How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[David Sklansky]

The title is possibly a touch exaggerated but maybe not. You see there is a big debate going on in several venues, internet and otherwise, regarding how much "skill" there is in the game of poker. And the answer to that question may be very relevant to whether the game will become legal in various places. The details of that are off this subject. What this post is about is simply the subject of "skill"
and the conversation I just had with my son Mat, about it.

Few people claim that poker is all luck. Even though in most forms of the game you can't make any decisions that will alter the strength of the cards you hold. However most of the legal arguments that I have encountered (and occasionally have been asked to rebut on the witness stand) merely claim that the skill factor is quite small. That luck predominates. And in most if not all venues, that claim, if correct, would be sufficient to win their case and outlaw poker.

I have always declined to testify, because I realized that the statistical evidence I could give, regarding hourly rates and standard deviations of winning poker players, might backfire. Because of what it says about the length of time required before a pro could be almost sure of being ahead of a decent amateur.

On the other hand that is not really fair. Sure luck predominates in the short run in poker. But that doesn't prove there isn't a lot of skill in the game. It only proves that there isn't much DIFFERENCE in skill between excellent, and merely competant, players. But how does one prove that to a jury? That the luck factor is accentuated because average players are in fact pretty skillful themselves. And right off the top of his head, Mat gave me the answer.

Which is that ONLY IN GAMES OF SKILL CAN A PLAYER GUARANTEE THAT HE WILL QUICKLY LOSE. If for some strange reason he wanted to. Why didn't I think of that? Because of course it is true. You can't guarantee that you will lose in slot machines or keno or roulette or craps just by playing badly.(I'm not counting the artificial plays of betting red and black or pass and don't pass at the same time. Nor am I talking about folding every hand in poker. I'm talking about playing very badly.) Only in games of skill, does horrible play mean a quick demise. (Although there are exceptions such as sports betting).

Thus while you can't show a jury that expert play quickly results in a win, you can show them that in poker the opposite type of play quickly results in a loss. Which should be sufficient evidence to prove that skill is a major part of the game.

Though I would love to name this argument after me, the fact is that Mat thought of it and merely gave me premission to post it for him. Thus it must be named after him. The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus it must be named after him. The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard there was this new hotshot phyicsist hamed Biff Hawking. He just unified Gravity with the other forces. Steven Hawking immediately swooped in to his aid and demanded that this new unified theory be called The Hawking Unified Theory.

Whaddaguy!

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
"Thus it must be named after him. The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicely done [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Austiger]

I think what you've proven is that the worse a player is, the more money he can lose at poker, and the better a player is, the more money he can keep from losing. I'm not sure any committee would think that's a good reason to legalize poker.

You could create a Blackjack type game where the odds are (even more) heavily in the house's favor. I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I could intentionally lose money at it if I tried. That wouldn't mean it should be legalized or that anyone could win in the long run.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Though I would love to name this argument after me, the fact is that Mat thought of it and merely gave me premission to post it for him. Thus it must be named after him. The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

If bedding 16 year old girls wasn't enough, David taking back-hand credit for his ideas takes the cake.

Mat should probably legally change his last name.

Malmuth has a nice ring to it. Mat Malmuth. What do you think?

[Austiger]

continued...

Poker could be a game that is 100% luck when played between people trying to win and skill only comes into play when one opponent is tanking the game. Take this game I just invented:

Same rules as tic-tac-toe, with one exception. If the game ends in a tie, you flip a coin to see who wins.

In this game between two decent players the winner is determined by luck 100% of the time. But if one wants to lose every time, he can.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
continued...

Poker could be a game that is 100% luck when played between people trying to win and skill only comes into play when one opponent is tanking the game. Take this game I just invented:

Same rules as tic-tac-toe, with one exception. If the game ends in a tie, you flip a coin to see who wins.

In this game between two decent players the winner is determined by luck 100% of the time. But if one wants to lose every time, he can.

[/ QUOTE ]

So to the extent that making the right decisions in tic-tac-toe requires skill, your example is also a game of skill. The difference is (as Sklansky mentions in the post) average poker players already have some skill. It's not simple (for a lot of people) to play an average game of poker.

It is simple (for almost everyone) to play proper tic-tac-toe, thus it becomes luck.

[PairTheBoard]

So blackjack should be considered a game of skill and legalized because a player could play so badly by continuing to hit every hand until he goes bust that he is guaranteed to lose?

PairTheBoard

[Skallagrim]

Originally posted in the legislation forum:

Thank you Mr. Sklansky for another weapon in the battle to keep/make poker legal. I truly like this argument and will use it. I am an attorney who often has occassion to work in this field.

I would also be interested in how you would respond to the skill v. chance argument if it were phrased in this manner: Does chance account for over 50% of the results (of individual hands) in Poker?

I ask it this way because many state laws define games of chance as those in which chance predominantly determines the outcome. Thus if the outcome is determined by things other than chance (not just skill) more than 1/2 the time, poker is not gambling as legally defined (in those states).

My experience with poker is that the chance element, the random distribution of the cards, does not determine the outcome over half the time. In my games (mostly cash NL hold-em) it hardly seems that 1/2 the hands actually go to showdown becasue of the player's actions of betting, raising, bluffing and folding. And even in those hands that do go to showdown, player actions are still determining most of the outcomes becasue the skilled player gets his money in when his math and psychological skills tell him he has the best hand, and often he has bet out others who might have beaten him. And when he has the best hand, he usually wins because, of course, having the best hand before the showdown means precisely that he has the hand most likely to win. Suckouts happen of course, but do suckouts determine the winner over 50% of the time? Of course not. That is how I intend to present my case the next time I am called upon to do so, and I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the way I have phrased the question.

Thank you anyway for your help on this subject.

[ALawPoker]

I think the cards certainly affect who will win the hand over half the time. Even when you pick up a pot cause you smell weakness, or because you made a bet in position, you usually will or won't be involved in a certain situation simply because of your cards.

That said, I think the point you should try to get across is that even though the cards might determine who "wins" the hand more than half the time, the players skill allows his wins to be more profitable and his losses to be less severe. You should really hammer home that the skill/result is not directly related to how many hands you win.

Just my two cents. Hopefully Sklansky can offer you some advice.