Luck vs. Skill test...

[fraac]

Okay, I'm sorry, you're right and I'm confused and silly.

Why is BNLHP not like Phil Ivey?

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I'm sorry, you're right and I'm confused and silly.

Why is BNLHP not like Phil Ivey?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he need to be?

If the game is dominated by luck, then you or I would have just as much chance to win vs. Ivey. For example, if it were you against Ivey in Slot Machines or Roulette, then there's no predictor of who will win. It should be the same way IF (KEY WORD) poker is dominated by luck.

A second reason would be that if someone with skill like Ivey beat Ivey, it would prove nothing (on either side). But, if an average unknown with no extra special abilities (someone that 'could' beat Ivey in Roulette for example) would win against him in this game, I would think it would show the game is mostly dominated by luck.

[fraac]

And if BNLHP is better than Ivey, what do you conclude about the game?

Yours isn't a test of the game (which isn't even poker), it's a test of the players. It proves nothing useful.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
And if BNLHP is better than Ivey, what do you conclude about the game?

Yours isn't a test of the game (which isn't even poker), it's a test of the players. It proves nothing useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Are you 12?

No, this is a serious question. Because you seriously do not comprehend.

[jackaaron]

Outside of Fraac's total miscomprehension of what is going on, I would like to say to everyone else that I absolutely don't think that the test I propose is the 100% guaranteed way to prove the luck vs. skill debate in poker. I just wanted to make that clear...

[drunkencowboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The stack sizes would be 500,000 big bets, which would likely take over a million hands, which is clearly the long run. Against a great limit holdem player (I'm not sure Ivey is a great one), I think our newbie would have maybe a .1% chance of winning.
There is no way, the number is exactly 0% because it is possible (although infinitely small) that our newbie has the best hand almost every hand.
Also after 50-100K hands, our newbie may have grasped enough of the game to be at the level of someone like ourselves and would therefore be less of a dog.

If this headsup match was played many times, and the top pro won over 99% of them, then you could prove to a mathematically educated person that this game is a skill game, however there would still be people that don't understand and just think the pro is really lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

.1% is way way way way overestimating the novices chances of going on a **500,000** BB heater against a superior opponent. That would be about right if the person got supernaturally lucky and won the first $999,000. Assume Ivey has a 1BB/hr winrate and a standard deviation of 10BB/hr. His risk of ruin would be ((1-($2/$20))/(1+(2/20)))^(1000000/20), or about 3.09*10^-4358 (a decimal point followed by 4000+ zeroes and then a 3). Or for comparison, it's about the same likelihood of picking a random hydrogen atom out of the universe. And then randomly picking it again. And again. And again. Fifty times. So yeah, I'd pretty much say it is zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for this analysis sir. Somehow, a few of the posts have gotten off track, talking about NLHE for example, and not thinking just how many blinds each player has in my example.

I realize no one wants to say Ivey is 100% guaranteed, but it is my opinion that he is in this situation, much the same way that Dwayne Wade would dominate me in heads up basketball (actually Ivey would probably dominate his opponent even more because I'd ever so often make some of my half court shots [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] )

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus f-in christ. this is the most retarded [censored] ive ever read. you think you would do better in basketball against dwayne wade than in poker against phil ivey. thats f-in hilarious. how about this: there is no luck in basketball and a large percentage of holdem is luck. you can try to factor out luck by saying people have 1,000,000 BB or whatever you said, but you can never eliminate it. sh*t. i can beat phil ivey half the time in limit holdem. hes not considered great at limit. you must just be horrible at poker if you will lose 100% of the time (you almost have to try to lose 100% of the time). if you say youre the average joe like you described in your example, then this is why you dont know what your talking about. you dont know poker and therefore its hard for you to answer (much less pose) a decent poker question...im pro, joe.

this is about as nice as i could say it. i think its much more interesting when you talk about NLHE and the opponents chances when moving all in. then you get a decent idea of how much luck is in poker.

peace wasnt trying to be rude.

[jackaaron]

Just want to address as quickly as possible how wrong you are on so many levels. Then, I'm completely done with this thread. The fact is, the question has already been answered about as good as it could be answered by the only person that understood the [censored] question (it boggles my mind that only one person fully understood).

[ QUOTE ]

you think you would do better in basketball against dwayne wade than in poker against phil ivey. thats f-in hilarious.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's very misleading. I would do extremly poor against both of them, they would both own the heck out of me. I was semi-joking that I would make some half court shots against Wade, but that's more of a joke. Whatever...you're being too literal on that one.

[ QUOTE ]

you can try to factor out luck by saying people have 1,000,000 BB or whatever you said, but you can never eliminate it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. I have to remind myself not to name call.

Okay sir. Listen...let's say you're on Ivey's level, and I'm on a no name's level. I just learned the game.

You and I are playing limit. We both start with 1 mil in our stacks, heads up, and the blinds are 1.00, and never go up. READ!!

99.99999999999999999999999% of the time you are going to win this HEADS UP MATCH (remember you're Ivey's level in this situation), and this proves that skill dominates........and not luck (that's the contention of the first post, and NOTHING MORE).

I DON'T EVEN NEED IT TO BE THAT HIGH OF A PERCENTAGE FOR SKILL TO DOMINATE!!!! How do you not understand this??


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

i can beat phil ivey half the time in limit holdem.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where you lose credibility. There is no way that you would beat him in limit holdem half the time. Seriously.

[ QUOTE ]

you must just be horrible at poker if you will lose 100% of the time (you almost have to try to lose 100% of the time). if you say youre the average joe like you described in your example, then this is why you dont know what your talking about. you dont know poker and therefore its hard for you to answer (much less pose) a decent poker question...im pro, joe.


[/ QUOTE ]

In the ONE heads up match I described in my first post, if I were playing Ivey, I would lose it every time. Yes. You would too.

Now, if you are saying you are a pro, that's fine.

YOU WOULDN'T BE PLAYING IVEY IN MY EXAMPLE!!! Please read entire posts. Please. You would not be playing him if you're a freaking pro because that proves nothing.

Okay. Mods, please delete. Nothing further can be accomplished as long as drunkencowboy continues to read half sentences...take a drink of his vodka and OJ, and then begin to type. Man alkies are hard to deal with.

Thanks to the guy with the math, it was informative, and answered the question.

[fraac]

I think you would be less angry if you knew what you were saying.

[drunkencowboy]

Ok. let me make sure im getting this right, as i dont want to miss the point of your OP.

Youre saying that someone playing holdem for their very first time (or 20th time), although mentally capable, will do very very poorly against the best poker player in the world? Well Jesus, I think youre on to something [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Ive been playing tennis for years and I only got a couple points off Pete Sampras when we played last summer. Maybe I should have used your logic there...

Ok so for the dozens of people who read this and couldnt comprehend what jackaaron was saying: Most of the time a top professional goes against a beginner the professional will win. This even goes for poker, proving that there is no luck involved.

[jackaaron]

Whereas if those same two people you were talking about played roulette against each other, there would be no way of telling who would win.

Wow, you're finally getting it. Maybe I'll buy you a pack of depends even.