Prove Poker is a Skill Game?

[Krow]

In my opinion in Blackjack there is only one way mathmatically to play correctly meaning it involves only discipline to play correctly becase mathmatically there in only one correct way to play, If you inclided card counting the game requires a lot of skill, but that is mathmatical and statistical analysis skills as opposed to the skill of reading into human isight based on body language that skill plus statistical analysis is involved in poker plus memory of betting and pattern analysis. SO I belive poker requires much more skill than blackjack.

Also if there is only one intellegent way to play a game with one path to victory the game has relativly no skill at all, in the case of blackjack playing with optimum strategy you still lose in the long run (excluding card counting) and even playing carzy you still lose in the long run. Yes there is skill but only one skill and a non-thinking computer and a human. In poker there is more than one path to victory making it more skilled. Thats what I belive.

[wizexel22]

"Real coin tossing seems all chance, but even here, a knowledgeable person can get an edge in this game. "

I don't understand this point at all. How does one get any significant edge in coin flips? How does knowledge about coin flips affect the outcome?

There are only two ways I can think of:
1. The fact that the "heads" side is like 0.0001% heavier than the tales side. But I don't think this edge is significant in any way unless you plan on coin flipping with a guy for the next 10 years straight.
2. You could theoretically project the outcome of a coin flip given all the factors of the coin flip, force, velocity, angle, absorbtion of the ground, etc. But even then it'd be hard to account for any unforseen factors and I doubt anyone could make that exact calculation in the 2 seconds it takes to see the outcome.

I played at a table recently and a guy offered me 2 to 1 odds on coin flips (he'd pay $20 for a loss, while I only have to put up $10). Easy money right? We flipped 5 times. ....I lost ALL FIVE! I guess I just wasn't knowledgeable enough.

[Pokerlogist]

Good story! It might require a whole new thread. Did he perform the flips? Where did the coin come from? Did you call it in the air?

I should have cited a webpage or two about coin tossing.
This one might help.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040228/fob2.asp

[Skallagrim]

Aha, a whole new group of people to educate (it seems most of you dont view the legislation forum)!

That poker has a skill element is pretty obvious and easy to prove. Most of the arguments advanced above are good ones to show this. Legally, however, the point to be decided is whether poker is more chance or more skill. This is called the "predominance test" and is used in about 2/3rds of the states to determine whether a game is gambling or not. Specifically the question asked: Is/are the outcome(s) of poker more the result of chance or skill?

The following is a logical proof (with one real world fact) that shows most poker outcomes are determined by skill/the actions of the players:

First lets define the terms:

Chance (or luck) = the random distribution of the cards
Outcome = winning the hand, and by how much
Skill = decisions made by players (PLEASE NOTE THAT MOST OF YOU THINK SKILL IS YOUR PERSONALL ABILITY OR "EDGE," YOU ARE RIGHT AS IT RELATES TO YOU, BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF ANALYZING THE GAME NOT THE PLAYERS, SKILL SIMPLY MEANS AN "ACT OF SKILL" NOT HOW MUCH ACTUAL SKILL YOU PUT INTO THE ACT - for example, a golf swing is an act of skill whether its done by a complete novice or by Tiger Woods and so even if three total novices are playing, golf is still a game of skill).

Second, lets look at something obvious: some poker hands are won by skill (you induce everyone else to fold by a bluff) and some poker hands are won by luck (you get all in with aces before the flop against a single player who sucks out with 5-6 offsuit). So to answer the predominance question it will be necessary to look at a representative number of hands and see which is determining the winner more often, skill or chance.

The first thing we look for then, are hands that are clearly skill results. And since it is logically impossible for cards to determine the outcome of a hand if they are not shown or seen, every hand that does not go to showdown is undeniably the result of player actions, not the random cards (there is no rule that says you HAVE to fold 2-7 or call/raise with A-A).

In most forms of poker this is the way most hands are resolved (all but one person folds before all the cards are revealed). Studies of hundreds of thousands of online hands consistently show that approximately 60-65% of all Holdem, Omaha, and 7-stud hands end before the final card is shown. THAT MEANS AT LEAST 60-65% OF HANDS IN THESE GAMES ARE THE RESULT OF PLAYER ACTIONS (SKILL) NOT THE CARDS.

I could end there, but there is more.

When hands do go to showdown, who is at the showdown is also determined by player decisions (to call, fold or raise), not the cards. And quite often the person who would have had the best hand has folded long before all the cards are shown.

At the showdown the more skilled player will be in the advantage (he who has the best pre-river hand is there usually because his skills tell him he has that hand. So the cards ARE NOT determining who goes into a showdown with the hand most likely to win, it is the skill (or lack thereof) of the players.

At the showdown, the underdog only wins less than half the time because, of course, thats why he is the underdog!

And finally, the amount of the win (especially significant in tournament poker) has been determined completely by the players (though structured by the betting rules), not the cards.

So put all that together, and the only time you can really say that chance DETERMINES the outcome in poker is when there is a showdown and the less skilled player gets lucky and hits his or her improbable card. We all know that happens in poker, we also all know that happens far, far less than half the time (otherwise the suckout would not be suckout).

Therefore Poker results are determined far more often by the players than by the cards. And thus Poker is a game of Skill. This is even more apparent when you factor in that poker is really a game of winning chips, not hands. Since the amount of win or loss on any hand is totally within the players control, that element of poker must also be deemed a skill element.

So 1) all hands not shown down are skill outcomes(60%)
2) of hands shown down at least 51% were won by skill, and
3) Most of the amount of the win was also the result of skill.

THUS, AT LEAST 81% OF POKER “OUTCOMES” MUST BE SKILL, EVEN MORE IF THE AMOUNT OF WIN OR LOSS IS FACTORED INTO THE EQUATION (although I have yet to figure a way to quantify that).

Should be the end of the debate, IMHO.

Skallagrim

[wizexel22]

Pokerlogist,
That was an interesting article actually. But I don't get if they are stopping the coin in mid air or letting it bounce on the ground. It seem they are NOT letting it bounce on the ground, and would the stats be different if they did?

As far as my story, it was a real coin cuz it came from my pocket. (haha everyones first reaction is "dude, you got swindled, that was a same faced coin!"). Everytime, he threw it and I called it in the air. Then we'd let it bounce around on the ground and simply look at the side facing up.

Haha, but I admit, I never looked to see what side of the coin he had facing up at the toss. =)

Skallagrim ,

I just read an article the other day about an actual court case about a man trying to open a poker club. The point in contention was "Is poker a game of skill or luck?". They had a professional poker player defending the skill, but another that said it was luck. I think it wouldve been interesting to hear that case. Anyways, they ruled that poker was more a game of luck than skill. Maybe you should've been a witness for the defense instead of this "pro". =)

[jogsxyz]

Damon Runyon quote:

[ QUOTE ]

“One of these days in your travels, a guy is going
to come up to you and show you a nice brand-new deck of
cards on which the seal is not yet broken, and this
guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the
Jack of Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider
in your ear. But, son, do not bet this man, for as sure
as you are standing there, you are going to end up with
an earful of cider.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[Pokerlogist]

In the 51% experiment the coin was caught on the back of the hand. If it hit ground there was no bias as far as I know.Most people would not know that procedures like spinning the coin on its edge also bias it.

http://itotd.com/articles/560/coin-tossing/

Your case sounds more like one of just bad luck but the 2-1 offer is still a bit suspicious. Anyway the point is that, under certain conditions, even a game like coin tossing might have some hidden skill to it.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the official ruling on Blackjack? Skill or luck?

If it's regarded as a game of skill, I am sure E. Thorp would agree with that, then I suggest we compare it with 7 Card Stud.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's less skill in blackjack than hold'em. In a one deck bj game the best counters have an advantage of less than 2% over time. Many hold'em players are beating the game at a over 5% rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that Blackjack and 7 Card Stud are quite similar. You get a bunch of cards and your opponent gets a bunch of cards from the same deck and in the end it's all about who makes the higher hand.

The interesting part in this analogy is if the stud-player has the role of the dealer or the role of the guest. The blackjack dealer doesn't need any skill to follow his strategy (it takes skill to figure it out in the first place though). His strategy is simply better than the strategy of most of the guests, therefore he wins in the long run. Low-limit Stud or Hold'em should be similar. You don't need an expert strategy to win, you just have to be slightly better than your average opponents.

Tableselection = skill!

It's almost like modern art. You don't need that much skill to paint these pictures. You need a lot of skill to sell them for big money though and you are certainly lucky if you manage to find a donkey who pays you a million for it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[quirkasaurus]

this may sound daffy --- but on days when i'm too tired or
following an extended losing streak --- i just bump down
a few levels to boost my confidence as i win a few tourneys,
etc... if poker is not a game of skill, why is it easier
to win at the lower level buy-ins?

or maybe we should get a matching number of poker players
to challenge both sides of congress to a holdem tournament.
if the poker players take more than 50% of the top finishes,
it's a game of skill.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
this may sound daffy --- but on days when i'm too tired or
following an extended losing streak --- i just bump down
a few levels to boost my confidence as i win a few tourneys,
etc... if poker is not a game of skill, why is it easier
to win at the lower level buy-ins?

or maybe we should get a matching number of poker players
to challenge both sides of congress to a holdem tournament.
if the poker players take more than 50% of the top finishes,
it's a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely. To take it a step further, why is it I own $6 SNGs but can't beat Phil Ivey and Gus Hansen? Are they just programmed luckier?