Another Idea To Show That Poker Is "Less Than 50% Luck"

[David Sklansky]

This can only be done regarding ring game holdem. But it could still conceivably be another good argument. It would require the help of internet sites that can look at the hands after the fact.

But if they did that, they would see that the "best hand" wins far fewer than half the pots. At least at stakes above 25cents-50cents. In other words the hand that would win if all hands went to the river (or to the point where the hand ended) is not usually the winner of the pot. So the cards are less than 50% of the outcome and skill is more than 50%.

[Eaglesfan1]

David, I don't mean to hi-jack here, but didn't Billy Baxter already prove in the courts, when he faced the IRS in 1986, that poker is a game of skill meaning any income derived from poker is not unearned income, but earned income?

[ike]

The whole problem with these arguments is that "Is poker more or less than half luck?" is not a sufficiently specific question to be answered convincingly either way.

[mbpoker]

Obviously you mean to include hands that are folded before the flop. Why wouldn't this apply to tournament hands as well?

[DeNutza]

Why not just gather a huge collection of pro player win/loss
records?

It could be sort of like a collection of petition signatures,
but instead would be 100's of documented win/loss
records of professional poker players that win year
after year after year...

Seems like a pretty undisputable way to prove it.

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just gather a huge collection of pro player win/loss
records?

It could be sort of like a collection of petition signatures,
but instead would be 100's of documented win/loss
records of professional poker players that win year
after year after year...

Seems like a pretty undisputable way to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to say you're wrong, they can simply say it could still be 90% luck 10% skill, over the long run skill wins out, poker is still mostly luck. this is the problem: "poker is more than half luck (or skill)" doesn't mean anything and you can argue about it forever.

[repulse]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole problem with these arguments is that "Is poker more or less than half luck?" is not a sufficiently specific question to be answered convincingly either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

The predominance test is a farce. The way this question is posed implies that there is one mathematically correct answer, yet the approaches to answering this question tend to be based on heuristics or "gut feelings" about the nature of randomness.

Specifically, doesn't the premise of this question assume a measure that is not defined? And if "more than half luck" were to have specific meaning such as "an unskilled player beats a skilled player more than n% of the time" or "the ratio of standard deviation to mean of an average player's results exceeds n", the Central Limit Theorem provides for these thresholds to be broken after some sufficient length of play, causing the question to degenerate into "how many hands of poker do people play", which, to my knowledge, has never been addressed.

Clearly the continued existence and application of the predominance test demonstrates that such scientific rigor is not what the courts are looking for. Why are we allowing what should be a specific mathematical question to be obfuscated by heuristics? Ideally, the lawmakers should utilize academic experts to shape rulings about fields they know nothing about. At the very least, the statute should be reworded to what it truly is, an informal "feel" about whether a game is too luck-based or, in the case of the recent NC ruling, whether the luck in a game is inherent to its rules (shuffling of cards) rather than external (physical randomness and human error in golf), which, as you may expect, seems highly dubious to me.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not just gather a huge collection of pro player win/loss
records?

It could be sort of like a collection of petition signatures,
but instead would be 100's of documented win/loss
records of professional poker players that win year
after year after year...

Seems like a pretty undisputable way to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to say you're wrong, they can simply say it could still be 90% luck 10% skill, over the long run skill wins out, poker is still mostly luck. this is the problem: "poker is more than half luck (or skill)" doesn't mean anything and you can argue about it forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a thought. If luck evens out over the long term wouldn't it be fair to say that even if poker is 99% luck and 1% skill that it is "predominately skill" because the luck evens out? The only difference long term is caused by the skill factor.

I realize this would be a tough sell because people have a hard time understanding that luck evens out or short term vs long term, but I thought I'd throw this thought out anyway.

[autobet]

Similar, that those players seeing the most rivers are usually the biggest losers...so in order to be a winning player you must often fold the best hand or with having a chance of making the best hand to be a long term winner.

The online sites should be able to provide back up on rivers seen versus profit/loss per 100 hands.

Obviously, this is only a small part of the argument, but I think adds a nice logical piece that can be supported by millions of hands from the online sites.

[Skallagrim]

I dont like the "predominance test" either.

But in 2/3rds of the US states that is what we have to deal with unless the law is changed.

I respectfully suggest that it is far easier to come up with ways to make the predominance test work for us than it will be for us to make the courts and legislatures change their test.

I have proposed one method which I still have not seen refuted, Mr. Sklansky has proposed 2, one which I critiqued for not getting us to "more or less" chance, and this one, which does, at least for ring games, if the numbers bear him out (which I have little doubt they will).

Skallagrim