Yeah but online you can play the lowest micro stakes and still win 70-80 percent of the time being pretty terrible at poker, like me. I agree with you in most cases, certainly in live poker.

This would be true in every contest or sport or competition where "one player has no edge on another." So it proves nothing, at least as far as I can tell.

that is out of context . . . .

in poker, and perhaps in other contests, but certainly in poker where the player is not in control of all aspects of the game, as in the way the cards come out, when one player is significantly more skilled than the other, the degree by which skill is the dominant factor is more than when players' skills are equal.

All things being equal, chance is going to play a more significant role in the outcome.

I linked a very good series of articles on the subject, and Mike does a far better job of explaining it than I.

Well, this is again true of virtually all future endeavors undertaken by humans.

I suspect we are not looking for the same thing. From my perspective (heavily influenced by my being a lawyer) the question is not whether chance is a real factor; the question is whether chance or skill is more important in determining the outcomes of the games.

I might remove the legal nuance by stating the question this way: over the course of your normal poker game which is more important, the cards you are dealt (chance) or how you play your cards (skill) ?

Nearly everyone who plays a fair bit of poker will agree that sometimes the cards just screw you, but they would also agree that that is the exception, not the rule.

So to me that is the point, not whether chance is a part of poker (it clearly is) but whether skill can overcome chance (and it just as clearly can - it's called a bluff). And so if some hands are clearly decided by chance and some clearly decided by skill, the only way to resolve the question is to look at what happens most often.

Most often (about 70-80% of the time), a hand of texas hold 'em is resolved by all players folding to the winner and the hole cards never exposed. For all practical purposes, those hole cards need never have been dealt. Now of course those hole cards made a small or big difference on the decision of the individual player, but it was still the decision, not the cards, that determined the play and therefore the outcome.

Of hands that go to showdown about 50% show that the player who would have won the pot given his starting hand folded before the showdown.

So, in a sense I think we agree - the expected results would significantly depend upon the ability of one or more players to out play other players in these non-card resolved hands.

And, of course, there would also be the card resolved hands where the better hand wins; indeed that would, by definition, be a majority of the time. Getting a good return for a better but not the nuts hand is a skill.

And, of course, recognizing when your opponent(s) are stronger than you and folding early is also a skill.

So would you agree, all in all, that most-but-certainly-not-all poker outcomes are determined by the skill ratio of the players rather than the random deal of the cards?

Skallagrim

I didn't disagree with what you said, but when you got to this part, we come back to the point on which we engaged. Skill ratio is the important term here . . . for what happens when the skill ratio is 1:1? chop after chop?? I don't think so, it as this point that chance more often determines the outcome.

also, none of this is an argument against the presumption that poker is a skill game. Rather that you cannot say the game is for instance 80% skill 20% chance, because how much of the game is skill and how much is chance is relative to the skill ratio of the players

Flopping a set of aces is luck. Not getting pounded into hamburger when you flip off the rest of the table is skill.

This is the source of where I say you are in error. The amount of skill v. chance in the game as a whole does not change depending on the skill ratio of the players; instead, the outcomes of any one particular game will, of course, be more or less dependent on chance relative to the skill ratio of the players.

Also, beginning a game equal in skill level does not necessarily mean that the play of either player that particular day will be up to his skill level. It is hardly uncommon for one of two players of equal skill, whether in poker, golf or anything else, to suddenly get a "read" on a situation that the opponent misses and score. Is that skill or luck?

To me the bottom line always has to be just how much the humans are influencing the outcome. If, as is clear with poker, what the humans do is overall more important in deciding outcomes than what the chance deal of the cards would normally dictate, then that is a game of predominantly skill.

Skallagrim

Reading opponents (or situations) is pure skill.
Assuming one gets an advantageous read on the other, that one is more skillful, and the skill ratio is not 1:1 at that time..

When skill is equally distributed, the determining factor can only be luck.

very nice post

Not exactly sure how you define 'edge', what makes some players more successful than others ?

The fact that there is a PPA board member still fanning the flames of this pointless discussion perplexes me, just this week the VA Supreme Court issued a ruling essentially reiterating to the PPA what everyone else already knew; whether or not a contest involves gambling isn't something the court can issue a declarative judgement.

One poker contest where players pay an entry fee and the winner is determined by a last man standing format might not be gambling, another poker contest where one of the best players in the world can lose a six figure sum on the turn of one river card certainly would be under any reasonable person's interpretation.

One of worldwinner.com's early versions of Wheel of Fortune was determined to be gambling by a State Attorney General, simply because sometimes the random puzzle selector would deal a contestant an insufficient number of consonants to allow skill to consistently determine the prize winner.

There is no 'skill game immunity' clause in any State's gambling statutes for poker players to wonder why their game isn't included, you could be playing chess and if you could shove all-in betting on who would be the next one to capture a piece it might be ruled gambling.

My neighbor chided me for grinding long periods. Then in the same breathe was telling me about how she invests in stocks, and how I should leave poker behind. Then last night I drove by her house and saw that she still has her christmas lights up, over 3 months after christmas.

Wrong. At least 2 states have had declaratory judgment actions filed and litigated to conclusion over whether a game is gambling or not, KS and NC. Those are 2 I know of personally, with a little searching I could find many more.

Each state has different rules on DJ actions. VA is in the process of making their rules very restrictive and thus limiting DJ actions to, basically, constitutional claims.

Skallagrim

My best response to this is to direct you to read this thread . . .

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...ology-1306157/

It's pretty clear that skilled players are quite unhappy to be seated at tables with other players of similar skill, because with the skill ratio at or about 1:1, they have no edge, which leaves them playing for hours at a high level of skill and unable to beat the rake.

Are you saying what a VA court decides is the law of the land for every state?