Prove Poker is a Skill Game?

[AaronBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
Were you familiar with the gutshot case? Do you know why they weren't able to produce data showing that the game is based on skill? Or was that not the point?

[/ QUOTE ]
There was evidence presented on both sides, and the judge ruled that it was a game of luck for the purpose of the gaming statute. He did not say there was no skill.

Tic-tac-toe is a game of skill in the sense that an experienced player can beat a complete novice, or an idiot. But anyone with any degree of intelligence can master the game in a few minutes.

For most people it's not enough to prove that there is some level of skill, you have to show that there is skill beyond a minimal level.

[Shandrax]

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.

[UtzChips]

[ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make? Skill or chance? It's called gambling. The state should allow gambling and regulate it.

It's not possible to prove poker is skill to a legislator who doesn't understand math. And not necessary to one who does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Like I said....a burned out, boring subject

[Shandrax]

If Poker was a game of luck, you are supposed to break even in the 4k-8k Big Game. Good luck to you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
If Poker was a game of luck, you are supposed to break even in the 4k-8k Big Game. Good luck to you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why this topic is so overdone. if its just luck, you read "poker for idiots," you sit down, you either win your monies or you don't.

No one who knows anything about poker takes this idea seriously.

[jogsxyz]

[ 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.

[PantsOnFire]

The real proof that poker is a game of skill is stated in the song by Kenny Rogers with the line "You gotta know when to holdem, know when to foldem..."

I just might have a way of proving Kenny Rogers correct.

Pick a method of playing that requires no skill whatsoever. This could be calling every bet or moving all-in every time. So you are playing without making any decisions basically.

Now let's pick two stake levels say one is 0.05/0.10 NL and the other is 50/100 NL cash games online. Give two players 10,000BB bankrolls and send them to their respective tables to play for a predetermined amount of time. This trial can include multiple players at multiple tables or whatever to get a statisically significant result (i.e. short term variance should be somewhat flattened out).

The final result would be to analyze will be the amount of BBs each player has left after the trial period.

This test would not be a measure of how well a pre-determined robot method of playing works but would assess the abiltity of players to adjust to it and presumably defeat it since it is surely not optimal.

If the 50/100 players consistently extract more money from these "auto" players, then I think we can conclude they have more skill than the 0.05/0.10 players.

Call me crazy but don't call me at home.

[Brad1970]

[ 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 ]

Is there less skill in other poker games such as Omaha, 7 card stud, 5 card draw, Badugi, etc or more?

[Pokerlogist]

Just because the World Chess Championship is 21 games doesn't mean that winner was solely determined by skill alone. Games that we think are soley skill actually have some luck invloved and those we think of as solely luck have some skill involved. I was once a lowly tournament chess player and got a draw against a grandmaster. The chances of me doing that was maybe 1 in 100 but he was unlucky enough fall into a pet opening trap. A lottery seems total luck but it still requires you have enough brains to not lose the winning ticket and not to forget to check the lottery results or to misread them. Real coin tossing seems all chance, but even here, a knowledgeable person can get an edge in this game.

The idea that "only in games of skill can a player guarantee that he will quickly lose" is true in a very limited sense. It only means that there is some small element of skill involved in the game. Sure, in poker someone can guarantee losing money by always folding. But a person can quarantee losing a lottery too, just by throwing away his ticket. Poker requires a great amount of skill but this may not be the best way to define skill.

[Krow]

There is a logical way to prove skill is a greater factor than luck (also this may sound very obvious to some, but I promise you I was in an argument over this very point.) I had a friend who admitted that there was skill in poker but luck would out weigh skill, there is a falaciy in that argument.

He said that luck would be more than 50% of the game, actually he said that only 25% of the game of poker was skill making 75% luck. So if you admit there is skill than you must admit one player can be more skilled then anouther because a game can't be of skill if all the players have the same chances of winning evertime, (like the game of war 50/50.)

Back to the point first off I belive that tyou can't quantify skill versus luck but for the sake of argument I will use 75% luck and 25% skill. We will say that the game is heads up for simplicity. That means that in this heads up scenario both players in a game that is no skill is 50/50, but the only 50/50 in this is the 75% luck factor making it 37.5/37.5. On top of that is the 25% skill factor 12.5/12.5 if the players are both even matched which is almost never the case. We will say that one player is only slightly more skilled with maybe only a point making it 13.5/11.5. This change would make the odds of winning 51/49 favoring the more skilled player. That means that in the "long-run" say over the course of 100 heads up matches (with perfect heads up matches) played for 100 dollars each game the more skilled player would win 200$ every 100 games or would average 2$ every single game. Thus making the more skilled player the clear victor. Also remember the 75 25 stats are purely theoretical and only for used to explain the point in a statistical analysis.