Originally Posted by Greg (FossilMan)
Adding more luck to poker does not diminish the skill component. Nor the opposite. Luck and skill are not on a single spectrum. You can change one without changing the other. Here's an article I wrote about that: https://www.cardplayer.com/cardplaye...e-in-your-game
I disagree. Or maybe we are talking about two different things. There is only one set of factors which determine outcomes and this set is entirely comprised of skill (the things we can control) or luck (the things we cannot control), or some mixture of both. It is the ratio between the two which matters, not their absolute quantities. Increasing the number of luck factors does not diminish the number of skill factors (they are independent, as you wrote in the article). But it sure does reduce the ratio of skill to luck, unless an equal number of skill factors are also added. And this matters because the lower the ratio, the larger the sample size necessary for the factor to manifest itself statistically.
Imagine a scenario that involves 1% skill and 99% luck. It will take a very large sample size to statistically demonstrate that *any* skill is involved. Conversely, if a scenario involves 1% luck and 99% skill, it will take a very large sample size to statistically demonstrate that luck plays any role.
If skill plays even a minute role, then eventually it will manifest itself as advantage. And of course, in the aggregate, higher-skilled players will continue to enjoy an advantage over less-skilled players. But that aggregate will take a lot longer to show its face when there is more luck involved. This is the main reason why skilled players prefer slower structure, all else being equal. If blinds went up every minute, higher skilled players would still do better. But it would take a very long time for anyone to be able to see that born out in statistical analysis of an individualís results.
As tourneys start introducing more and more luck factors, skill gets pushed aside. Those who believe in the advantage of controlling the things you can control, will find their control has less meaningful impact on their results, especially in the statistically small number of events that typical players participate in over time.
This does not mean poker would becomes less ďfunĒ or enjoyable. But it does mean it will become much more of a game of chance instead of skill. I donít necessarily see a reason why poker needs to move in that direction.
Originally Posted by Greg (FossilMan)
I have yet to play a mystery bounty tournament, and am not a fan. I don't like the randomness of it. IMO, it does add a lot of variance to the game. And tournament poker already has a lot of variance. There is clearly a huge skill component to any bounty tournament, including mystery bounty. There are many adjustments you need to make to maximize your equity. Some of these adjustments are huge. I consider mystery bounties to add a huge amount of variance, although not diminishing the skill element at all. I just don't want more variance.
Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Assuming your skill level is relatively stable, regardless of which format you play, then where does this huge variance you describe come from except from the introduction of luck?
There are certainly differences between regular bounty and mystery bounty tournaments when it comes to the ratio of skill/luck and I hope Iíve made it clear that it is the latter I have a bigger problem with. I think you agree for pretty much the same reason, though we describe it differently. The increased luck introduced in mystery bounty tournaments does not decrease the absolute amount of skill which plays a factor in these events. But it does decrease the meaningfulness of that skill. And thatís what matters.
Originally Posted by golddog
I have a question about bounty tournaments in general. Would you guys say that it increases the likelihood of calls of your all-in (if V has you covered) because of the perceived extra equity?
If so, does that mean you should be more or less willing to go AI, knowing that you a) might be called more but 2) will be called wider? Or perhaps no impact, just play your game?
This isnít really a strategy thread, but of course, if a bounty and the equity it represents is at stake when an opponent is making a decision which puts all of your chips at risk, than his/her decision will be affected. It is not just perceived equity. Itís real equity. In some of these bounty events, even the non-mystery variety, the bounties may be larger than finishing in the top 5% of the fieldÖ so if thereís still 15 or 20% of the field remaining, the bounties can play a big role in results and the decisions which chase after them.