It seems luck has a huge impact on the game.
I watched Mr. Beast played at HCL and he won 6 legit, that guy is obviously not skilled.

Short term is mostly luck, long term is mostly skill. Even the best players have relatively regular losing “streaks” if you look at samples of one session, or one week, or a hundred hours etc. The unskilled players will eventually lose if they keep playing, nobody gets lucky forever

OP Please define 'poker' in the way it is used in the title. 1 hand? 1 lifetime? Any game in particular? Even VIDEO poker is more than 20% skill.....

Probably the other way around. 80% skill, 20% luck.

Beating the other players in the long run is easy.

Beating the house, which rakes the pot is challenging.

A good rakeback deal is everything.

ANY pot you win is luck. Even if you are up against a complete whale who just called a jam with 72o vs your AA, winning that pot involves luck. There are flops you have to avoid to win - hence you need some luck. There’s no skill you can have that makes a K77 flop not appear.

There are varying degrees of luck, however. AA in my example has to get muck less lucky to win than 72o does. Putting yourself more often in spots where less luck is needed is skill. Also, winning pots is not the goal; winning money is. Another skill in poker is making sure that you are more often building big pots when you need less luck and playing smaller pots when you need more luck.

So yes, if you play a few hands, or even a few hours you likely will come away with the impression that it’s mostly luck. However if you play a large number of hands, you’ll soon realize the high level of skill that comes into play.

It's 10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure and 50% pain

It's a common saying in the poker world that "poker is a game of skill played with cards." While luck certainly plays a significant role in any individual hand or session, over the long term, skill tends to be the determining factor in a player's success.

You can't ascribe any meaningful numbers to either of the two, because it's not possible to accurately quantity, nor does the question's answer serve any useful purpose. Suppose we pick a game like NLHE and say it's true that it's 70% skill and 30% luck. What does that mean in practice? What is it supposed to mean?

There is no such thing as luck. Luck is a word people use when something statistically unlikely happens ... but the idea that one can be "lucky" is nonsense.

Poker is absolutely a skill game. Skill alone is what separates long term winners from long term losers (unless the loser scores a big mtt or something and then never plays again). Combined with the fact that it's 100% possible to be a long term winner, bad players win big pots or cash mtts often enough to delude themselves into believing they can win too.

How about paraphrasing Ben Graham: In the short run poker is a game of chance; in the long run it is a game of skill.

("In the long run, we are all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes)

I'm gonna say that is a pretty good approximation on a session basis: result is ~ 80% luck, 20% skill.

no, and even if it was the key is not to go broke on that 80%. If there's only 20% skill in the game then most players are working with 1% of that so there's still a nice edge to be had.

It's all skill. I lose at a higher rate than bad luck should dictate.

Op , if youre serious I can give you a pretty good answer. How did you arrive at 80% luck 20% skill and do you think those numbers are about accurate? Only sixfours post makes any sense to me so far.

hmmmmm

No one will ever be able to give an answer to this question that is spot on.
Even in chess a game of pure skill someone like Magnus Carlsen can loose or already lost vs people that are objectively weaker than him, just because he wasn't focused enough on a certain day and messed up a position on the board.
So his opponent was lucky to go against a reckless Carlsen, but still Magnus is better.

In poker it's even worse, because the outcome of the cards can not be controlled, downswings, and emotions/focus can massively mess with a player.

Even pio solver can make decisions that are not optimal in a certain spot against specific player types.
Phil Galfond made a funny video about that.

80%, 90%, 45% these are all guessing numbers that can never be verified.

We can say for sure that people that study and play a lot and use brm usually generate profit from poker, so it must be a skill game in the long run.
But to which percentage nobody knows, because so many factors that influence our thought process when playing.
We are not linear like computers and we have leaks in our games + we are emotional, and even a gto genius is volatile.

If we play against real humans and not online bots and house bots etc. we will mainly make money from the misstakes of others.

As we said to the fish back in the days in the casino:
"It's always 50/50...
You hit or you don't.
...If you hit (the oesd) you get it all, so it's worth it."
🤣

This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will
Five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name

I believe the above are the correct figures; as provided by philosopher 'Fort Minor'.

If someone sees this; this seems like the right thread to ask within...

I've won a few mid sized tournaments; 1st place. One had about 100 people, another had about 60.

I found that making ITM is kind of easy in some tournaments; because all you need to do is get about 5-6x stack, buy add on. Go afk until you're ITM.

If you want to win 1st; you have to keep playing at all levels.

Previously to winning those tournaments; I would become paralyzed by mid/late game tournaments; even though I'd often be first for the start of the tournament.

The larger blinds were just too hard to wrap my mind around how to play it; and often you have people stealing blinds with all ins. (Granted; I've since come to learn how to deal with those issues).

My question is; How do I know that the wins weren't completely luck? How do I know that some of it related to skill?

I think this might be 'imposter syndrome' that's making all wins feel unsteady. Would it be accurate to say that winning 1st in two knockout tournaments is indicative of some level of skill beyond average?

Suffering hard from imposter syndrome.