WSJ: Harvard Ponders Just What It Takes to Excel at Poker

[burningyen]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...zEwMjMxWj.html

[PBJaxx]

Good read, thanks.

[Big Bend]

I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, and was pleasantly surprised to see the front page article with Howard Ledderer's pic on it. One thing Howard mentions is that most poker pots are won without ever showing a hand... so how could that be considered a game of "luck". Hopefully this Harvard group can help enlighten the idiots who think poker should be illegal.

BB

[Uglyowl]

Good article.. of interest:

Joining them is the newly muscular Poker Players Alliance, the game's lobbying group, whose membership has swelled to more than 400,000 .

[Sparta45]

Good read.

What's sad is to read the forums they link you to in which people discuss whether poker is skill or luck. Reading some of the logic being used explains why it is so hard to convince somebody that poker is a skill game....

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, and was pleasantly surprised to see the front page article with Howard Ledderer's pic on it. One thing Howard mentions is that most poker pots are won without ever showing a hand... so how could that be considered a game of "luck". Hopefully this Harvard group can help enlighten the idiots who think poker should be illegal.

BB

[/ QUOTE ] One thing Howard mentions is that most poker pots are won without ever showing a hand... so how could that be considered a game of "luck".

I thought of that argument first.

Skallagrim

[hlacheen]

Yea just read it in the paper. So glad to see this in mainstream press.

I also found Steve Levitt's new project "Pokernomics" interesting in theory:

http://www.pokernomics.com/

[MasterLJ]

I think the most effective argument is to start two players out with $X. Have one player employee strategy, have the other purposefully try to lose it all as fast as possible.

This should clearly demonstrate there are winning and losing strategies and by simple implication, skill.

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the most effective argument is to start two players out with $X. Have one player employee strategy, have the other purposefully try to lose it all as fast as possible.

This should clearly demonstrate there are winning and losing strategies and by simple implication, skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this meeting, Lederer suggested a similar proof that is also probably a bit more rigorous. Suppose your opponent employed a completely skill-less strategy, ie choosing randomly whether to raise, fold, or call at every decision point, without regard to the strength of his hand or anything else. Lederer claims he can demonstrate mathematically that he could beat this strategy 96.5% of the time ON ANY GIVEN HAND.

[Tofu_boy]

Thanks for the Link.