another NEW Online U S Gamoing CARD SITE

[cjk73]

I would think another factor that proves poker is a skill game is the example of consistent winners. An example could be something like repeat final table appearances at World Poker Tour events. Certainly the small population of folks that have made two or three final tables (or even won two or three times) cannot be dismissed as just having been "lucky". It would be interesting to see what someone who is better then math then I could come up with regarding the odds of repeat winning or repeat final tabling vs. what a few of the top players have actually accomplished. In other words, in a game of pure chance with a sizable number of participants it is very unlikely to have repeat winners, let alone multiple repeat winners. I would think something like this would help to prove the skill element using real world experience rather then just hypothetical argument.

[Skallagrim]

Ahem, virtually nobody claims poker is a game of PURE chance, nor is that what the law requires. The test in most places is whether the game is MOSTLY chance or MOSTLY skill, whichever prevails decides whether its gambling or "skill gaming."

So while there are at least a few dozen ways to prove poker isnt only chance, including your observation that a chance game cant have consistent winners, what is needed is for ways to prove that chance is the lesser element as opposed to not the only element.

If you can come up with a way to do that better than what I have constructed, please post it, we need all the ideas we can get. Absent a change in the law, this may be the only way to save playing the game legally anywhere outside a casino.

Skallagrim

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
So while there are at least a few dozen ways to prove poker isnt only chance, including your observation that a chance game cant have consistent winners, what is needed is for ways to prove that chance is the lesser element as opposed to not the only element.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't consistent winners prove that chance is the lesser element?

[cjk73]

Skal - Please understand that I am not advocating one method over another. In fact I think it would be wise to use many different methods in proving/arguing that poker is more skill then luck. I am just suggesting one of many. I do think if the numbers were run by someone (again, someone better at the maths then me) they would bear out that skill must be a significant factor to have not only repeat winners, but multiple repeat winners.

[Skallagrim]

Guys, its not that I dont like hearing ideas. And this isnt a competition. This will really matter if poker is ever targeted for prosecution. So I just want to read ideas that get to the point: How do we show skill is predominant?

Think logically and mathematically, if poker were 80% chance and 20% skill, then a player who is good and gets 3 out of 4 of the skill hands, is a consistant winner (40% by chance plus 15% by skill - wins more than loses).

So if someone can figure out how to otherwise quantify this PLEASE DO IT.

The test is coming.

Skallagrim

[twoblacknines]

wouldn't poker tracker records work? If you can show someone wins 3bb/100 hands over hundreds of thousands of hands wouldn't that be sufficient to show skill predominates?

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't poker tracker records work? If you can show someone wins 3bb/100 hands over hundreds of thousands of hands wouldn't that be sufficient to show skill predominates?

[/ QUOTE ]

there'd have to be a fancier statistical analysis. obviously 50k or 100k is not enough hands, but is 500k? 10m? i think that 10m clearly would be but that's just my intuition.

the best way to do it would be to do some kind of analysis where you could say "at a 99.99% significance level, the player's true ptbb/100 is greater than 0." i don't know what kind of analysis you'd do to figure that out, but i'm sure it'd be possible. and i'm sure that if you did the analysis right with a winning player over a big sample then you'd find that it's nearly impossible for the results to be a lucky 0EV player.