USA Today skill vs luck

[Clowngod]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a luck component in poker.. So in legalistic terms - it is a game of chance ... thats why its called 'gambling'
Chess is a pure game of skill..

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such think as "luck". What you people are talking about is "variance". A long period of downside variance or a highly unlikely event (like a perfect-perfect suckout) is only "bad luck" because you choose to call the event that. There is no "bad luck" particle in the universe or "bad luck" force that causes these events. They are just the result of the statistical reality that random events are not uniformly random but bunch from time to time. And, that even highly unlikely events like "perfect perfects" do occur given a large enough sample size.

I play about 30,000+ hands per month and haven't had a losing month in over 4 years. Either poker is a game of skill or I'm "lucky" to cosmically unlikely degree.

The problem is simple. For most players their edge (if they have one) against the competition is either smaller than the variance so that it may take a long time to measure their relative skill, or their edge is smaller than the rake so that being a good player still makes them a lifetime loser.

The issue then is over what period or time, or number of hands you are defining for. Clearly for any single hand of poker the variance or "luck" component is a tidal wave compared to the skill component. Unfortunately judges tend to look at this. It's only if we can convince them to look at it from the perspective of the player who plays 100's of thousands of hands that the skill component predominates. Since most players don't play that many hands, for most players poker is a game of chance.

Look at it this way. When I walk up to the craps table, I'm gambling. When the casino books my bet at the same table, they are not.

[LouisCyphre]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a luck component in poker.. So in legalistic terms - it is a game of chance ... thats why its called 'gambling'
Chess is a pure game of skill..

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such think as "luck".

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand what is considered luck in poker. It refers to uncertain future events that are beyond the control of any skill.
Bystander never argued poker is not a game of skill. He only explained why the law treats poker as a game of chance.

[LouisCyphre]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making a strawman argument.
I never said that poker is not a game of skill. I never said a skilled player will not come out on top in the long run. I only said that it involves a certain amount of luck. Significantly more than the aforementioned chess or baseball. Anyway who tries to argue that away clearly does not understand the game of poker.
And the fact that you equate having a pet to beastiality says a lot about either yourself or your reasoning abilities. You will know which one it is.

[Clowngod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a luck component in poker.. So in legalistic terms - it is a game of chance ... thats why its called 'gambling'
Chess is a pure game of skill..

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such think as "luck".

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand what is considered luck in poker. It refers to uncertain future events that are beyond the control of any skill.
Bystander never argued poker is not a game of skill. He only explained why the law treats poker as a game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "law" determines whether or not something is a game of skill based on whether chance or skill is the predominate factor in who wins.

I guess what I was trying to say was that over the short run the variance of the cards is more a determinant of who wins then the skill of the player (depending on the game, more for limit poker, less for plo8). Over the long run (10's of thousands of hands minimum) skill will predominate over the variance of the cards for most players.

Judges are human, they tend to have biases. Because poker can be looked at as either a long term or short term affair they can call the game anything they want and technically be right.

[LouisCyphre]

In my country the determination wether a game is a game of skill or a game of chance is based on the dominance of the luck factor in a single game. Therefore it is irrelevant to argue in a court that in the long run skill will prevail.
I assume judges and lawmakers in other jurisdictions might have a similar perspective.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I saw that stat the same way. Unfortunately, most of the US Reps and Senators are fish.

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
You are making a strawman argument.
I never said that poker is not a game of skill. I never said a skilled player will not come out on top in the long run. I only said that it involves a certain amount of luck. Significantly more than the aforementioned chess or baseball. Anyway who tries to argue that away clearly does not understand the game of poker.
And the fact that you equate having a pet to beastiality says a lot about either yourself or your reasoning abilities. You will know which one it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Louis, you are clearly a sensitive soul who takes offence very easily. I know that chimp would not have married you - she is not blind.

If you read my post I implied that short term there was a huge luck factor involved in poker but long term it is skill. Your intial post IMHO was implying that poker was luck. You may not have meant it but that is the way it came across. Your posts afterwards seem to indicate that we both believe the same thing - luck short term and skill long term.

This can be said for any sport including baseball which is where you then waded into the argument. Yes, I agree that baseball is less luck short term than poker. And chess is less luck short term than baseball. And there will be many other examples with varying degrees of luck short term. However, the point surely is that if it is skillful long term that is the overidding factor in terms of luck v skill.

If you decide to play bingo, for example, it is luck short term, luck long term and -EV very long term.

Now, who decides how much luck v skill is needed in a single game to determine it as a game of skill. Is there a % set down. I don't think so. The only reason poker has been deemed luck is because the USA could not regulate the online games and get their share of the tax revenue.

[chicagoY]

Thanks for posting this, man, I hope that Wexler bill goes through.

[chicagoY]

"It certainly has elements of skill," said Keith Whyte, executive director of The National Council on Problem Gambling, "but the predominant element has to be chance. Otherwise, it wouldn't be gambling."

I just saw this. I hate these reductionist, nanny state SOBs.

[chicagoY]

Yeah, let's invite them to play with bonuses and restroom action.