It seems that some people (like the professionals I see on TV who make a living off the game) think it’s a game of skill. However the state that I live in won’t let anyone play it because to them it’s a game of luck.
I realize that poker is probably has elements of both, unlike chess (all skill) or bingo (all luck), but on the spectrum does it lie closer to luck or skill?
Skill. Skill, skill, skill. If you don’t believe me, sit down with a professional poker player and play for a few days. Yes, there is an element of luck in it which may even matter in the short term, but in the long term it all comes down to skill.
For games which employ elements of chance, luck is always a factor, and skill is demonstrable in such games only in a cumulative fashion. Luck then predominates in deciding the outcome of tactics, while skill can only be employed in deciding a strategy (this can be decided pre-game) and recognizing where/where elements of that strategy should be employed (during the game).
The question, then, is what constitutes “enough” opportunities to turn the pure luck of a single-deal game into the game of skill that emerges over a large number of hands? The entire field of statistics could be brought to bear on this issue, but some simplifying assumptions (two players, binomial distribution of winning vs. losing hands, simple bet/no-bet strategy, unlimited resources to bet) can give us an idea of the limit. If, for example, player A’s strategy is such that over an infinity of games he/she would win 60% of hands from player B, it would take about 110 hands before player A could say with 95% confidence that he/she would win at least half the hands. For a closer match where player A could win 55% of hands, he/she would prefer a match of at least 400 games to be 95% confident in victory.
Now, these figures are a gross simplification, and are not meant to be taken exactly. But I think they show that the number of hands required before skill becomes a significant factor can be larger than one would normally suspect. To summarize, skill in poker is exhibited only over a fairly large number of hands.
On a typical evening with the guys, I suspect most players don’t see more than 70 hands. And given the way winnings change from week to week, I doubt it’s because of dramatic week-to-week changes in skill level. My vote is more luck than skill in a casual setting, but for events like the World Series of Poker–where I’d bet the players see close to 1000 hands throughout the tournament, skill becomes the deciding factor.
If you’re not playing for money, it’s all luck. Otherwise, there’s definitely skill involved.
Over the long term, luck is evenly distributed. But the money rarely is. Skill explains this.
But note that the object isn’t to win the majority of hands, but rather the majority of the money. And a lot of poker skill is related to money management. IOW, an analysis based on evaluating the probablity of winning a particular hand is indeed oversimplified.
I’m not sure how it could be proved, but I’d speculate that a 60-40 edge in poker skill would tend to produce a 95% chance of a more favorable outcome in significantly fewer than 110 hands.
“If it wasn’t for luck, I’d win every one of them”.
Said the multiple bracelet holding HU champ of 2004-05.
Mixture of luck and skill. Luck on the deal of the cards. Skill on how that deal is played.
Sorry to hijack, but which state this is. I wasn’t aware that there were states where it was illegal to play poker for money. :dubious: I mean it’s something you do in a privacy of your home or club, how is that even regulated?
Poker is without a doubt a game of skill. As Matt Damon says in Rounders, do you think it’s just a coincidence that the same 5 guys make it to the final table of the WSOP every year? (No longer the case now that the field is >5,000, but very true in the days of 200-300).
The amount of time it takes for skill to manifest itself over luck can be quite large, and very game dependent. Large field NLHE tourneys are about as heavily tilted toward luck as you can get.
Perversely, the poker games with the least luck involved are rarely played any more, because the better players take the weaker players’ money too fast. You need to give the fish a delusion that they are actually skilled and might be able to win money at the game. If they can walk out with a winning session 40% of the time, they’ll probably come back for more. If they walk out winner only 10%, they won’t be coming back for much more. You can shear a sheep many times, but skin in only once.
Hold’em’s popularity is largely due to its high luck factor. In limit hold’em, it’s not at all uncommon for winning players to have losing stretches of several thousand hands, and to do no better than break-even for 20,000 hands.
Games with a low luck factor include 5-card draw, 7 stud hi/lo no qualifier, spread limit and pot limit games. Needless to say, you’ll have a tougher time finding most of these games spread at your local casino or on-line any more.
I remember Phil Helmuth saying that. It was funny and the announcer was making fun of him for it. But it holds true. He has the second most WSP Bracelets at 9, Only Johnny Chang and Doyle Brunsen(known for the 10-2 off suite win) have ten.
I’d say it is a game of skill when more people are involved.