poker: skill or luck? dn, josh, paul, help?

[AceyDeucy 0]

WARNING: LONG POSTFullcowardpoker’s thoughts on poker being bad for society made me dig this little brain fart out of the back of my head, so I decide to dust some of my old thoughts off and present them here, publically, for the first time. (for those wondering, I am an engineer by trade, so I have a better-than-average-but-far-from-expert understanding of statistics)Okay, I have a thought experiment for you:Let us suppose we have game A that we designate “Pure skill.” The game offers complete information, all players are Rational Actors, and all players’ action are executed precisely according to their intent. There is no discernible element of luck or random chance involved. In game A, the best player in the world should win 100% of the time.Let us now also suppose that we have game B that we choose to designate “pure luck.” The game offers no information, which neutralizes the Rational Actor aspect, and players’ intent has no impact on the result. There is no discernible element of skill involved. In game B, the best player in the world will win just as often as the worst player in the world.A reasonable approximation of the ideal skill game A is Chess. Garry Kasparov, widely acknowledged to be the best player in the world, has lost one major match against humans in the last 20 years, giving him an approximate win rate of 95%. While not ideal, no one argues that chess is a luck game. (Admittedly, I did a very hurried search, so I am not claiming this record as perfect but it is certainly indicative enough for my purposes)A reasonable approximation of the ideal luck game B is the slot machine. While there are slot machine tournaments, the only know strategy is to play as rapidly as possible to improve one’s odds of hitting the jackpot. At this time, there are no cases (to my knowledge) of professional slot machine players.So, having done this, one can theoretically approximate the “Luck Factor” in any individual tournament sport by scaling a player’s win rate between (1/(field size)*100)% and 100%. Of course, one can actually improve this system by awarding points for high finishes, not just wins, but we’ll get that later.Of course there are other matters besides chance inherent to the game. For instance, players have “slumps” where they play at less than their best. The structure of certain games prevents direct comparisons. As an example, tennis and golf do not compare, because of the heads-up nature of a tennis tournament versus the one-on-many format of golf. So, for a valid comparison to poker, one needs large-field open-competition events. While this eliminates most team sports, for my purposes, I chose golf and racing.For instance:Golf: (source ESPN.com)World’s Best Player: Tiger Woods. Record (2001-2004): 74 events, 17 wins. Winning percentage: 23%. If one includes his top tens as “half wins” this number jumps to 56%. (side note: To give some perspective on how staggeringly high this percentage is in golf, Phil Mickleson, whom I have designated #2, has winning percentages of 8.5% and 33%, respectively. This is meant to show how much better Tiger Woods is than the field, not make golf seem more luck based.)Identifiable luck factors: Course condition/divot locations, wind conditions, crowd noise, unpredictable (though not random) bounces on mis-hits.Racing: Stock Car (source ESPN.com)Current Best Driver: Jeff Gordon (and crew)Record (2001-2004): 136 events, 19 wins. Winning percentage: 14%. With half “top tens” : 49%Identifiable luck factors: vehicle damage, mistakes by other drivers forcing racer off ideal path, NASCAR rules (e.g. restrictor plates), wrecks, Tony Stewart throwing a nutty and spinning people out (don’t tell me THAT isn’t random  ).F1 (source www.formula1.com)Current Best Driver: Michael SchumacherRecord (career): 217 starts, 83 wins. Winning Percentage: 38% “top ten” percetange: no dataIdentifiable luck factors: vehicle damage, mistakes by other drivers forcing racer off ideal path, wrecks, Team Ferrari telling other drivers to let him by.So, the question is, where would poker fall? About a year ago I asked Daniel for this information, which is how I wound reading his site and his articles, and ultimately becoming a fan. Of course, he told me he has it, but is too busy to get it together. It now occurs to me that Travis might be able to help here. The point I am getting to is this: Even in sports that nobody questions are skill games, the very best (and in the cases of Tiger and Schumacher, we are talking in historical terms, not just contemporary) are managing win rates in the 20-40% range. The top ten data is NOT as indicative, because of the difference in field sizes in the various sports (top ten in golf puts you in the the top 10% or so, but top 25% in NASCAR). But, looking at, for instance, Daniel’s results in 2004, one can see that, estimating he played 35 tournaments that year (I can’t find the exact number on Card Player), his four wins give him a win rate of 11%, but his 11 final tables give him a modified number of 31%. And, given the typical field size in these tournaments, these final tables are MUCH more impressive than the “top tens” in the other sports.Of course, many people will point out that 2004 included Daniel getting celestially hot, and that is certainly fair. But it was also one of the tightest races they have had in a while, so he was not the only person “running good,” either. While Stu Ungar’s legendary (and under-documented) run at a 33% clip would put poker in the same league, I am not really prepared to make that a serious argument.But I think that if Daniel would like to chip in some knowledge from his records, or have his assitant compile this, it would make an interesting case. Further, if Paul, Harry, Josh, or any other pros that read this want to add their two cents (either in stats or the validity of my analysis) go for it.

[SuM827 0]

Here's a quick response: When you win it's luck, when I win it's skill.

[rollito 0]

your forgetting that a lot of poker pros make most of their money in cash games and not in tournaments......this is basically impossible to track as they do not divulge this info so it would be impossible to tell who the most successful player is.....i guess you could figure out who the most successful tournament player is but tourneys bring luck into the equation a lot more than cash games do......i think if you could have stats on a players results in cash games you would get a better gauge of who the best player is at a certain time

[blueodum 0]

I think that a 3-5 day poker tournament and the typical blind structure associated with it doesn't allow for the truly talented players to rise to the top. It's possible to get a good rush of cards early, build up a large chip stack and get to the final table - and at that point one or two key hands can determine the winner. We've all seen (relatively) weak players make the final table at major events.So the outcome of a particular tournament would be much more random that an F1 race (where the field is limited and only 5 or 6 drivers have a realistic shot at taking the race barring an inordinate number of mishaps).It's more like a golf tournament, except that the skills range in poker among the top 50 players is probably tighter than in golf.

[Macint0sh 0]

For the record:My opinion is that poker is a sport. I also believe that bridge (has been in the Olympics) and other games of incomplete information, like gin, are sports. I do not think of poker as gambling, it's a sport, a business, but not gambling. Craps are gambling.Now, a sport that most will agree is skill is pool. But for a few decades now the player everyone regards as the "true" world champion is the winner of the 9-ball championships. The thing is though, that everyone competing at a high level of 9-ball is able to break and run racks. It's not unusual for 2nd or third tier players to run multiple racks, also in competition. Considering the short (relatively, a race to 10 is a short race when both competitors are of world class) sets played in the championships. If one were to get very lucky (always make a ball on the break, get good position on the 1-ball) a third tier player could easily destroy a much better player. Just like in poker, if a player has reached a certain level of skill they can fairly regularly take out the better players. Of course, in pool, there is nothing you can do when you opponent is shooting. If he's shooting the lights out, you're done. That's it. In poker, you have the possibility to disrupt his streak, but only to a certain degree. If your opponent always catches his miracle card on the river, you're finished.But this does not mean that poker is luck and therefore not a sport. It just means that the element of luck in poker will sometimes be overwhelming, but not necessarily more than in other sports where an opponent of sufficient skill can take down a much more skilled opponent. Sure, poker has it's own type of luck. Losing a hand to a runner-runner flush while all-in for the championship would have anyone cursing like a Matusow on helium, but stuff like that happens in other sports as well. It just might not be as obvious that it's pure luck. Look at soccer (I'm European...). Lots of countries have cups where non-profesional teams face the top teams in the first rounds. Now, I can't think of anyone that would call soccer luck, but the non-professional teams often win a match or two against the vastly superior opponents. How can this be? A team full of local accountants and clerks take out teams made up of professional players? Were it luck that they scored? I guess most would say "no." It was obviously some sort of skill that created the goal scoring opportunity, and therefore them not conceding enough goals to lose the match would make it seem like it was skill, not luck, that won them the match. But that is of course not the fact. They might lose 19/20, maybe 49/50 matches. They were totally lucky to win, but most will not see it that way. Although when they see a poker player win in a spot where he was a 4:1 dog, they'll point and say: "Told you so, poker is all luck."They're wrong, and them being wrong puts money in my pocket.You could compare this to the pot limit vs. no limit argument. Pot-limit is more skilful, and would reward the better players, because it takes more skill and takes away some of the luck factor lesser players are able to exploit. But that doesn't mean that the luck factor is so large that it is no longer a sport. You can always create an environment that creates a playing ground geared towards the best players, reducing the chances of lesser players. But would that be +EV? To most popular sports, there is an element of luck. Perhaps greater than most think. Poker is a highly successful TV sport not in spite of the luck factor, more because of it. Anyone can win, the WSOP proclaims. Any two cards can win! Everybody knows that. But that doesn't make me believe that I could take my $500k and challenge Daniel to some heads-up NLH. I'd have better chances at the craps table.Accept the luck factor, and keep the faith. Poker is a sport, and let's just hope God doesn't kill a kitten every time someone thinks otherwise :-) (first post, hi everyone)

[PimpRock 0]

Damn... thats some incredibly well articulated and thought out responses... So allow me to bring the tone down a little and add my two peneth...In the short term luck is everything... In the long term luck does not even exist. Syndrome 2005

[AceyDeucy 0]

your forgetting that a lot of poker pros make most of their money in cash games and not in tournaments......this is basically impossible to track as they do not divulge this info so it would be impossible to tell who the most successful player is.....i guess you could figure out who the most successful tournament player is but tourneys bring luck into the equation a lot more than cash games do......i think if you could have stats on a players results in cash games you would get a better gauge of who the best player is at a certain time

I am not forgetting it, I am ignoring it. There is a difference.The reason I am ignoring is precisely what you pointed out: it's impossible to track. The fact that people do this as a primary source of income is indicative, though.

[AceyDeucy 0]

I think that a 3-5 day poker tournament and the typical blind structure associated with it doesn't allow for the truly talented players to rise to the top.  It's possible to get a good rush of cards early, build up a large chip stack and get to the final table - and at that point one or two key hands can determine the winner. We've all seen (relatively) weak players make the final table at major events.So the outcome of a particular tournament would be much more random that an F1 race (where the field is limited and only 5 or 6 drivers have a realistic shot at taking the race barring an inordinate number of mishaps).It's more like a golf tournament, except that the skills range in poker among the top 50 players is probably tighter than in golf.

I think many of these tournament DO allow pros to succeed. Look at season 3 on the WPT. Even when the pros don't WIN, they are at the final table. While John Stoltzmann won the last one, he had to beat Scotty Nguyen, Michael Mizrachi, Daniel Negreanu, and Chau Giang. The vast majority of that table are pro players. Season 2 of the WPT kinda threw that off with it's larger amateur fraction, as the amateurs flocked to these tournaments in the wake of the first season, but now you have seen the pros adapt their games to the weaker fields they face, and they are succeeding again.I think a better way to express the issue is not that weak players get too far, it is that the luckiest skilled players get to the table. While you can't win a big tournament without getting lucky, you also can't win it without being good. More importantly, good players won't need to be AS lucky to win, so they will still win more.And they do. That's why you may or may not know who won such-and-such a tournmanet that year, but you always know who the player of the year is.I think you point about the F1 race is well-taken, though.

[AceyDeucy 0]

like it says

[Suited_Up 2]

I'm not really going to try and make any huge points, because plenty have already been made, but...Just want to say it was a very well thought out point you're trying to bring up, and deserves some thought.

[akishore 0]

here's some food for thought and something that might help you. it was a thread i posted a long time ago...http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...opic.php?t=3694aseem

[pokerplayer24 0]

Damn... thats some incredibly well articulated and thought out responses... So allow me to bring the tone down a little and add my two peneth...In the short term luck is everything...In the long term luck does not even exist.Syndrome 2005

This is basically the truth. You can take some bad beats but over time if you're putting your money in with the best hands you'll be winning $.

[AceyDeucy 0]

However, I think that we could be on the verge of something truly interesting here by combining these concepts with some actual data on poker players, which, of course, is depressingly hard to come by.I don't think the experiment you actually referenced is necessarily indicative of how much luck is REALLY involved, but it's not a bad start. I just need to stalk some players, really.Wonder when Marion is going pro...

[avsfan 0]

Luck and skill are related. I don't mean gettin lucky makes you skilled either. I mean a good player controls and manipulates luck to their will. IMHO!

[wrto4556 0]

. I mean a good player controls and manipulates luck to their will.

That's impossible.What was the original question? How do you figure who is the best at poker--a game of luck and skill?He who makes less mistakes is the best...impossible to tell.

[avsfan 0]

. I mean a good player controls and manipulates luck to their will.

That's impossible.What was the original question? How do you figure who is the best at poker--a game of luck and skill?He who makes less mistakes is the best...impossible to tell.

Think context not content here. I don't mean you have mind control over the cards. Im cool with seeming crazy. I just really believe it. maybe I should have left the word will off. Will- The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course .What I wanted to exprees is that good players affect the luck to their best interest You know like controlling the contextual values of the game. just like you did with your turn maniac isolation play wrto. :wink: So how about?"I mean a good player controls and manipulates luck to their interest."Does that makes more sense? Imho.

[dapokerbum 0]

Look I believe it has already been said but I will say this. POKER IS GAMBLING!! In the long run you can be ahead but at any given time you put your money on the line you can go home broke. Daniel said himself that during the WSOP at Harrahs in April I believe that he was lucky to end up being down ONLY a couple hundred grand, whic h means over a short period of time he actually GAMBLED and lost. Over time he is definitely a winning player but nonetheless he is gambling each and every time that he sits down at a table.Another point to consider: What if you went to the big game and sat for the whole night and got lucky a few times and won. You gambled and won that night...over time you are gonna lose BUT there is that one night where lady luck will shine and you WILL beat the pros, which is why it is GAMBLING..Feel free to change my opinions with solid eveidence and I will listen 8)

[avsfan 0]

POKER IS GAMBLING!! 8)

100%

[Macint0sh 0]

I disagree.Poker isn't gambling, it's putting your money in when there's a positive expectation. When you enter the game with a significant edge, it isn't gambling. It's gambling when you're not in control of the outcome. What seperates poker from other professions/sports is that the money element is much more evident than when athletes pay entry fees or people invest in other stuff.Sure, you might end up losing a lot of money. But you might end up losing a lot of money starting a business, or being a daytrader. That doesn't make it gambling.Professional gambler. Oxymoron? Probably.

[rollito 0]

for many recreational players today poker is gambling.....they all stick their money in and whoever has the best cards wins that day....but for the people who can make a living at it i look at it as being a casino.....in the short run someone could get lucky and win......but in the long run the house always gets your money

[Dunce 0]

I disagree.It's gambling when you're not in control of the outcome.

Well, unless you're a dealer who is manipulating the deck to one player's particular advantage, you are not in control of the outcome.Incredibly interesting how our sociey leads some to doublethink what they do.It's gambling. That's why they're called bets, not investments.All "getting your money in when there's a positive expectation" does is define a good gamble.Dunce

[Macint0sh 0]

I disagree.It's gambling when you're not in control of the outcome.

Well, unless you're a dealer who is manipulating the deck to one player's particular advantage, you are not in control of the outcome.Incredibly interesting how our sociey leads some to doublethink what they do.It's gambling. That's why they're called bets, not investments.All "getting your money in when there's a positive expectation" does is define a good gamble.Dunce

So stock brokers are gamblers too, then?Do you agree that poker is a sport?

[dapokerbum 0]

I disagree. Poker isn't gambling, it's putting your money in when there's a positive expectation. When you enter the game with a significant edge, it isn't gambling. It's gambling when you're not in control of the outcome. What seperates poker from other professions/sports is that the money element is much more evident than when athletes pay entry fees or people invest in other stuff. Sure, you might end up losing a lot of money. But you might end up losing a lot of money starting a business, or being a daytrader. That doesn't make it gambling. Professional gambler. Oxymoron? Probably.

That is one thing then that we definitely disagree on. You say you enter with a significant edge that may be true, but anytime the other person has a 2% chance to make their hand you are gambling that their card is not going to show up. The fact is that you are going into it with a risk vs reward mentality. That is gambling. You can gamble on the stock market. That is what in essence the day traders do. They are like professional gamblers in that they study the market everyday and try to make the best decisions of where to put there money in order for that to make more money. Any fluctuation in the market howeverf can ruin them. They take their risks and but onlyh after they have analyzed everything. The same is true of professional poker players or any professional gambler in general. They analyze the situation and make the best decision based on that info. The pure fact however is that situations do come up where you do lose money.Here is something else is a card counter in blackjack gambling when he makes his bet. You damn right he is. He puts his money on the idea that he is getting the best odds because there are supposed to be high cards left in the deck. Does that mean that he is going to win everytime...no because there is always that chance that the dealer is still going to draw a 5 when he is showing 16 and you will lose.Anytime you are taking a risk with an unknown expectation you are gambling, whether you have an edge or not you are gambling on that expectation. and one more thing yes I do believe starting your own business is a gamble... 8)

[s_dogg 0]

I think that in the short run, obvioiusly, poker has alot of luck, and could be considered gambling. In the long run the skill will become more of a part, and then it wouldn't be considered "gambling" as much as it would be considered skillful.

[Macint0sh 0]

That is one thing then that we definitely disagree on.

That's okay

You say you enter with a significant edge that may be true, but anytime the other person has a 2% chance to make their hand you are gambling that their card is not going to show up. The fact is that you are going into it with a risk vs reward mentality. That is gambling. You can gamble on the stock market. That is what in essence the day traders do. They are like professional gamblers in that they study the market everyday and try to make the best decisions of where to put there money in order for that to make more money. Any fluctuation in the market howeverf can ruin them. They take their risks and but onlyh after they have analyzed everything. The same is true of professional poker players or any professional gambler in general. They analyze the situation and make the best decision based on that info. The pure fact however is that situations do come up where you do lose money.

Okay. I don't think most people would call daytraders gamblers. I've used that example in the past and I've usually gotten the response "but that's different."I think to me, the problem with the word gambling is that it has a negative connotation. I don't like saying that the way I make my money is by gambling. I feel that it takes away the skill aspect. I'm sure there are loads of environments where gambling isn't viewed as something negative at all, and that the way you respond to the word will be very different to how I respond.With that said, when I flip a coin for $100 with a friend, that's gambling. When I bet on a football match "just to make me care." That's gambling. So it's not that I'm anti-gambling in any way.I just don't like mixing the two "versions", if you know what I mean?