Luck vs. Skill test...

[jackaaron]

Heads up match. 1.00 blinds. Million dollar stacks. Limit Hold ‘Em. No blind increases. Before I name the participants, assume that each player has equal endurance to play the entire match, and they take breaks to eat, use the restroom, etc. Both players also have the required number of days to play the entire match available to them, and on and on.

The players:

Phil Ivey

Brand new Limit Hold’em player (BNLHP) who's just been introduced to the game. He knows what beats what, and can read the board quite well. He’s aware of what constitutes a good hand, and what constitutes garbage.

Barring freak things like one of these players having a stroke during the match, I feel that you could 100% guarantee that Phil Ivey would win this match. Even though it’s only one HU match.

Do you agree? To the 100% guarantee part that is. And, if you agree, do you feel that this shows that skill dominates in this game (versus luck)?

Many times in the past, it seems that we’ve felt unsure about whether the best player could beat an average Joe in one HU match (i.e. we thought they'd mostly win, but felt that the Joe could win a few here and there). But, I think we were setting up the HU match wrong. The thing is, if someone contends that it’s just luck (or mostly luck), then it doesn’t matter how big the stacks are, nor how big the blinds are.