luck vs. skill -- a statistical analysis

[akishore 0]

a computer was used to simulate 60,000 hands of $20/40 hold'em.

20/40 hold'em, that's limit poker.yes, in NL, luck plays a bigger factor. however, if you're a good player, luck will hopefully play a smaller part because you will maximize on big edges more and avoid little edges more.that said, you need a much bigger bankroll to play the same stakes NL. if you're playing a recommended 20xbuy-in bankroll, where a buy-in is 100 big blinds (or 30xbuy-in if 50 big blinds), you should have somewhere between 1500-2000 big blinds.this will reduce the risk to a relatively low percentage of your bankroll again.but yes, luck is more prominent in NL and that's the biggest reason so many fish prefer NL, because they can beat a session and they think they're good.aseem

[randomization 0]

Actually, as I understand it, NLHE is less forgiving to bad players. Even during the course of a single night, it's quite unlikely for a bad player to beat a good table. In limit, it happens all the time. That's actually one reason that NLHE was never many professional players bread and butter game, because it was so bad at retaining fish or even just "ok" players. There's a point often made by poker writers that a good game of poker (game meaning type and limit: Limit Holdem, PL Omaha) requires a certain balance of skill and luck. There has to be enough skill involved for the good player to reliably beat the game over the long term, but enough luck that bad players enough winning sessions to keep them around.

[scope12 0]

this may sound odd, but i don't think of my opponent as lucky if he outdraws me. As long as there is any chance, any fraction of a percent, that he can win and does, then I feel as though it was just his "turn" to win a hand. Percentages exist to represent possiblities given a certain amount of "attempts" (hands in the poker sense). If my opponent has a 1% chance of winning hand (by pretty much drawing perfect) and does, I have to realize that this hand was the proverbial 1 in 100 in which he would win in the given situation. if I keep this mentallity, i must conclude that it is my timing that is unlucky and not the my opponent that is lucky. percentages and odds exist for a reason. primarily to represent that almost anything is possible as stated earlier in this thread. somewhat hard to follow but most of my logic usually is.

[bourbenz 0]

This is the best thread I've read on here yet.thank youI agree with the luck versus skill arguments and think that these calculations go to show how, the psychological side of poker is where money is made and lost the math just backs it up.being a good player and betting when you are supposed to folding when you are supposed to and maximizing every edge is worthless if you cant tell when your beat, or steam a few pots an hour or worse go on tilt.10 minutes of tilt can easily negate 2 hrs of solid poker, and that is what gives the pros such an advantage. The ability to bring your a game to every game.

[akishore 0]

Actually, as I understand it, NLHE is less forgiving to bad players. Even during the course of a single night, it's quite unlikely for a bad player to beat a good table. In limit, it happens all the time. That's actually one reason that NLHE was never many professional players bread and butter game, because it was so bad at retaining fish or even just "ok" players.

you're right, but it also works the other way.NL poker has a magnification effect. the results of all the actions at the table are magnified--be it you outplaying someone or you outdrawing someone. if you misread an opponent, the effects are magnified, and if you miss a monster straight flush + two overcard draw, it's effects are magnified.because of that, fish can have a winning night if they get lucky and hit longshot draws or if they catch premium hands more than their fair share. you are right in saying that a good player can punish the fish more, and that it's a much harder game for the fish to play correctly (since there are so many more variables, which also make it easier for the good players to read the fish, e.g. their betting patterns), and so fish are unlikely to win too much, but it is not improbable for a fish to book a winning session.but you are right that lack of fish retention was the big reason that NLHE cash games were dying out before the influx of television poker.

this may sound odd, but i don't think of my opponent as lucky if he outdraws me... Percentages exist to represent possiblities given a certain amount of "attempts" (hands in the poker sense)... almost anything is possible as stated earlier in this thread.

you make perfect sense. just as in life, anything is possible, so there's no need to get upset when someone outdraws you. people do catch perfect runner-runner 2-outters, just like people win the lottery, etc. anything is possible, you're right.

I agree with the luck versus skill arguments and think that these calculations go to show how, the psychological side of poker is where money is made and lost the math just backs it up. being a good player and betting when you are supposed to folding when you are supposed to and maximizing every edge is worthless if you cant tell when your beat, or steam a few pots an hour or worse go on tilt. 10 minutes of tilt can easily negate 2 hrs of solid poker, and that is what gives the pros such an advantage. The ability to bring your a game to every game.

you're right on. the simulation assumed that the players were good players who brought said A game to every session. the skill defeats the luck in the long run, for the most part, and that skill requires a good A game to maintain, even when you are losing.aseem