http://www.newsweek.com/poker-game-c...r-skill-317083

I think they could have re-worded this statement:

In other words, poker becomes a game of skill after around 1,500 hands

lol Newsweek

Or just completely omitted the statement...

The article was typical. Leave it morons to determine that somehow, luck and skill can't exist within the same game, for legal reasons...

I mean, does bowling become a skill after you've rolled it 1500 times or is skill something you can develop regardless.

I guess what I hate about this argument is that Skill and Luck are being compared as opposites and in reality they have nothing to do with one another.

Poker is a game. A game in which skills can be learned. Short term luck is part of the game.

I think the skill vs. luck issue is outdated, but this view isnt, in case it is a practical matter.

These days we are thinking that poker might stay beatable still during our lives but is getting more and more gto and optional non poker games are getting more and more serious options. The gto theory can be used in any form and adjusted for additional profits if the opponent isnt playing it. I keep my eyes open if i see some boom somewhere else, in some other gaming mainly, that might be good and fit for me.

Bowling, boxing, buying and selling, chess etc etc. At what point the average better player has a decisive edge over the average competition. On many areas luck plays its part as well as small edges take time to collect or happen, like it takes time for the weaker player to make a mistake. The diffcult spots are the most demanding.

Live poker will be always be skillful. I worry that in the future, people will have computer programs, bots, etc. to help them make the most effective move. Luckily, they can't do that when they are sitting right next to you (assuming they aren't using their phone for it.) Long live live poker (see what I did there?)

Honestly I thought that was settled.