whats the skill to luck ratio in poker??

[THIR13EN 0]

In your own opinion and backed with some good points. What is the skill to luck ratio in poker? Is it all skill and no luck? Is there only luck in Tournaments? Is it all 50/50? Do cash games take more skill or luck? If you were playing in tons of tournaments a year like the "pros" would you be able to make some final tables too?

[teneight 1]

in the longgggggggggggggggggggg run, skill always prevailsteneight

[case ace 0]

come on :roll: i refuse to dignify that question with an answer

[wizzle 0]

i refuse to dignify that question with an answer

because you don't have oneskill will always prevail, luck is just an excuse to describe the natural order of events that we don't expect

[THIR13EN 0]

in the longgggggggggggggggggggg run, skill always prevailsteneight

WHY....?So is Joseph Hachem the most skilled player in the world right now?

[case ace 0]

in the longgggggggggggggggggggg run, skill always prevailsteneight

WHY....?

huh?

[case ace 0]

in the longgggggggggggggggggggg run, skill always prevailsteneight

WHY....?So is Joseph Hachem the most skilled player in the world right now?

edit:huh?you can't be serious.one week is not a long run. 10 years is might be a good start, which makes some pretty impressive winners over that time. DN is one that is on a nice roll Doyle and Chan are sitting pretty. but, if your point is that at a certain point of skill, luck will kick in, i understand where your coming from. and my answer is maybe... but in most long long grudge matches there is usually a winner though. ask the history geeks around here about some specific matches. i know moss had some real long slug fests though, that he'd usually win.

[teneight 1]

in the longgggggggggggggggggggg run, skill always prevailsteneight

WHY....?So is Joseph Hachem the most skilled player in the world right now?

what?? how did you get that from my post? if you read clearly, it says in the long run. 1 tournament isn't the long runteneight

[Socko669 0]

anyone who says luck is a fish. of course there is luck involved, but anyone who says it is mostly luck is doomed to life spent in the fishery...which is fine by me.

[TheCinciKid 0]

The skill to luck ratio in poker is very hard to quantify. I think Dan Harrington said something in HOH I about your results over the long run being the sum of your opponents mistakes, minus your mistakes. In other words, if you make more mistakes than your opponents do, you will lose in the long run. For instance, I can consistently beat the players at Party, $.5/$1, but would most likely take a beating in the big game, even if I had the roll to try it.The key I think is that it's nearly impossible to quantify the ratio. In any one poker game or poker hand, your edge may be very small (maybe 5% or less), but you could still win vast amounts of money over the long term with that small edge. Look at it this way...in many casino games, the house edge is pretty small, yet casinos still turn a tidy profit at the end of the year. Why, because you don't need a huge edge to be a big winner, that's where the mathematics of it come in. I think the biggest difference in skill to luck ratio in tournaments versus cash games is that in a tournament you have a finite amount of chips and the blinds or antes rise rapidly. Meaning you have to rely on getting lucky (or at least not getting unlucky) in order to succeed. Whereas, in a cash game, you can have bad hands or several bad hands in a row, then rebuy, go on a rush and win it all back. In other words, the nature of tournaments make them more conducive to luck, however the good players still make money on them, and the bad players will always lose money on them provided they play enough tournaments.

[WilliamCosby 0]

this poll is dumb.sometimes it's mostly skill, sometimes it's mostly luck. don't think there is any need for a long discussion over it.

[Sluggo 0]

The percentage of poker that is luck =100/(n-1) %where n is the number of hands dealt for all n>1.Good luck.

[Dixie Wrecked 0]

Being a long term, winning player at Cash Games - 99% skill 1 % luckCashing in a huge MTT - 70% luck 30% skillCashing in a STT (SnG) - 60% skill 40% luckThese are generalizations and my own humble opinion.

[WilliamCosby 0]

how long did it take you to do that math?

[DCSports92GSR 0]

Being a long term, winning player at Cash Games  -   99% skill 1 % luckCashing in a huge MTT  -  70% luck 30% skillCashing in a STT (SnG)  -  60% skill 40% luckThese are generalizations and my own humble opinion.

so you are saying that one out of every 100 long term winners in cash game poker are just long term lucky? ... lmfao

[Demiparadigm 0]

so you are saying that one out of every 100 long term winners in cash game poker are just long term lucky?  ... lmfao

Depending on how you define long term, this is definitively true.If you have ever worked with SQC programs, or probability math You would have to agree.For those of you with a large PT database, you can check this. I am willing to bet that more than 10% of winning players with >10K hands have statistics that don't fit the curve.It then follows that at least 1% of those players with >100K hands would have stats that "should be losing"I'll do the math later, to prove my theory... But poker is definately mostly luck, where skill EVENTUALLY prevails.Until then think of this:Poker is like Playing a game of chess for $1 and flipping a coin for $25.In the short run, its all about the coin,In the long run, its all about the chess games.

[troutsmart 0]

In tournaments, luck definitely has an enormous factor. A player can never make a mistake and still end up on the rail. I have no idea how that can be quantified.In cash games, luck is significantly reduced, but still remains a significant factor. I'm hesitant to throw out any kind of number, but I'll take the 60/40 edge of skill over luck in any proposition over the long haul.

[Demiparadigm 0]

Okay, Here's the math...Assume: A Player with a theoretical (-1BB/100) win rate, with a loose agressive style that results in a 30BB/100 Standard Deviation.At what number of hands will 1% of such players still be profitable?1% of players will have a win rate at least S standard errors above average, where from Excel, S =NORMSINV(99%) =~ 2.33. The standard error is 30/sqrt(N/100), so we want 1 bb to be S standard errors:1 = S*30/sqrt(N/100)N = 100*(S*30)^2 = 487,070 hands. So, If we are talking about a "long run" of more than half a million hands, then it looks like skill is the deciding factor.Any less than that, and Poker is a game of luck.So, Good luck.

[troutsmart 0]

It should be noted that even when a player does abide by a 300BB bankroll, and plays correctly, they still have a chance of going broke. Skillful play and playing within your bankroll simply reduces the odds that it will happen.

[mbreon 0]

Not like it's a difficult question....over the short term (a MTT), luck is a much bigger factor. When you start talking long run, over a span of years, skill is obviously the main factor. Either that or Doyle Brunson is the luckiest man on the face of the planet.

[NexEffect 0]

Wait a minute... do you think someone could go broke playing well and having 300 big bets for limit and 30 full buyins for No Limit???Thats a very scary thought... i hope the chances are as small as dying in a plane crash or something.

[DDiabolical 0]

The thing is..Luck isn't temporary. You could sit down at your first game of Poker and get dealt Aces every single hand, for the rest of your life.I personally think Tournaments (MTTs) are more luck than skill, cashgames help elimate luck slightly because you can always reload and take the sucker down and get your money back, but with tournaments you could be the first out when really you would have won had that miracle 5 not appeared on the river.Winning the WSOP nowadays is tantamount to winning the lottery. It's mostly luck, otherwise we'd have the same 50 finalists every single year, we don't, it's a lottery.Tournaments can be a change of pace but if you hit up 10 of them every week for 3 months you'll eventually get in the top 3 regardless of how good you are, and then you can run around bragging about beating a MTT..

[Tman 0]

I like what Alan Cunningham say's its 100% luck and 100% skill, I think that situationally especially in a tournament that holds true not to mention it is a great mindset to have, keeps you from thinking your a genius and also keeps you from getting down on yourself.

[btlee 0]

see signature below...

[THIR13EN 0]

Do any of you think that if someone was fronting your entry fees and you played in tons of tournaments that you could make a final table once or twice?