Poker is Luck

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, a smart post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
But what you have said will not, at least legally, lead to the conclusion that blackjack is MOSTLY SKILL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure. If I were arguing in court, I'd like to be able to quantify results mathematically. I just ran a simulation. For a single deck game playing two hands and four rounds per deck (i.e., before the shuffle), I'll average $786.58 per hour at my bankroll. I'll have to play only 6,381 hands before my expected win rate is one standard deviation above even (i.e, to be losing at that point, I'd be over one standard deviation below the mean). At 20,000 hands, I'd be over three SDs from even. At around 40,000 hands, it's mathematically virtually impossible (around 3 in 1,000,000) for anyone playing with the skill level used in the calculation to be losing.

[ QUOTE ]
But you cant do it without getting the cards. If you are the unluckiest person on earth such that your personal cards were way off the probability charts and are always bad, even counting wont save you. IT STILL DEPENDS ON THE CARDS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not thinking in terms of individual sessions, are you? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Anyway, I've seen these blackjack posts here before and avoided replying as I didn't see how it mattered. After all, we're discusing poker being skillful.

[ QUOTE ]
BUT, you will agree with me, you can win (sometimes) in poker regardless of your cards. Thats what pushes poker over the "mostly skill" hurdle and makes it different legally, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be easier when we win the legislation battle and get our fish back!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[tsearcher]

Skallagrim,

Perhaps you should start a thread explaining the legal test you believe most states are using. Define all the terms used in the test. Obviously, the terms the courts are using aren't defined the same way a lot of us are used to seeing them being used.

Then show your proof as to how poker passes the courts' skill test.

This may clear up the air a bit on this discussion. And we would have one place to discuss this rather than spread out over various threads.

P.S. if you have already done this I can't find it. If it's there could you bump your thread?

[Skallagrim]

Here are the 2 links to this argument being discussed in the past:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1

The condensed version:

Over 30 US states define gambling as wagering in any game "where the outcome is determined predominantly by chance."

"Chance" definitely exists in poker (as in all things in life). In poker "chance" is the random distribution of the cards.

Does the random distribution of the cards predominantly determine the "outcome" in poker? We have to further define our terms. Predominanly means mostly. Outcome in poker is winning a hand and/or having the most money after a session.

So now we ask the question this way: Does the random distribution of the cards determine who wins the most hands and/or the most money?

Sometimes they clearly do, BUT JUST AS CLEARLY SOMETIMES THEY DO NOT: WHEN EVERYONE FOLDS TO A SINGLE PLAYER BEFORE ALL THE CARDS ARE DEALT, THE CARDS CANNOT BE SAID TO DETERMINE THAT HAND - THE DECISIONS OF THE PLAYERS DETERMINED THAT HAND.

So now we have also introduced the other part of poker, the decisions (to fold, call, bet or raise) made by the players.

Since we know winning some hands are determined by the cards (a showdown is seen) and some are determined by the players (no showdown is seen), the question becomes "which is responsible for more outcomes?"

In Holdem and Omaha, online samples of hundreds of thousands of hands show that about 60 to 65% of hands are ended before the last card is seen. Objectively then, 60 to 65% of hands in those games are the result of players' decisions, not cards. It does not matter that the cards influence those decisions because influence is not the same as determine.

But there is no need give up on the remaining 35-40% of hands, because player decisions determine a fair number of them too, although this is harder to quantify. When there are more than two players going for a pot, who has folded is a key factor in determining the outcome - often the hand that would have been the best at showdown is folded, usually in response to another player's decison to bet or raise. If you had the second best hand, but raised the best hand out of the pot, and the third best hand didnt suck out so you still won, I say your decisions determined the outcome of that hand.

In fact I would say that only when the lesser hand does suck out, can the hand be said to be determined by the cards. Credit must be given to the skill of "reading" and when your read is right that you have the better hand, I say your read won you that hand, not the cards.

And suckouts can only happen less than 50% of the time, because otherwise they are not suckouts.

So 60% (no showdown) and 51% of the remaining 40% (no suckout) = about 81% of hands being determined by something other than the cards.

And of course the amount of money won or lost is SOLELY the result of a players decisions (except for the tiny percentage from blinds and/or antes).

Poker is therefore not mostly chance.

Skallagrim

This argument does not work with blackjack precisely because the dealer never folds (which the challenged poster above forgot does happen in poker). ALL BJ hands MUST go to showdown.

Let me posit this for you Blackjack afficianados: Suppose blackjack were determined scientifically to be 90% chance and 10% skill, would it still be possible for engineer to beat the game? Of course it would, especially over the long term. Assuming chance evens out, thats 45% of the hands to the house, and 45% to the engineer. In the remaining 10% of situations engineer uses his skill to maximize his wins and 90% of those results go to him. Engineer is winning then 54% of the time at a game that is 90% chance. If you blackjack folks can find a way around that argument, I'll stop excluding blackjack from my lists of games less than mostly skill.

[TheEngineer]

Nice post on poker skill vs. luck. I wrote a letter to Paulson addressing this. Everyone: please see my thread at Letters to write THIS WEEK. I hope everyone here will write this week.

[ QUOTE ]
This argument does not work with blackjack precisely because the dealer never folds (which the challenged poster above forgot does happen in poker). ALL BJ hands MUST go to showdown.

Let me posit this for you Blackjack afficianados: Suppose blackjack were determined scientifically to be 90% chance and 10% skill, would it still be possible for engineer to beat the game? Of course it would, especially over the long term. Assuming chance evens out, thats 45% of the hands to the house, and 45% to the engineer. In the remaining 10% of situations engineer uses his skill to maximize his wins and 90% of those results go to him. Engineer is winning then 54% of the time at a game that is 90% chance. If you blackjack folks can find a way around that argument, I'll stop excluding blackjack from my lists of games less than mostly skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I commented on blackjack being beatable with skill. It is. I agree 100% it should not legally be considered a "game of skill", aside from IRS taxing purposes. The primary differentiation under laws I read is that the vast majority of players do play based on chance.

[tsearcher]

Skallagrim,

Thanks for your detailed reply. Do you think there are some problems with the courts, if any, that only use the winning a hand test?

For example: if I played a top limit HU player, I would win about 50% of the hands. But I would definitely be a loser over any meaningful session.

I think you could say the same thing about a full ring game also. Everyone should be expected to win 1/10 of the hands played. The better players might even win fewer hands, since they will generally be involved in fewer hands.

[TheEngineer]

Here are some articles:

An article that concluded that poker is not predominantly skill: http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...oker-skill.htm . [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

The DOJ testified in favor of HR 4477, Internet Gambling Prohibit Act, last year. Here's a quote, from http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...imony-4477.htm (also on the DOJ website):

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, the Department of Justice also has some drafting concerns with the legislation, including several of the definitions slated to be added to Section 108 1. For example, since the definition of the term "bet or wager" requires that the activity be "predominately subject to chance," we are concerned whether this definition is sufficient to cover card games, such as poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prof. Prof's blog on poker skill vs. luck: http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/pokerbl...ves/000105.php

WSJ poll, Is Poker Skill or Luck, at http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?p=19799 . 79% voted "skill", 21% voted "luck"

New version of poker called ThwartPoker, claims to have eliminated chance, so it's legal in many states (per them): http://www.thwartpoker.com/thwart/do...9C2760B9640FE5

Poker: Skill vs. luck, NYC http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=401540

William E. Baxter Jr. vs. the United States article by Mike Sexton, at http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/14882

[oldbookguy]

Skill or luck, I really think we are not nor is anyone else framing the argument correctly. This has been the basis of my argument from day one of the UIGEA, no need YET to be too upset until we get the rules in place.

The argument should be, is poker any LESS a game of skill than the current 'SKILL' games legally offered on sites such as MSN, AOL & Yahoo that may be played for cash and are regulated / controlled currently under banking and IRS rules already in place.
The legal wagering on these 'SKILL' is permitted in all but 14 states that have laws against them.

Legal wagering skill games include:
Solitaire, Solitaire Poker, Backgammon, Hearts, Spades, Free Cell, other board and card games and children's video games.

Then if the rules are not acceptable (not I as cash is too much) and poker as we play it is included and these other games are continued to be offered as 'SKILL' games then the proper place is the courts.

ALL that the UIGEA should cover are slots, bingo and other games in which there is no direct player to player(s) interaction.

I include slots simply because they are programmed to pay around .90 return on each dollar played (online and in B&M). To be the one who does better is pure chance and there is no skill that can be employed to beat the machine.

[Skallagrim]

The law uses the word "outcome" tsearcher. That word is going to start a court thinking about one hand, but it is a simple thing to say, and courts have said it with respect to other games, that poker is usually played as a series of contests, and so its right to consider a series of hands. But courts wont take this, usually, to consider mathmateical infinity. Thats why I hate the phrase "luck/short term, skill/long term."

First that focuses on only one player, while usually 6 or more are playing. Second, it really means luck CAN predominate in the short term not that it MUST. SKILL (players decisions) CAN ALSO predominate in a short run.

The argument I have accounts for ALL of the players at the table: if any one of them wins through skill (decisions) its a hand for the skill column.

Also, money won is obviously different from hands won, and money is what we care about. But you cant win money without winning hands, and no one can reasonably disagree that controlling how much you win or lose is virtually all skill.

So the fact that, according to my proof, most hands are won through decisions rather than cards, EXPLAINS why better players make more money, they will win more "decision" hands.

The skill to lose less and win more is a skill that has to be put totally seperate from the cards, and cannot be ignored as a key factor in tournament play. But courts generally will only ackowledge that fact as 'skill in the game" but does not, by itself, make the game "mostly skill." (this is precisely what the NC court did recently - my proof was not part of the case though).

The courts will require some means of actually making a difference as to winning the hand. Thats what my proof gives them, at the very least with respect to every hand not shown down.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Skill or luck, I really think we are not nor is anyone else framing the argument correctly. This has been the basis of my argument from day one of the UIGEA, no need YET to be too upset until we get the rules in place.

The argument should be, is poker any LESS a game of skill than the current 'SKILL' games legally offered on sites such as MSN, AOL & Yahoo that may be played for cash and are regulated / controlled currently under banking and IRS rules already in place.
The legal wagering on these 'SKILL' is permitted in all but 14 states that have laws against them.

Legal wagering skill games include:
Solitaire, Solitaire Poker, Backgammon, Hearts, Spades, Free Cell, other board and card games and children's video games.

Then if the rules are not acceptable (not I as cash is too much) and poker as we play it is included and these other games are continued to be offered as 'SKILL' games then the proper place is the courts.

ALL that the UIGEA should cover are slots, bingo and other games in which there is no direct player to player(s) interaction.

I include slots simply because they are programmed to pay around .90 return on each dollar played (online and in B&M). To be the one who does better is pure chance and there is no skill that can be employed to beat the machine.

[/ QUOTE ]

The courts have been mixed. I guess we'll see what happens. Did you write your letter to Paulson yet? I was curious how you phrased your points to him. I posted mine on your other thread. In my letter, I emphasized the fact that this is ambiguous, and the feds shouldn't be involved in trying to enforce unclear state laws.

[repulse]

[ QUOTE ]
...(argument)...Poker is therefore not mostly chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some observations regarding this argument, sort of devil's-advocate and certainly at least a little bit nitty:

1) A table of completely unskilled players (for example, betting/raising/folding with equal probability at each decision point in Limit Holdem) would clearly not always end in a showdown, but this argument suggests that some portion of skill is present in the game despite the fact that none of the decisions made by the players involve any skill at all.

2) I am not sure how this argument applies to a poker game where all the cards were dealt at once. For example, Hypothetical Texas Holdem is played identically to No Limit Holdem, but all 5 of the community cards are dealt faceup at the same time holecards are dealt and there is one round of betting. Certainly this game features most of the skillful elements of poker (value betting, bluffing, psychological considerations, game theory, pretty much everything except drawing hands and suckouts) but still involves some things that would tend to be seen as luck (you are stacking off when your opponent happens to have the straight flush when you have your quads, and his range throughout the betting might be very wide). Certainly the argument is still convincing for the specific case of Texas Holdem and other modern poker games, and it is certainly a fine argument to pursue in the courts, but this seems like a theoretical hole to me.

Take these observations as you will. I acknowledge that logic, theory, mathematics, reason etc. are not necessarily important to convincing legislatures of poker's status as a sufficiently skillful game. I like and understand the argument, and I think it would be a good one for a court setting, though I'd be a bit concerned about the defense pointing out the first of my observations.