cardcore 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 http://www.texasholdem.com/news/University...is_a_Skill_Gameill link to the study itself in a minute Link to post Share on other sites
cardcore 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 http://www.texasholdem.com/news/University...is_a_Skill_Gameill link to the study itself in a minute http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/1.../glr.2008.12105^^it's in PDF format Link to post Share on other sites
No_Neck 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/1.../glr.2008.12105^^it's in PDF formatnice, little worried about the sample size, I mean 720 hands! Link to post Share on other sites
cardcore 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 nice, little worried about the sample size, I mean 720 hands!well, it was 720 + 200, but even so, in that short amount of time, the treatment group showed significant progress.both groups posted losing sessions, but the treatment group's was far less than the control group's. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Obviously poker is a skill game, but I do not believe this study is great evidence for that. I could improve a novice's results at blackjack by giving some basic instruction as well. They would lose less over a period of time (which is what happened here -- if you look at the data these players did not become profitable). Link to post Share on other sites
CBrownOSU04 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 obv skill, weeeeeeeaments Link to post Share on other sites
DunkinDonuts 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Obviously poker is a skill game, but I do not believe this study is great evidence for that. I could improve a novice's results at blackjack by giving some basic instruction as well. They would lose less over a period of time (which is what happened here -- if you look at the data these players did not become profitable).Good point. If we measure improvement in terms of diminishing losses, I could technically improve at blackjack over the longrun if you told me to lower my bets from $500 a hand to $5 a hand. Link to post Share on other sites
TravisG 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 anyone who thinks of it should easily come to this conclusion. all the money that you win (or lose) in the long run result out of mathematical failures that your opponents make. if nobody makes failures, its pure gambling. simple.and a question(didnt read the the pdf though), did everyone of the group play ~1k hands or did everyone play like 30 and it was added together? Link to post Share on other sites
No_Neck 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Hopefully the government will take notice Link to post Share on other sites
scottyno 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 clearly they've never watched me or derek ho play Link to post Share on other sites
Dratj 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Obv. we all agree that poker is a skill game. However, I think the study with a sample size of 720 hands does not provide a strong enough case. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Obv. we all agree that poker is a skill game. However, I think the study with a sample size of 720 hands does not provide a strong enough case.This is not actually an issue, since statistics take care of it. In Study 2, for example, there are 46 subjects, 23 in each group (one trained, one untrained). Each subject plays 720 hands. The statistic they used was Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which basically asks the question if the variability in the scores within each group is different from the overall variability treating the subjects as one group. So the fact that the two groups differed significantly on this test means that given how much variability there is in these scores, the chances that the two groups are the same is at most less than 5%. If you were right that 720 hands were not enough to produce a reliable difference, then this statistical test would have failed since the variability would be so great that between-group differences would not be significant. In other words, the evidence presented here that training affects performance is perfectly valid. The interpretation of this result that poker is a skill game is a stretch. Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Congress will only admit that poker is a game of skill when they can figure out a way to make money off it. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Up next:Scientists prove water is wet. Link to post Share on other sites
mclumpo 0 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Congress will only admit that poker is a game of skill when they can figure out a way to make money off it.Wouldn't they make money off of it if it were legalized and taxed? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Up next:Scientists prove water is wet.I think your point is supposed to be that this study attempts to prove something which is obvious, although you'vechosen the wrong example since the "wetness" of water is actually quite open to philosophical debate. But more importantly, while it may be obvious to you and I that poker is a game of skill, it would be of enormousimportance to have documented research proving this. The real study that needs to be done is not showing thattraining improves performance, but one that shows reliable long term differences between successful and unsuccessful playerswhich cannot be attributed to chance. Something like duplicate poker might do the trick, where everyone is dealt the samecards but some people do better than others with the same cards. Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Wouldn't they make money off of it if it were legalized and taxed?exactly my point.I can't believe they haven't done this yet! Link to post Share on other sites
bull62 0 Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 exactly my point.I can't believe they haven't done this yet!Fwiw, I think they just haven't figured out how to tax and regulate it yet. As soon as they figure that out, it will be done. Then the same guys who were against it will be patting themselves on the back for helping to bring this new revenue stream to great state of (insert state). They will also be bragging to whomever will listen about how they kept the evil that is internet gambling at bay until it could be regulated properly and how they made sure it remained illegal until our children could be protected from this evil and the proper safeguards were in place. And the terrorists will not have access.....blah, blah, blah. I hate politicians. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now