inning, or a game is determined more by luck than by skill. even when a pitch throws a pitch that is easy to put in play, If the hitter can't knock it out of the park, luck determines more than anything else whether or not he gets a hit. In any given at-bat, Ichiro, the most skilled hitter in baseball, is only 15-20% more likely to get a hit than the bottom 10% of hitters in the MLB. (my math and statistics might be a little off here, but you get my point) and the best team in baseball is probably only 20 or 30 percent more likely to win a single game than the worst team in the MLB. There was a rule change for postseason play, because many people argued that the Mets lost a postseason series because they got "unlucky" and had thier first game of the previous series rained out, negatively affecting thier rotation.

So the trick to the 50% argument is getting a proper sampling size. Every Jury is full of people who think that Baseball is a game of skill rather than luck. Use the Baseball analogy to ensure that the parameters for determining skill are not set unfairly against poker.

In a wider view, I feel that allowing the argument to be whether or not poker is about skill plays into the hands of those who are attacking us. That's like the people who argue Marijuana should be legal because it's got good effects, ceding that it's ok to make a drug illegal if it's bad enough for you.

The issue isn't whether or not Poker is enough of a game of skill that it's okay for our government to let us play, but whether or not our government recognizes that it's not within thier scope of legitimate power to determine whether or not the luck involved in an action has any bearing on our legal rights to participate.

We shouldn't be seperating ourselves from those who are also being attacked by our government because they are sports bettors or craps players, All of our rights are equally being attacked. Poker players aren't unfairly being included in this legislation, this legislation is wrong from it's inception, and I wouldn't want to give up the moral highground here so that we can just not be the ones who are assaulted THIS TIME.

[/ QUOTE ]

very good post.

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


4) The "skill" argument is one of the weakest arguments and has the least chance of gaining any political traction. I think it is widely held that only 8% or so players are winning players long term-- that is to say are skillful enough to beat other players and the rake. Clearly in a rake environment to whatever degree "skill" is involved this game is only +ev for the vast minority of people and the "house". For society it is -ev, unless you factor in considerations such as personal freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

take this example- donkey and a pro sitting in same seat and seeing same cards against the same 5 oppenents.

using your DVR you go hand by hand letting each one make their own bets with the same 2 cards in 2 cash games with opponents holding same cards.

give the donkey and the pro AA- 100 times and 7-8 suited 100 throughout the session. give each 200 big blinds in the cash game.

the pro will maximize wins with 7-8 ( by bluffing or catching and minimize losses with AA)

the donkey will raise too much with AA or donk off his 200 blinds in a heartbeat over and over again. and alot of donks will likely fold 7-8 preflop or limp and fold post flop.

Rake is like commission. Refco is low while your local broker might hit you for $50 a turn (trading metals) if you let him.
poker sites and casinos can make the rake what they see fit, some low (or none) and some high. some of the very high tables on full tilt prob rake less than 0.1%.

this 50k hands is hogwash. i'm just a descent small stakes no limit player. my typical runs on the party reloads included maybe 4 diferent 2 hour sessions ( my account and room-mate) while watching TV and 8 tabling i would have winning session prob 80% of the time. the cards may make a difference on how much i won but good cards can lead to the losing sessions as well. set vs set on flop.

instead of playing 8 tables for 2 hours, i would like to think playing 2 tables for 8 hours with the TV off would increase my win-rate even higher. it's pretty sad when you don't know your oppenents names, get timed out or don't realize your full ring table is actually down to 5 handed and can still win.

and since i would get crushed at higher stakes (tighter games-more preflop raises) i think it's safe to say a pro would have a win-rate of 90% had he done my party sessions for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a consistent winner at 5/10 NL 6-max, I can say that while I generally do have downswings, 100% of the time I have always regained my money and then some. I mean some of the worst downswings I've had were like 5-6 buyins, but after enough hands (usually another 4-5k hands) I had made it all back in then some. I dont think I had a breakeven stretch longer than about 7k-ish hands. Certainly not 10k+. Of course if you wanted to get an accurate idea of exactly what my winrate was, you would probably want to look at 50k hands, and all those 3 or 4k hand blips would be just blips and you could get an accurate picture of everything.

[Babygrand]

Why is there talk of a jury? Do you people not know who decides laws in this country? Legislators and judges decide laws, not juries. Also, if UK thinks poker is a game of chance, the US has no CHANCE! LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !