|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/21/2008 1:06:21 PM PACIFIC |
 Luck vs. Skill, spartan51, 8. May 2003 06:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi all, Just would like everyone's opinion on the luck factor in holdem. Assuming that a player makes all the proper plays at all times, how much of it is luck vs. skill? Is the game 90% luck, 10% skill? Or I guess another way to ask the question, is what kind of edge does the skilled player have over the lucky player? Thanks to all who respond. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, 4 POKER, 8. May 2003 07:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| To answer the very last part of your Question... A Big Edge. You must factor in that a skilled player will use only the correct strategies and will make more accurate decisions . This will result in a net profit over an extended period of time. (Yes, there is short term luck, but to outlast a skilled player in the course of one's lifetime would be pretty tough to do). Remember, with Good Luck, there comes Bad Luck, too. You can't just simply overlook that. Poker is way too complex to even think that the skill factor would be such a small %. Keep in mind, "The skilled player is entitled to Luck as well, But the Non-skilled player can only win by relying on luck". 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, shorn, 8. May 2003 07:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hey, if you asked anyone they would say they will take luck over skill any day. But, fi I can have both, all the better. And guess what? You can have both. Luck will come and go and over the long haul everyone will get their share of good cards and bad, made hands and missed draws. What separates the winning players and the losing players year after year is the skill part (no matter what the %) which adds bets to the pots you win and (probably more importantly) saves a ton of bets by your folds and solid laydowns. The best part is that anyone can aquire the skill necessary to be a winning player. So, if you can have the best of both worlds, who wouldn't want that? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, 4 POKER, 8. May 2003 08:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Although I agree with most of your thoughts here, I feel your last statement needs clarifying. You said that Anyone can acquire the skill necessary to becoming a winning player. (I don't mean to get nit-picky here but) While Aquiring the Knowledge i.e. Starting Hands, Pot Odds, Position Play etc. There are other factors involved in playing Winning Poker. For example, Not Playing On Tilt, Not Giving Off Tells, Not Playing When You Are Tired Or Upset, Good Game Selection and many other factors can cause a person with Sound Poker Knowledge to be a Losing Player. (Not everyone will be able to apply those variables). "Skill is the combination of Knowledge, Experience AND Ability". 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, shorn, 8. May 2003 09:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Agreed. My point was that all of those things (including what you mentioned) can be learned or controlled whereas luck cannot. You need all of it to be a winning player, and you need it all the time to be a consistent winner. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Mark, 8. May 2003 09:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 8. May 2003 06:41 spartan51 wrote: > Hi all, > > Just would like everyone's opinion on the luck factor in holdem. Assuming that > a player makes all the proper plays at all times, how much of it is luck vs. > skill? Is the game 90% luck, 10% skill? Or I guess another way to ask the > question, is what kind of edge does the skilled player have over the lucky > player? Thanks to all who respond. Hi Spartan51 Over the long run luck has no bearing. Everyone will get lucky and unlucky for short periods of time. You will end up with the same amount of lucky and unlucky situations in the end. Over the long run, only skill matters. Good players beat bad players. Sure we've all seen the horrible player make unbelievable draw after draw and walk away up 50 BB. But what most players don't remember is that same player losing the next 15 sessions. Luck is only for short term and tournaments(another short term event). Even so, good players still win more and lose less (even when they get a bad run of cards) mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Swagman, 8. May 2003 15:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| What you say has a ring of truth to it, but it cannot be proven. Luck is unattributable. Therefore, we cannot say for sure that every man and women are equally lucky are not. One person may very well be more lucky then another. So there for what you say is inaccurate. Luck my be a fickle women that likes one man more then another, or it can be a constant force that brings its favor on every person in equal amounts over a course of a lifetime. Good poker players beat bad poker players most of the time. But the element of luck is stronger in poker then alot of good players are willing to admit. If poker was a strictly skill oriented game, then there would be Tiger Woods and Micheal Jordans in the field, but there isnt a single great poker player that can consistently dominate and destroy the other great poker players. Untill I see the same name win the WSOP 5 times in a row, Im still gonna say, you need good cards. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, chasepoker, 8. May 2003 17:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I dont know the complete history of the event but i am sure someone can correct me but didnt Johnny Chan win the NLHE WSOP 2 years running ? If 200 entered each year does that not mean that the odds of this happening would be 40000-1 ? Surely that proves luck is not that important. Also if luck was so important how come i started off losing for my first year and now win consistantly ? If i am making 5000 bets a year getting odds of 5-1 and the odds of me winning are actually 4-1 then i am going to be a big winner. I think the 2 points that should be made and remembered about poker are that 1) the rake takes a big edge off ANY poker player and 2 ) Results in poker are not what count but decision you make, by this i mean you should be 'happy' if you get drawn out on if you made the correct decision in getting drawn out on ( you made the other guy have unfavourable odds ) But then after performing so hideously in that Goat thing earlier please feel free to disregard anything i ever write on here ! I still cant believe i would more than likely be ending up with a god damn goat.... 7 High's Chasepoker | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Nathaniel Brous, 8. May 2003 17:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 8. May 2003 17:00 chasepoker wrote: > I dont know the complete history of the event but i am sure someone can correct me but didnt Johnny Chan win the NLHE WSOP 2 years running ? <snip> > 7 High's Chasepoker What may be more impressive is the fact that he took 2nd the following year. 1,1,2, not a bad little three year run. Here's a link to an article that runs with this thread. http://www.poker.cc/msexton_lodpart2.htm - Nathaniel Brous | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Swagman, 8. May 2003 19:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Luck is not ver important? Poker is a game of skill? Lets me see a russian has been undisbuted chess champion for about half my lifetime, and Johnny Chan has won 2 WSOP in a row? HMM?l Randomizing 52 cards in a 10 seat table and if luck is a fair mistress you should win 1 in 10 hands if carried from bigginning to end. That creates a pretty big IF in on everyone talk about how poker is a great game of skill. Poker is a game where you can be very lucky are unlucky for both a short term and a longterm. Im not dismissing the fact that a skilled poker player can consistantly make money, consistantly win at tournments., obviously many good poker players do, and this is because there are skillfull. But if poker was the game of skill that some of you believe it to be then where is the Kosporov of poker. A player that can consistently destroy a table. another player., both in a short term and a long term at will and on any given Sunday? There isnt one, because theres going to alwayz be an element of luck involved, a pretty big one too, becuase the very best poker players woluld have alot better records at winning then they already have. . A chess master, unless he is on crack, just broke up with his old lady, or asleep, or playing black and 1 move behind, is going to win an inferior oponent every game. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Big_Slick, 8. May 2003 20:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You are comparing apples to oranges... chess is played between 2 people. Poker is played between 10. If poker was a one on one game, I'm sure you would see the same names consistently in the winners circle. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, stdioh, 9. May 2003 09:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| backgammon falls in between poker and chess, so let us use it as an example. It is very easy to become good enough at backgammon that you do not make "mistakes" in terms of the moves you make and the game bases down strictly to knowing when to double the stakes and knowing when to accept a double. In this regard it is a game of skill. I'll play a rank beginner at backgammon and he's probably got a 45% chance of winning the game. Now I play a match up to 100 points and I'd say that his chances of winning are very very very slim. Because the games I win have a higher average number of points. He either concedes incorrectly or accepts incorrectly or doubles incorrectly or doesn't double when he should. In that respect, backgammon is like poker with face up cards and all bets are half pot bets. At any moment you know what your odds are of winning (or at least you guess them based on what you know) and you know what your pot odds are exactly. Then you decide, based on that, whether to accept a double or not. Yes, one player can get run over with the dice and be constantly starting off with rolls of 66, but in the long run, the skilled player will win. Obviously nothing will be as skill based as chess because there is *no* random element in chess. That said, it's a lot harder to hustle chess. Good players have ratings that indicate their strength quite clearly. Poker and backgammon are nice in that your ability to win consistently get comfortably camouflaged by short term fluctuations. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Mark, 9. May 2003 09:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > What you say has a ring of truth to it, but it cannot be proven. Luck is unattributable. then how do you know it exists. What we are calling luck is just a probability abnormality. they happen all the time. So if i have 2 probability abnormalities in a session, am i lucky. it appears so. but over the long run the probabilities will stay true and even out for everyone. mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, 4 POKER, 9. May 2003 12:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'd like to answer this question based on the VERY first question he had asked which was "If a player makes all the proper plays, at all times how much of it is Luck and how much of it is Skill?" Well, anytime a player wins a hand, whether he is the so-called lucky player, or the skilled player, then he got Lucky. BUT, you can't chose to be the "Lucky Player", because LUCK is something that happens by CHANCE, it is not something that you can chose to be. (So to say which one would you prefer?, is not a question that shows any accuracy) BUT, you can take your knowledge and combine that with experience which could give you the ABILITY to become skillful. But, it is to the advantage, at all times, for the skilled player to make the absolute most money from the game when you are basing that over an entire lifetime of results' whether that be one year of skill vs. luck, or your entire lifetime. (you can't chose a winner that is only based on several hands of play. you have to base that on a much longer period because poker will show your results whether they be + or -, over a longer period of time). Poker is not a game like a chess match where the winner is decided on who ever wins that one game(or two or three). It is a game that will only show you the Acurrate results when played for a LONG TERM. And that is what the skilled player bases his wins(+ reslults)on, the long term results. When a person makes the proper plays, than that is where the knowledge comes into factor. When that player is able to make the correct strategic plays, and has the ABILITY to make all the correct (POSITIVE +) decisions, than that is PURE SKILL; And Skill is a combination of knowledge, experience AND abilty. By making strategic plays and the correct decisions at ALL times, every time, will also increase his Luck as well. See, the skilled player has the ability to CREATE his/her own luck because luck is not as random as you may think it is. (when the skilled player makes a great strategic play and gets his opponent to fold a hand that may have been the best hand, than that particular hand was based on his skillful abilities, which allowed him to get lucky and win the pot) Yes, a non-skilled player will always have a chance at making money and winning hands, but poker is NOT a game in which the "Winner" is based on playing one hand or even multiple hands. A "Winning Poker Player (which is the skilled poker player) is one who can extract ENOUGH money from the game to show a highly positive profit during the course of their poker career. EACH player, (the lucky one and the skilled one) will BOTH have their share at winning hands and losing hands, BUT, the "Skilled" player will have the advantage (Edge), over the purely lucky player because luck works both ways and it does not prejudice itself on distributing itself to just certain types of players. (that would be impossibe) You have to take in account that the skilled player will get their fair share of luck as well. Let me give you an example; if luck is strictly based on chance,(which it is), than both players, the lucky and the skilled would get their share of luck when you averaged it out. But the so-called lucky player can only rely on winning hands by "getting lucky";(which will not and can not happen all of the time). But,the skilled player will be able to rely on all of his knowledge and skill and the luck factor will also be another fortunate factor that will add to the equation of making him/her an "Overall" winning player and with all of those things combined(knowledge, experience, ability,and luck) will give the SKILLED player a much greater advantage, Making him the winner because he will win way more money than someone who can only rely on getting lucky. And I will tell you this, If I or any other skilled player were to play against a novice poker player, We would outplay the novice enough times because we would only be making correct strategic plays and accurate decisions that would either add more money to our winning hands or we would lose a lot less than you(novice) when we did lose a hand. And that, when calculated out during the course of a lifetime, would make the skilled player THE "Winning Player".You can not compare chess to Poker, because the winner in chess is based on short term results and the "Winning Poker Player" is based on long term results. (Yes, you are comparing an apple to an orange;the same in one respect, but totally different in another). 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, shorn, 9. May 2003 12:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In simple terms, luck to the skilled player is an ADDITIVE thing; luck to the unskilled player is the ONLY thing. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, 4 POKER, 9. May 2003 12:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 9. May 2003 12:43 shorn wrote: > In simple terms, luck to the skilled player is an ADDITIVE thing; luck to the unskilled player is > the ONLY thing. Well, you know I agree with that, obviously(I just wrote that myself),LOL, However, sometimes things need to be clarified and drawn out because a person(s) may truly not understand or have awareness on a certain subject, this being poker. I honestly think that the "chess player" does not think that a skilled player has an advantage. (and you know how I feel about that, Steve)! Dave | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, shorn, 9. May 2003 12:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 9. May 2003 12:50 4 POKER wrote: > Well, you know I agree with that, obviously(I just wrote that myself),LOL, > However, sometimes things need to be clarified and drawn out because a person(s) may truly not > understand or have awareness on a certain subject, this being poker. I honestly think that the "chess > player" does not think that a skilled player has an advantage. (and you know how I feel about that, > Steve)! > > Dave I do know, but don't have to. All I need to do is look at how much more $$ the skilled player wins over time and that is all the proof I need (or want!!). Good luck in Vegas Dave. Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, 4 POKER, 9. May 2003 13:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 9. May 2003 12:53 shorn wrote: > on 9. May 2003 12:50 4 POKER wrote: > > Well, you know I agree with that, obviously(I just wrote that myself),LOL, > > However, sometimes things need to be clarified and drawn out because a person(s) may truly not > > understand or have awareness on a certain subject, this being poker. I honestly think that the "chess > > player" does not think that a skilled player has an advantage. (and you know how I feel about that, > > Steve)! > > > > Dave > > I do know, but don't have to. All I need to do is look at how much more $$ the skilled player wins over time > and that is all the proof I need (or want!!). > > Good luck in Vegas Dave. Thanks Steve, Luck always help!! (God,I hope the chess player doesn't see this)! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Mark, 9. May 2003 18:58 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 9. May 2003 12:31 4 POKER wrote: > I'd like to answer this question based on the VERY first question he had asked which was "If a > player makes all the proper plays, at all times how much of it is Luck and how much of it is > Skill?" > > Well, anytime a player wins a hand, whether he is the so-called lucky player, or the skilled > player, then he got Lucky. I completely DISAGREE. With that reasoning everything in life is luck. When you play +EV situations, you are supposed to win a certain amount. For example, we all agree, with 1 card to come, we will make our flush draw 1 in 5 times. So if make 2 in 10 tries, am i lucky those 2 times? Of course not, probability dictates i will win sometimes. Now if i win 3 in 10 tries, am i lucky? No. This is a probability abnormality over a short time. Over a longer period i will still make that draw exactly 1 in 5 times. This means i will go though a time where i won't make that same draw at all over 10 tries. This is not unlucky, it is just probabilities way of evening everything out. Poker has nothing to do with luck, its all math and probabilities. If you flip a coin and it lands on heads, is that lucky? No, because you expect it to happen 1 in 2 times. When you have all the information available to make a logical decision and act based on that information, luck does not play a part. You know what will happen with a specific certainty. "Luck" as we define, occurs when don't have all the information necessary to make good decisions, and still benefit from those decisions (e.g. betting that Uragray will beat Madagasgar at ping pong) Do you think Doyle Brunson would have to get "lucky" to win at No Limit Hold'em while playing blind? No, he doesn't even need the information of his cards to make his decisions, he can play the players, and still make $$. (P.S. he has done it in the past for big money and in tournaments) Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, 4 POKER, 9. May 2003 20:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The odds may very well dictate that you will make your flush 1 in 5 times with one card to come, however, that does not mean that you will make your flush 1 in 5 times or two times out of ten, and four times out of twenty. You can play 30 hands, have a four flush with one card to come and never make the flush. Or, you can make the flush on the end but now the board pairs, giving someone else a full house. Did you make your flush that you were SUPPOSED to make? Yes, you did, but with the randomness of the deal and the remaining cards that were still live, you still lost the hand. Would you say that was unlucky, or just probabilities? Here's Another example of luck and bad luck in poker that deal with probabilities that can not be accurately calculated: You're in a NL hold-em game. (Live game)(not a tournament) There's $50,000 in the pot You have the nuts on the turn (the Ace high flush). The dealer burns and turns and your hand is still the nuts. However, The dealer(who is human), failed to wait until one of your opponents called. The floorman is called over, and states that house rules are that all exposed cards do not play until all betting action has been completed. The player now acts and calls the bet. Now, the card is put back in the deck, the deck is reshuffled, the dealer turns over the last card and now it pairs the board which gives someone a full-house. The flush loses the hand now. Can you calculate this probability?(I believe not) We call this bad luck. WHEN PROBABILITIES ARE INCALCULABLE, THAT IS CALLED LUCK. 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Swagman, 9. May 2003 21:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Did you make the flush when your SUPPOSED to make it? This is becoming a philosphical discussion. Like is life preditermined or is there random variables that will mix things in life up? You can acquire the skill of knowing the odds of making varies bets in roulette. And will likely make more money then someone that has no concept of the chance in making a specific bet in roulette. Are you saying there is no luck in roulette? I understand that I am making another exagerated analogy. But it sounds to me that you do not even believe luck exist, either that are are definition of luck is different. If you make your 1 to a flush draw 3 times in a row I consider this lucky. However if you do not make your 1 to a flush in ten attempts I consider this unlucky. And I certainly dont believe that you were SUPPOSED to miss your flush draw 10 times in a row because some force in the universe pedetirement you to miss your flush draw. I believe you missed you flush draw becuase you were unlucky. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, 4 POKER, 9. May 2003 22:15 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 9. May 2003 21:23 Swagman wrote: > Did you make the flush when your SUPPOSED to make it? > > This is becoming a philosphical discussion. Like is life preditermined or is there random variables that will > mix things in life up? You can acquire the skill of knowing the odds of making varies bets in roulette. And > will likely make more money then someone that has no concept of the chance in making a specific bet in > roulette. Are you saying there is no luck in roulette? I understand that I am making another exagerated > analogy. But it sounds to me that you do not even believe luck exist, either that are are definition of luck > is different. If you make your 1 to a flush draw 3 times in a row I consider this lucky. However if you do not > make your 1 to a flush in ten attempts I consider this unlucky. And I certainly dont believe that you were > SUPPOSED to miss your flush draw 10 times in a row because some force in the universe pedetirement you to miss > your flush draw. I believe you missed you flush draw becuase you were unlucky. Your responses leave me feeling very exhausted, You obviously didn't read...what I wrote. 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Swagman, 9. May 2003 22:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Lol actually my window was minimized and didnt see the last paragraph. I would aggree with what you said. This is dead horse. moving on.... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Mark, 11. May 2003 09:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > Did you make the flush when your SUPPOSED to make it? > > This is becoming a philosphical discussion. Like is life preditermined or is there random variables that will > mix things in life up? You can acquire the skill of knowing the odds of making varies bets in roulette. And > will likely make more money then someone that has no concept of the chance in making a specific bet in > roulette. Are you saying there is no luck in roulette? I can agree that luck plays a part in roulette, but that is because you decisions don't matter. There is no point to learning what the odds are because in roulette the house always has an edge. >I understand that I am making another exagerated > analogy. But it sounds to me that you do not even believe luck exist, either that are are definition of luck > is different. I don't believe in luck. People who work harder seem to be the lucky ones. People seem to attribute luck to magic. I believe that things should happen according to physical laws, and they do. >If you make your 1 to a flush draw 3 times in a row I consider this lucky. However if you do not > make your 1 to a flush in ten attempts I consider this unlucky. And I certainly dont believe that you were > SUPPOSED to miss your flush draw 10 times in a row because some force in the universe pedetirement you to miss > your flush draw. I believe you missed you flush draw becuase you were unlucky. So you think everything in poker is luck. Then why bother to learn starting hands, pot odds, and correct stradegy? why are you wasting your time here? You know as well as i do, that by doing those things you are increasing you chances of winning. To you, you are increasing you luck. But if luck is supposed to be a random thing, how can you change or influence it? If poker was about luck, you would never have to look at your cards, you could just bet when you felt lucky, and fold when you felt unlucky. mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, 4 POKER, 11. May 2003 09:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Like I said, read the posts Luck vs. Skill from the beginning, from where it started to where it had ended. (please don't take a snip and elaborate on something that will be giving you a false understanding as to how I feel about it, because there is no way that I think that luck is the big determine factor here. I know it is skill. BUT, in order to be a "winning poker player" you must factor in all possibilities, strategy, correct decision making(bluffing), which can also alter your possibilties to winning a particular hand. Those are skilled moves.... and knowing your probabilities as well. (All things need to be factored in, and yes, even human error, because it can and does occur which can very easily change things. But the title of this post was Luck vs. skill, Not Luck vs. Probabilities. There is a big difference in knowing what your odds are(probabilities) as opposed to being Skilled. Bescause the skilled player (the one who comes out the "winner"), is the player that has the ability to factor in all of the variables in poker and is knowledgeable and experienced enough to use only correct strategies as well as knowing what the odds are for him to complete a certain hand. 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Mark, 11. May 2003 12:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > because there is no way that I think that luck is the big determine factor here. I know it is skill. BUT, in order to be > a "winning poker player" you must factor in all possibilities, strategy, correct decision making(bluffing), which can > also alter your possibilties to winning a particular hand. Those are skilled moves.... and knowing your probabilities > as well. > (All things need to be factored in, and yes, even human error, because it can and does occur which can very easily > change things. > But the title of this post was Luck vs. skill, Not Luck vs. Probabilities. > There is a big difference in knowing what your odds are(probabilities) as opposed to being Skilled. Bescause the > skilled player (the one who comes out the "winner"), is the player that has the ability to factor in all of the > variables in poker and is knowledgeable and experienced enough to use only correct strategies as well as knowing what > the odds are for him to complete a certain hand. > > 4 POKER I agree with the above, so where does "luck" factor in? mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Swagman, 11. May 2003 18:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| We're beating are heads. And this thread has gotten way off its original intent. Which is probably my fault so I'm sorry. I do not believe that poker is all about luck. The degree of skill it takes is unfathomable. Poker is like an intricate web, just when you think you have discovered something important in the game, it suddenly branches out into a hundred more strands, reminding you that no matter how skillful you believe you are, your still stuck like that proverbial fly. But you have brought up an interesting point, and that is equating luck to a magical force. There has been convincing evidence done that points to the possibility that some people are indeed innately luckier then others and that some are terribly unluckier then others in like day to day events. I use the words 'convincing evidence' liberally because I don't think any of these people could adequately back there claims, but it cannot be disproven either. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Mark, 11. May 2003 08:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > WHEN PROBABILITIES ARE INCALCULABLE, THAT IS CALLED LUCK. > > 4 POKER > Nothing is incalculable with poker, there is a 52 card deck and a certain # of cards dealt. You said earlier that winning every individual hand is luck ,but winning in the long run is skill. This means that you have to be "lucky" to be skilled. I disagree. mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, 4 POKER, 11. May 2003 09:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 11. May 2003 08:59 Mark wrote: > > WHEN PROBABILITIES ARE INCALCULABLE, THAT IS CALLED LUCK. > > > > 4 POKER > > > Nothing is incalculable with poker, there is a 52 card deck and a certain # of cards dealt. (How about the dealer's mistake that cost that person $50,000)? How do you calculate that into the equation of probabilities? Poker is not a game that is based on math and probabilites alone because it is possible for mistakes to occur and there are so many variables that proability alone of one specific event can not determine the profitability of a player for his lifetime.(I think you should read my post in its entirety so can can get a better understanding as to how I used the word luck, because I was talking about being skilled in poker and not about being lucky. Probabilities(odds) can be put into the equation but there are other factors that you must be able to be aware of that can alter your probabilities for any one given hand. " It's not as simple as "52 cards in the deck and a certain number of hands dealt". Sorry, it's just not that simple, Poker is a complex game involving human dynamics as well as probabilities." (proababilities are a very impotant factor in poker but certainly they are not the only factor). 4 POKER > > You said earlier that winning every individual hand is luck ,but winning in the long run is skill. This > means that you have to be "lucky" to be skilled. I disagree. > > mark > > > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Mark, 11. May 2003 12:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > (How about the dealer's mistake that cost that person $50,000)? How do you calculate that into the equation of > probabilities? yes the dealer made a mistake, but the pot does not belong to anyone until the hand is over. It's too bad that the river made someone a boat, but the flush did not deserve to win just because he had a flush. You can't say that the dealer cost him the pot because the dealer just flips cards and follows the rules. The first River card was flipped over in error, therefore, it does not count. The bettor was betting with a flush knowing 1 more card was to come. He can't pick and choose which card will come, so he has to sit and wait untill the dealer flips a card that is fair to everyone. People who blame thing like this on luck are just looking for excuses. Against a set, the flush will win 4 out of 5 times. this was not one of those times. mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Mark, 11. May 2003 12:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| >I think you should read my post in its entirety so can can get a better > understanding as to how I used the word luck, because I was talking about being skilled in poker and not about > being lucky. Maybe you should define how you use the word luck and always give it the same meaning. this statement implies that you were saying earlier "being skilled = luck". Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, shorn, 12. May 2003 05:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Wow...this thread has taken a beating. I thought I would throw in my two cents after reading all that was posted since Friday. I think one thing that has been left out of this discussion is "time". the probabilities and averages that we all know by heart are a normal distribution, but over LONG LONG periods of time. So, the 4 to 1 for your flush with 1 card to come should on average hit 1 time in 5 over millions of trials. When it hits more or less frequently than that, it represents an "outlier" that is more than 2 SD's away from the mean. In statistics, this is called an anomaly...in poker, we call it "good luck" or "bad luck". The bottom line is that over each of our poker careers (and, depending on how much you play, that might not be enough time to consider it the "long run"), we would hit our flush 1 time in 5; however, if we were to track every time this situation came up, there would no doubt be periods of time where we hit more frequently than we should, and periods where we missed more frequently. These periods are the short-term "luck" factor. I agree with 4 POKER on this one. "Luck" or "outliers" or "statistical anomalies" cannot be controlled and will happen evenly to two identical players over a long period of time. The difference in one being a winning player versus a losing player is the skill part of the game and how each applies their knowledge and experience into making the highest number of correct decisions over the same number of hands. Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Swagman, 9. May 2003 19:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| OK im not going to argue that its difficult to make a comparision to chess and poker. However, poker has an element of chance in it, these elements are expressed in the form of odds and probability. Let us say that you have a 1 in 46 chance of making a set with 5 cards dealt. After 138 times you have been dealt 5 cards and you still havent been dealt a set, this can be expressed as being unlucky. Although unlikely these flunctuation can and will show themselves in Poker. Now you can talk about how over a course of time anomalies will correct themselves and you'll find yourself with a set 1 in 46 chances. But whether they do are do not, luck and is still there giving you pocket Aces 5 times in a row. Random flunctuations can be small and sometimes they can be enormous, like not seeing 2 face cards in 4 hours of play. I only bring this up becuase this happen to me in the last session of poker I played. These strange anamolies dont ocur in games that skill is more of a quantifier, that is why i brought up chess. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, 4 POKER, 9. May 2003 20:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 9. May 2003 19:29 Swagman wrote: > OK im not going to argue that its difficult to make a comparision to chess and poker. However, poker > has an element of chance in it, these elements are expressed in the form of odds and probability. > Let us say that you have a 1 in 46 chance of making a set with 5 cards dealt. After 138 times you > have been dealt 5 cards and you still havent been dealt a set, this can be expressed as being > unlucky. Although unlikely these flunctuation can and will show themselves in Poker. Now you can > talk about how over a course of time anomalies will correct themselves and you'll find yourself with > a set 1 in 46 chances. But whether they do are do not, luck and is still there giving you pocket > Aces 5 times in a row. Random flunctuations can be small and sometimes they can be enormous, like > not seeing 2 face cards in 4 hours of play. I only bring this up becuase this happen to me in the > last session of poker I played. These strange anamolies dont ocur in games that skill is more of a > quantifier, that is why i brought up chess. I understand your thoughts completely, I do. (And yes, even though I play for a living, I hear what you're saying and apologize for being harsh.) dave. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Mojo702, 11. May 2003 14:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 8. May 2003 09:31 Mark wrote: > Hi Spartan51 > > Over the long run luck has no bearing. Everyone will get lucky and unlucky for > short periods of time. You will end up with the same amount of lucky and unlucky > situations in the end. > > Over the long run, only skill matters. Good players beat bad players. > > mark Everyone talks about "the long run." What's IS the long run? 50,000 hands? 100,000? 1,000,000? More? Less? In "the long run" skill will win more than luck, right? But who can wait that long? I'm a blackjack dealer and everyone talks about basic strategy being the best way to play. In "the long run" the odds are for you winning more hands/money if you play basic strategy, however, this basic strategy is based on MILLIONS of hands. No one plays that many hands...anything can happen in the short run. Believe it or not, I personally watched and dealt to a man who bought in for $400 and ran it to over $1.75 million in three days of play DOING EVERYTHING "WRONG" according to basic strategy. I think luck plays a bigger role in poker than people want to admit. How many times have you played a hand perfectly and lose to an unskilled, "lucky" player who draws out on the river? You read it here plenty of times. Sure, skill plays a part but I think luck has a bigger role than most admit. My 2 cents... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Nathaniel Brous, 11. May 2003 15:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hey Mojo702, I can assume you are talking about "Shoeless Joe." You might be interested that Urban Legends http://www.snopes.com/luck/shoeless.htm still considers the status of this story as, "Undetermined." I remember reading about it in the Washington Post long ago. Perhaps you may have the information that can change the status to "Confirmed." About the Luck vs. Skill thread, this is the second go-round on the UPF and it seems it got bogged down in a question of semantics. A better question to ask might be, "How helpful would said knowledge be?" My gut instinct says "not much." Winning players know (at least approx.) the odds or "chance" of how things play out (in the long run) and seldom (note this caveat) deviate from them. - Nathaniel Brous | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Mojo702, 11. May 2003 19:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 11. May 2003 15:33 Nathaniel Brous wrote: > Hey Mojo702, I can assume you are talking about "Shoeless Joe." You might be interested that > Urban Legends http://www.snopes.com/luck/shoeless.htm > still considers the status of this story as, "Undetermined." I remember reading about it in > the Washington Post long ago. Perhaps you may have the information that can change the status > to "Confirmed." > I was there....I dealt to him...it was what we called pit 1 at Treasure Island. I'm sure it's still pit 1 but I know longer work there and haven't for 4 years now. I couldn't tell anyone when that was exactly. It would have to be at least 6 years ago then, 'cause it was awhile before I left. The thing is he only left with about $50,000. He had lost all but... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, stdioh, 8. May 2003 13:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In one hand, it is 99.99% luck and 0.01% skill. In on night, it is 90% luck and 10% skill. In one year it is 10% luck and 90% skill. In one lifetime, it is 0.01% luck and 99.99% skill. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, Wren, 8. May 2003 13:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| This is the way I like to look at it: Luck affects the short term. On a given session, you will have a continuum of possible results, the boundaries of which are determined by luck (how the cards fall). The upper bound may very well be a negative result; in other words, you may play theoretically (and psychologically) perfectly, and still have a losing session. However, if you played very poorly, your results would fall closer to the lower end of this continuum, and you would lose a lot more. Luck evens out in the long run; in other words, you can expect the the average of these continuums to fall slightly less than break-even over the long run (slightly less because of the rake). To be a winning player, then, you must apply skill to consistently place at the top of the continuum; if you do this, your overall average will be positive. Hmm...that ended up sounding very stuffy and long-winded...hope my point came across anyway :O) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, chasepoker, 8. May 2003 18:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Oh yeah i forgot to mention i am a lucky player, hee hee hee. 7 High's Chasepoker | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Luck vs. Skill, David R, 8. May 2003 13:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think the simple answer is: The more hands you play the more important skill becomes. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|