Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Legislation

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-15-2007, 10:32 AM
RoundGuy RoundGuy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Buying more VO, ldo
Posts: 1,932
Default Re: HEY DAVE, YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
NOW GO BACK TO YOUR FORUM!!!

Nineinch

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. It is impossible for you to be anything but a moron, isn't it.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-15-2007, 10:52 AM
Hoi Polloi Hoi Polloi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: workin\' the variance bell curve
Posts: 2,049
Default Re: Another Idea Regarding Showing Poker Is Mainly \"Skill\"

[ QUOTE ]
What proves that the decisions are based on skill and not luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if our decisions are based on luck we're playing on another level. Some super advanced game theory or something.

What we're trying to show is that the results correlate significantly with skillful play. Sort of "Are you as good at Hold'em as a 5th grader."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-15-2007, 11:03 AM
Hoi Polloi Hoi Polloi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: workin\' the variance bell curve
Posts: 2,049
Default Re: Another Idea Regarding Showing Poker Is Mainly \"Skill\"

[ QUOTE ]
"The majority of the major decisions during a poker hand, (the decision whether to play at all being normally trivial) are not obvious, a matter of skill, and result in large differences in expected value, with the most skillful decisions having the highest value."

[/ QUOTE ]

Some redundancies and less than clear language here. Let's try:

"The majority of decisions during a poker hand are not obvious, require skill, and result in large differences in expected value, with the most skillful decisions having the highest value."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-15-2007, 11:04 AM
DonkeyChip DonkeyChip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 217
Default Re: Another Idea Regarding Showing Poker Is Mainly \"Skill\"

I'm thinking that people (that don't know any better) will tend to believe that since you could make every decision 'correctly' and still lose the hand that 'luck dominates skill'...and it certainly does in one hand. It's over the long haul that these +EV decisions begin to add up...and I'm not sure how sports betting is any different in these respects...or playing the stock market.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-15-2007, 12:00 PM
donkman donkman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 49
Default Re: Another Idea Regarding Showing Poker Is Mainly \"Skill\"

Compare all players(as two groups) as follows, to show that those that have done great, have a much larger 'average return on investment' than those that have never done well;

Compare WSOP tour players who were "lucky" enough to have won within the last 5 year period. (To account for loss of skill; incase the WSOP continues for decades) to players that have never made a final table in a WSOP torunament.

Of course, do not use the first WSOP tournament ever played in the stats.

Perhaps start to compile the stats after the first 10 or so tournaments. This will help you separate out many of the best players, because they would have been more likely to reach a final table by then. The final answer will reflect the skill difference more dramatically.

What will the average return on investment be for each group.

If the difference is as dramatic as I expect it is, there would be few who would deny a large skill factor.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-15-2007, 12:12 PM
nineinchal nineinchal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 1,285
Default Re: HEY DAVE, YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NOW GO BACK TO YOUR FORUM!!!

Nineinch

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. It is impossible for you to be anything but a moron, isn't it.

[/ QUOTE ]

MoronsRus!

Nineinch
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-15-2007, 12:31 PM
cdlarmore cdlarmore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,273
Default Re: Another Idea Regarding Showing Poker Is Mainly \"Skill\"

does anyone think the "cold streak" issue could be used against us? Namely that if it were truly a game of skill, you wouldnt have 5k hand cold streaks?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-15-2007, 12:51 PM
Grasshopp3r Grasshopp3r is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Aurora, CO (suburb of Denver)
Posts: 1,728
Default Re: Another Idea Regarding Showing Poker Is Mainly \"Skill\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a lottery winner claims they based their winning numbers on analysis of previous results and a weighting of results

[/ QUOTE ]

Lottery balls have no memory. Future numbers drawn are not impacted at all by any previous numbers drawn.

Les

[/ QUOTE ]

Statistics show that more people pick numbers 31 or less, because people tend to pick numbers that match their birthdays/anniversaries/whatever. If you pick numbers all higher than 31, it's more +EV (or less -EV) because there's less chance of having to split the prize money.

One could argue that that involves skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't get to pick lotto numbers after you know some of them, whether they are in your hand or on the board. The lotto argument is specious.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-15-2007, 12:54 PM
Ron Burgundy Ron Burgundy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ronpaul2008.com
Posts: 5,208
Default Re: Another Idea Regarding Showing Poker Is Mainly \"Skill\"

[ QUOTE ]
You don't get to pick lotto numbers after you know some of them, whether they are in your hand or on the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read this sentence 10 times and I still have no idea wtf you're saying.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-15-2007, 01:29 PM
Skallagrim Skallagrim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Live Free or Die State
Posts: 1,071
Default Re: Another Idea Regarding Showing Poker Is Mainly \"Skill\"

[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking that people (that don't know any better) will tend to believe that since you could make every decision 'correctly' and still lose the hand that 'luck dominates skill'...and it certainly does in one hand. It's over the long haul that these +EV decisions begin to add up...and I'm not sure how sports betting is any different in these respects...or playing the stock market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does luck really dominate skill in one hand? Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If two players are dealt the exact same hand, but one plays in a manner to get the other to fold - luck has not determined that outcome. Same when you get a player with a better hand to fold. Obviously, though, luck will determine some hands in poker ("he hit his 2 outer on the river"), the trick (as far as MOST state laws are concerned) is to somehow be able to show that luck does not determine THE OUTCOME OF THE MAJORITY OF HANDS.

2 key points for you guys to remember:

1) "skill" as used in the legal analysis DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN GOOD PLAY - when someone reraises with 2-7os preflop, that is usually a bad play, but it is also an exercise of skill (bad skill), the cards did not (obviously) make him reraise, nor do poker's rules.

2) Even if Poker is 55% skill and 45% luck, IT IS NOT GAMBLING UNDER THE "PREDOMINANCE" TEST used by well over 1/2 the states to define gambling. 45% is a lot of luck and can easily account for a long "dry streak." My guess is the correct ratio is about 65% skill and 35% luck.

My only problem with Mr. Sklansky's argument is that it still has difficulty fitting itself into a ratio of luck v. skill, and this is what Courts will want to base their decision on.

And I still think the best argument here is as follows:

Define terms: Skill = decisions made by players
Chance (or luck) = the distribution of the cards


Now consider a fair representative number of poker hands at any table, and remember, showing chance means the outcome is determined by the cards.

So, first, every hand that does not go to showdown was undeniably the result of player actions, not the 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).

Second, when hands do go to showdown, who is at the showdown is detemined 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.

Third, even 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 - this is where Sklansky's point helps). 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.

Fourth, even 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.

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 obvious in tournament poker as I hinted above, because how much you win or lose on each hand is absolutely significant in determining who will have all the chips at the end.

Skallagrim
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.