How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[David Sklansky]

Reprinted from the Sklansky Forum:

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.

[SplawnDarts]

Sound argument.

[Wake up CALL]

Would showing a single game of skill where Mat is incorrect be enough to disprove The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument? If so I hereby lay claim to be the first to disprove your theorum.

[Befolder]

Nice work sir. That's some nice backward, out of the box thinking which I never would have considered.

[Befolder]

[ QUOTE ]
Would showing a single game of skill where Mat is incorrect be enough to disprove The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument? If so I hereby lay claim to be the first to disprove your theorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you waiting for? Lead with your argument so it can be debated and perhaps refuted.

[JuntMonkey]

I like David's humor in the naming of the Argument.

[MasterLJ]

David,

Can't this be applied to BlackJack as well? Clearly, you cannot win at blackjack (sans card counting), but one player can lose money faster than another (hitting on 19 and such). I know here in CA, Blackjack is a game of skill, but we all know it's not a game you can beat longterm.

EDIT: I suppose this assumes that winning long-term is requisite for being a game of skill. To discount my own argument, you could introduce a game of poker with a 20% uncapped rake. No player in the world could beat it long term, but some players could lose faster than others.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you waiting for? Lead with your argument so it can be debated and perhaps refuted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am afraid David will attempt to weasel his way out if I let the cat out of the bag before he answers. There will in fact be no debate once I name the skill game, in fact there are several but one should work just fine.

[atomicsoda]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Can't this be applied to BlackJack as well? Clearly, you cannot win at blackjack (sans card counting), but one player can lose money faster than another (hitting on 19 and such). I know here in CA, Blackjack is a game of skill, but we all know it's not a game you can beat longterm.

EDIT: I suppose this assumes that winning long-term is requisite for being a game of skill. To discount my own argument, you could introduce a game of poker with a 20% uncapped rake. No player in the world could beat it long term, but some players could lose faster than others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you can win or not doesn't make it a game of skill or not. BJ could easily be +EV without counting if BJ pays 2/1 instead of 3/2. That doesn't change the skill equation. If you want a game with no skill try Baccarat. Pure luck.

[Skallagrim]

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.