USA Today skill vs luck - Page 2

Rek · #11 10-27-2007, 09:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aspects of chess involve luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

For example: on average, you make the optimal move 90% of the time and your opponent makes the optimal move 75% of the time. Sometimes your far worse opponent wins by choosing the optimal moves by "accident"

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't agree with that. Chess is 100% skill. It is a game of complete information. You can make make a bad decision but thats what it is. Your opponent can make a good move without realising it but you can then counter. I am pretty good at chess and I know I could NEVER beat a world class player - I am not at that level. I could not even beat him through luck if I played him 1000 times.

If I played Phil Ivey heads up 1000 times I would win some of those. Sometimes because I would have played good and sometimes through luck. However, he would still come out on top.

The point is there is a big luck element in poker especially short term. However, good players will come out on top over time. There is the proof that poker is more skill than luck. Chess was a bad example because IMHO there is zero luck in that game. However, almost any other game has a luck element to some degree or another. So why only poker gets accused of being lucky I don't know - oh hold on, do you think it has something to do with the USA goverment not getting their slice of the online action? Nah, that can't be it.

LouisCyphre · #12 10-27-2007, 09:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This skill vs. luck thing has gone on forever. Anyone with half a brain can see that poker is clearly a game of skill. ----It's at least as much or more so than other "skill" games such as baseball---look at the 2007 baseball season. The best team record for the season was 96 wins and 66 losses. So they won 59.3% of their games. For the last 5 months, I have won 61% of my poker sessions. Clearly poker is more skillful of a game than baseball...

So even with the best baseball team in the league, it's practically a coinflip for whether they are going to win each game or not, especially since most teams are closer to 50% win rates. So, i SUPPOSE the only responsible thing to do is to ban the game of baseball permenantly, because it is CLEARLY a game of chance, and theirfore evil and will destory families...

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is not sound because MLB teams compete against other teams in their general skill range. What would the win rate of a professional or collge baseball team be if they compteted against a local softball team and took it seriously?

Rek · #13 10-27-2007, 09:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This argument is not sound because MLB teams compete against other teams in their general skill range. What would the win rate of a professional or collge baseball team be if they compteted against a local softball team and took it seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

Albino Lord · #14 10-27-2007, 09:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

[/ QUOTE ]

80-20 for the niece.

Rek · #15 10-27-2007, 10:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

[/ QUOTE ]

80-20 for the niece.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL yeah she is pretty damn good

ycjason · #16 10-27-2007, 10:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even chess has aspects of luck in it. If you find a player who is only slightly worse than you he will still be able to beat you sometimes.

The same applies to people who don't allow "luck" shots in billiards. If you make a shot 95% of the time then you are still relying on luck to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What aspects of chess involve luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

For example: on average, you make the optimal move 90% of the time and your opponent makes the optimal move 75% of the time. Sometimes your far worse opponent wins by choosing the optimal moves by "accident"

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't agree with that. Chess is 100% skill. It is a game of complete information. You can make make a bad decision but thats what it is. Your opponent can make a good move without realising it but you can then counter. I am pretty good at chess and I know I could NEVER beat a world class player - I am not at that level. I could not even beat him through luck if I played him 1000 times.

If I played Phil Ivey heads up 1000 times I would win some of those. Sometimes because I would have played good and sometimes through luck. However, he would still come out on top.

The point is there is a big luck element in poker especially short term. However, good players will come out on top over time. There is the proof that poker is more skill than luck. Chess was a bad example because IMHO there is zero luck in that game. However, almost any other game has a luck element to some degree or another. So why only poker gets accused of being lucky I don't know - oh hold on, do you think it has something to do with the USA goverment not getting their slice of the online action? Nah, that can't be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

while chess is a complete information game, to play the game well, it depends on heavily on how many moves you can calculate ahead, but there is a human limit to that calculation. Many times in the game, even the best player has to make a guess as to whether one move is better than the other or not. So there is certainly luck involved as well.

LouisCyphre · #17 10-27-2007, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This argument is not sound because MLB teams compete against other teams in their general skill range. What would the win rate of a professional or collge baseball team be if they compteted against a local softball team and took it seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

[/ QUOTE ]

Worse. What would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my trained chimp who knows only one move: pre-flop all-in?
Do you think Phil Ivey will win more matches than the professional baseball team?

punkass · #18 10-27-2007, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For example: on average, you make the optimal move 90% of the time and your opponent makes the optimal move 75% of the time. Sometimes your far worse opponent wins by choosing the optimal moves by "accident"

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't this skill? If you make the optimal move less, you are not as skilled, no?

NapoleonDolemite · #19 10-27-2007, 01:05 PM

Currently 41% say chance or mostly chance. This is why we will never run out of fish.

Rek · #20 10-27-2007, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This argument is not sound because MLB teams compete against other teams in their general skill range. What would the win rate of a professional or collge baseball team be if they compteted against a local softball team and took it seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my 5-year old niece?

[/ QUOTE ]

Worse. What would be the win rate if Phil Ivey played heads up poker against my trained chimp who knows only one move: pre-flop all-in?
Do you think Phil Ivey will win more matches than the professional baseball team?

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a trained chimp? cool. And I take it from your comments that it can beat you. Guess thats why you cannot accept poker is skill. The skilled player will come out on top over an extended run.

What's your chimp's name? And when did you marry it?