Skill Verses Luck

I have played enough hold-em, and watched way too much hold-em. I have a theory that hold-em poker is really about 80% luck and 20% skill, once you get past beginner poker players. If you take average poker players (those that have played say 500+ hands of poker), they really all have a chance to win any tournement if they handle tilting, but are really just not complete idiots. It comes down to that 80% luck. Luck in poker is really timing.

I believe that the TV commentators make a huge of emphasis on tells, "great lay downs", reading the betting stratagies, etc. I think it really comes down to soooooo much luck/timing. The 80/20 that I came up with is in most tourneys there is usually only one or two of the big name pros at the final table. Many times amateurs make it.

They show the pros winning, but dont show how many times they end up loosing their winnings. "Mike The Mouth" lost about 500k after winning last year.

I think that what makes the pros get into more final tables really comes down to the fact that once they win one big tourney, they have stakes to enter tournies for a long time. The regular joe cannot afford 10k entries that often. Someone that won a million plus, can enter for a long time before loosing any money. The more you play, the more chance you have to win (and you will develop the basic skills).

Again, just look at how many amatuers and first timers make it to final tables. BTW. That fact is why I love to watch. The fact that anyone can walk off the street and beat all the pros, makes poker unlike any other competition!!

LOL


80/20??? Maybe over that one tournament, but I garuntee you if you run it back 100 times you will notice the difference. The thing I strongly dislike about donkaments is that no matter how good you are, theoretically you will have to win a couple coin flip situations. So it does really come down to a certain amount of luck in one tournament.

To really see how good a player is you have to evaluat them in the long run. Your thinking is seriously flawed. If you want to watch real good poker play you need to watch ring games.

You clearly have no idea how to play poker successfully. I strongly suggest you go to the beginner's forum and read all of the strategy links posted there. Otherwise, you'll always think that poker is all luck and no skill.

There is a lot more skill in poker than people realize. Yes, any fish or average Joe can win any one tournament, or have a great day at the cash tables. But mark his voyage over the year and see how he ends up. Skill is the long term, luck is the short term. Most people who aren't winning players or don't know a lot about poker think it is just a game of luck. (No offense). It clearly isn't. Look at the results the people have on just this forum, that can not be luck.

LOL Donkaments.

Taking down small pot after small pot in cash games must be just luck

I agree that in the short term (e.g. one tournament) most of it is luck. Most pros will tell you that before winning a tournament you will probably get your money in with the worst of it at least once and suck out.

The point is that over the "long run", the people who get in there with the best of it are the ones that come out ahead. If you look at the career of someone like Doyle Brunson who has 10 WSOP bracelets and still finishes high in the field these days its hard to argue that most of it is luck.

If you want a real answer to the question you need to define the question more, and even then we wont know the answer.

In a cash game between 2 players of equal skill luck will decide the outcome. In a cashgame between 2 players of vastly differing skill, luck will have a much smaller effect. In a tournament luck is a massive factor over the shortterm but over 1000+ tournaments it becomes a smaller factor.

However we also know that over the past few years the WSOP has usually been won by people who are relatively (or completely) unknown at the time.

This has been a long and rambling post and ive almost lost where i was going with it so ill finish with something that sounds like it could be relevent maybe.

In a long career of AA Vs 72o allin preflops, the 72o will win its fair share but only the AA will come out ahead.

Interesting how so many new FTR members make their inaugural post acting like they have figured it all out w/some breakthrough knowledge. Not that there is anything wrong with this, just interesting.

Originally Posted by DonkDonk

Interesting how so many new FTR members make their inaugural post acting like they have figured it all out w/some breakthrough knowledge. Not that there is anything wrong with this, just interesting.

lol. maybe when you've played 600 hands you'll realize that poker is 100% skill and 0% luck.

you barely ever see "amateurs" making it to final tables. even the less well-known players at the final tables have played a good few million hands or more. a lot more than 500 hands.

in the short run - tournaments contain a high percentage of luck. but in the long run there is no such thing as luck. look at phil hellmuth's poker stats. he's won 10 WSOP's and every year he's winning another bracelet and finishing on the final table a few times.

how did jonny chan manage to in back-to-back wsop main events and then come 2nd the next year? how did doyle brunson manage to win backtoback main events?
how did dan harrington manage to come 6th in 1987, 1st in 1995, 3rd in 2003 and 4th in 2004 in the WSOP main event? with a few hundred/thousand players in the events?

is it just luck? of course not. luck only applies in the short term. no such thing as luck in the long term

Originally Posted by kerrytilt

average poker players (those that have played say 500+ hands of poker).

Lawl

Originally Posted by DonkDonk

Interesting how so many new FTR members make their inaugural post acting like they have figured it all out w/some breakthrough knowledge. Not that there is anything wrong with this, just interesting.

ofcourse there is something wrong with this. but he'll soon learn

one hell of a 2nd post!

and now more...DEEP THOUGHTS w/ Jack Handy.

sit down at some of the tables, tourney or not, with the regulars here, and watch the luck fest begin...lol.

I think that what makes the pros get into more final tables really comes down to the fact that once they win one big tourney, they have stakes to enter tournies for a long time. The regular joe cannot afford 10k entries that often. Someone that won a million plus, can enter for a long time before loosing any money. The more you play, the more chance you have to win (and you will develop the basic skills).

chris moneymaker is a prime example of someone who got lucky in one tournament, but long-term, has done nothing. sorry, but i have to disagree with your premise.

Originally Posted by varena

I think that what makes the pros get into more final tables really comes down to the fact that once they win one big tourney, they have stakes to enter tournies for a long time. The regular joe cannot afford 10k entries that often. Someone that won a million plus, can enter for a long time before loosing any money. The more you play, the more chance you have to win (and you will develop the basic skills).

chris moneymaker is a prime example of someone who got lucky in one tournament, but long-term, has done nothing. sorry, but i have to disagree with your premise.

he actually has had a big cash or 2 since then. do you know how much he plays? do you know where he plays? do you know what all of his results are?

Originally Posted by varena

I think that what makes the pros get into more final tables really comes down to the fact that once they win one big tourney, they have stakes to enter tournies for a long time. The regular joe cannot afford 10k entries that often. Someone that won a million plus, can enter for a long time before loosing any money. The more you play, the more chance you have to win (and you will develop the basic skills).

chris moneymaker is a prime example of someone who got lucky in one tournament, but long-term, has done nothing. sorry, but i have to disagree with your premise.

Post #1, let the defense rest your honour.

It is my understanding that while Chris Moneymaker isn't at the same competitive level as many of the other news-covered pros (or many players in general for that matter), he's still a good player, and has done well in several events other than the the WSOP main event that he won. And I can guarantee you he has played way more poker than the average person.

But speaking generally to the OP's points, there's definitely some credence to the idea that players that have cashed in a big tournament are more likely to make it to final tables than an average entrant simply because they are playing more tournaments than average. But that's only a small piece of the puzzle, and I wouldn't say that the primary reason you see the same people end up at FTs in many events is because of the large number of events they are entering. I would attribute this more to their level of skill.

Luck plays a huge part in poker...knowing when to press your luck plays a much bigger part. I'd say it's more like 70% skill vs. 29% luck...

Originally Posted by uscheese

Luck plays a huge part in poker...knowing when to press your luck plays a much bigger part. I'd say it's more like 70% skill vs. 29% luck...

i agree that luck plays a HUGE factor in poker. it also plays a HUGE factor in everything. if your airplane crashes, it is bad luck. if you get hit crossing the street, it is bad luck. if your AA gets cracked on the flop after getting it in pf, that is bad luck. its bad luck b/c that is not SUPPOSED to happen the majority of the time.

however, knowing when to "cross the street" and when not to...is defiinitely a SKILL some of us have mastered. and some of us, half the people i know , still need to work on.

all in all, skill is a MUCH bigger factor than the OP stated.

Originally Posted by uscheese

Luck plays a huge part in poker...knowing when to press your luck plays a much bigger part. I'd say it's more like 70% skill vs. 29% luck...

rubbish. poker is 100% skill 0% in the long run. in the short term i agree it could be up to 40% luck

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

rubbish. poker is 100% skill 0% in the long run. in the short term i agree it could be up to 40% luck

That doesn't add up. If any part of poker is luck, 1 hand, 1 session, 40% short term, you can never be 100% skill. But I know what you meant.

The difference is with skill you win long term. Your bankroll increases, you win tourneys.

With luck, you win 5 tourneys instead of 4. You final table a WSOP when you bust negreneau KKvsAA. You have a bankroll of $4K instead of $3.5K.

As for the Big tournements being won by ameteurs. Doyle said that it's a skewed system now that online poker is so popular. There are 20year old poker players with 1 million hands of experience. Thats 10x more hands than he ever played live before his first win. These unknowns aren't ameteurs. Just unknown, and have probably played 3000+ tournements.

Originally Posted by uscheese

I'd say it's more like 70% skill vs. 29% luck...

70+29=99. The other 1% is cheating? Or does cheating count as skill?

If it's on purpose and you get away with it, yes.

OK, OK, I bow to all you skilled players. It is mostly skill, according to you. LOL.

BTW, the travel channel showed all the WPT tournies yesterday from 2006, including the most amazing final I have ever seen. Ended up with Brit amateur (got in with a $1000 tourney win) and Tuan Le. I lost count but I think that the brit had 1 river suck out with 3 players left and 3 more with head to head. Then Tuan hit his own river save to save his life. The PRO won, but really only luck luck luck at the end. The major chip leader had a major tilt. I guess it takes skill to consistently get to final tables, but darn I see the luck it takes to win them. Phil Ivey seems to play to aggressive at all the tables he gets too, but he also has some major crappy bad luck.

I appreciate all comments even if you all think I am just some donkey. All comments are interesting to me. Thanks.

Originally Posted by thenonsequitur

Originally Posted by uscheese

I'd say it's more like 70% skill vs. 29% luck...

70+29=99. The other 1% is cheating? Or does cheating count as skill?

I left the other 1% out for an awesome punchline but just couldn't produce one. It's a punchline to be named later at this point.

The problem with this thread is that luck + skill does not = 100% - you just can't meaningfully measure it in this way.

The only way you can measure it, in my opinion, is to use luck as a base level with every player having the same luck variable. Let's say each player has 100 luck points and we're playing Heads Up poker with each player having 8BBs - the example only works in a defined situation (because heads-up with 3BBs each would involve vastly more luck, and 100BBs each vastly more skill)

Now, in order to get an even slightly meaningful figure, we have to add on top of this skill points. This is where it varies hugely - let's say Phil Ivey has 140 skill points, Fnord has 60 skill points, I have 20 skill points and I R Noob from the $10NL tables has 5 skill points.

So, me vs Ivey is 120 vs 240, meaning I win 1 time in 3. This may be overestimating my edge here, but good cards or a lucky river could very easily end the game - we only have 8BBs to play with, it's mostly push/fold stuff.

Me vs Fnord - 120 vs 160. I am now winning 3 out of 7 times - he's still clearly the better player, but this time we're in the same ballpark at least. Luck remains a big factor, but his edge means playing me is most definitely +EV.

Me vs the Noob - 120 vs 105. With apologies for the silly figures, I am winning roughly 8 in 15. My skill advantage over the noob is real but it's getting marginal here - I don't have sufficient skills to overcome the luck factor often enough to be able to proclaim a significant practical edge.

Ivey vs the Noob - 240 vs 105 - Ivey is winning about 70% of games, but with the blinds this big his skill advantage over the noob is less of a deciding factor.

And so on. Perhaps if the Blinds were 100BBs, Ivey's skill factor goes up to 1000, Fnord's to 500, Mine to 300, Noob's to 50, while the luck factor remains at 100. Clearly, the better player is then winning far more games compared to before.

I hope this makes sense. Reading back, it seems a simpler way would be to say that in a heads up game (and I am just picking numbers out of thin air, so please don't debate their accuracy) the luck/skill balance is roughly as follows:

At 1BB each, luck/skill = 100/0
At 3BB each, luck/skill = 80/20
At 8BB each, luck/skill = 50/50
at 100BB each, luck/skill = 10/90

As you can see, these figures are ultra specific - two players with set blinds - and as soon as you get into the world of multiple players, moving blinds etc. etc. the variables become too abundant to make any kind 0f differentiation, and the laws of probability take over as the provider of the nearest you can get to concrete information about your edge.

biondino

I understand your sliding scale. So, the more skilled you are the less luck you need, and vice versa. I guess one of my ideas is that once you win one big one with luck or skill, you can enter more big tourneys and develop the skills.

Thanks.

Not to pass around the 2+2 Kool Aid, but in The Theory of Poker, Sklansky writes that the best players are at war with luck. Great players actually try to minimize luck as much as they can.

Most people who win MTTs do so because not only do they get lucky when they need to, but they make very few mistakes. The better a player you are, the more you can control the latter. A bad player will win the occasional MTT simply through fortune but never through skill. The great majority of the time the winner will have the skill and discipline to keep going during the periods when he's neither getting the cards or the luck.

Originally Posted by Senator7

Not to pass around the 2+2 Kool Aid, but in The Theory of Poker, Sklansky writes that the best players are at war with luck. Great players actually try to minimize luck as much as they can.

This is a logical truth - because they are the best players, luck is the only variable not in their control which is just as likely to arbitrarily favour the less skilled. But I'm not sure how they can be at war with luck when they must acknowledge that even when they're playing their absolute A game they WILL need slices of luck on multiple occasions if they're to win a big MTT.

Originally Posted by biondino

The problem with this thread is that luck + skill does not = 100% - you just can't meaningfully measure it in this way.

The only way you can measure it, in my opinion, is to use luck as a base level with every player having the same luck variable. Let's say each player has 100 luck points and we're playing Heads Up poker with each player having 8BBs - the example only works in a defined situation (because heads-up with 3BBs each would involve vastly more luck, and 100BBs each vastly more skill)

Now, in order to get an even slightly meaningful figure, we have to add on top of this skill points. This is where it varies hugely - let's say Phil Ivey has 140 skill points, Fnord has 60 skill points, I have 20 skill points and I R Noob from the $10NL tables has 5 skill points.

So, me vs Ivey is 120 vs 240, meaning I win 1 time in 3. This may be overestimating my edge here, but good cards or a lucky river could very easily end the game - we only have 8BBs to play with, it's mostly push/fold stuff.

Me vs Fnord - 120 vs 160. I am now winning 3 out of 7 times - he's still clearly the better player, but this time we're in the same ballpark at least. Luck remains a big factor, but his edge means playing me is most definitely +EV.

Me vs the Noob - 120 vs 105. With apologies for the silly figures, I am winning roughly 8 in 15. My skill advantage over the noob is real but it's getting marginal here - I don't have sufficient skills to overcome the luck factor often enough to be able to proclaim a significant practical edge.

Ivey vs the Noob - 240 vs 105 - Ivey is winning about 70% of games, but with the blinds this big his skill advantage over the noob is less of a deciding factor.

And so on. Perhaps if the Blinds were 100BBs, Ivey's skill factor goes up to 1000, Fnord's to 500, Mine to 300, Noob's to 50, while the luck factor remains at 100. Clearly, the better player is then winning far more games compared to before.

I hope this makes sense. Reading back, it seems a simpler way would be to say that in a heads up game (and I am just picking numbers out of thin air, so please don't debate their accuracy) the luck/skill balance is roughly as follows:

At 1BB each, luck/skill = 100/0
At 3BB each, luck/skill = 80/20
At 8BB each, luck/skill = 50/50
at 100BB each, luck/skill = 10/90

As you can see, these figures are ultra specific - two players with set blinds - and as soon as you get into the world of multiple players, moving blinds etc. etc. the variables become too abundant to make any kind 0f differentiation, and the laws of probability take over as the provider of the nearest you can get to concrete information about your edge.

if we had an infinitely big sample the better player will win in the end.

AA vs 32o. if we play them against each other 1000 times which hand will win more often? definitely AA.
if we took 1,0000000000000000000000000........ sets of these 1000 hand competitions. maybe 32o would win more than AA 1 time. but probably not.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

rubbish. poker is 100% skill 0% in the long run. in the short term i agree it could be up to 40% luck

That doesn't add up. If any part of poker is luck, 1 hand, 1 session, 40% short term, you can never be 100% skill. But I know what you meant.

it's like saying what are the chances that a coin will not land on its head or on its tail? but on its side. the chance is 0. maybe its 0.000000000000...00000000001. but that is basically 0.

i'm not replying to this post anymore. but if you took an infinite sample skill will win 100% of the time. and that's what it's all about - the long run.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by varena

I think that what makes the pros get into more final tables really comes down to the fact that once they win one big tourney, they have stakes to enter tournies for a long time. The regular joe cannot afford 10k entries that often. Someone that won a million plus, can enter for a long time before loosing any money. The more you play, the more chance you have to win (and you will develop the basic skills).

chris moneymaker is a prime example of someone who got lucky in one tournament, but long-term, has done nothing. sorry, but i have to disagree with your premise.

he actually has had a big cash or 2 since then. do you know how much he plays? do you know where he plays? do you know what all of his results are?

i've seen him play on poker superstars and gsn (battle of the sexes against other pros); enough to know that he is not as good as other players. he got busted out on gsn and did not make the playoff round on pokersuperstars.
since you are asking for specifics, what were the big cash or 2 that he won since wsop?

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Originally Posted by varena

I think that what makes the pros get into more final tables really comes down to the fact that once they win one big tourney, they have stakes to enter tournies for a long time. The regular joe cannot afford 10k entries that often. Someone that won a million plus, can enter for a long time before loosing any money. The more you play, the more chance you have to win (and you will develop the basic skills).

chris moneymaker is a prime example of someone who got lucky in one tournament, but long-term, has done nothing. sorry, but i have to disagree with your premise.

Post #1, let the defense rest your honour.

i guess since it was my first post, i'm not worthy to comment. u are such a genius.. what was i thinking?

Originally Posted by varena

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Post #1, let the defense rest your honour.

i guess since it was my first post, i'm not worthy to comment. u are such a genius.. what was i thinking?

I'm pretty sure that was a joke. Like he meant "hey OP (original poster)", not "hey noob".

It was a harmless, quite funny joke

[quote="swiggidy"]

Originally Posted by varena

Post he meant "hey OP (original poster)", not "hey noob".

It was a harmless, quite funny joke

i apologize for overreacting.

it's cool

I am already loving this site. You guys crack my up, as well as have already made me think a little more about the game and my game within the game. If nothing else thanks to everyone for making me laugh!!

I was flipping channels tonight and came across a WSOP event with Chris Ferguson taking down a tournament. He was asked the question, "How much of poker is luck, and how much is skill."

I liked the way he explained it. He said something like, "On any particular hand it might be 99% luck and 1% skill. But over the long haul its about 90% skill versus 10% luck." He went on to explain why he thinks this, about putting his money in the middle when he's good, putting his money in the middle to get others to fold in the right spots, etc, etc...lots of things that have already been discussed here and elsewhere.

Originally Posted by varena

since you are asking for specifics, what were the big cash or 2 that he won since wsop?

off the top of my head i remember him placing 2nd in a WPT event (Bay 101 Shooting Stars) for like $200,000. Phil Gordon was 1st.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by varena

since you are asking for specifics, what were the big cash or 2 that he won since wsop?

off the top of my head i remember him placing 2nd in a WPT event (Bay 101 Shooting Stars) for like $200,000. Phil Gordon was 1st.

You've got the event right, but I'm not sure if he finished second or third because the final hand Gordon won the tournament on had three players in it.

Moneymaker is a solid player, but no one should confuse him with the likes of Ivey, Negreanu, Hellmuth, Mizrachi, etc. Put simply, there are quite a few pros that I would like to have my picture taken with or an autograph of, but Moneymaker isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Senator7

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by varena

since you are asking for specifics, what were the big cash or 2 that he won since wsop?

off the top of my head i remember him placing 2nd in a WPT event (Bay 101 Shooting Stars) for like $200,000. Phil Gordon was 1st.

You've got the event right, but I'm not sure if he finished second or third because the final hand Gordon won the tournament on had three players in it.

Moneymaker is a solid player, but no one should confuse him with the likes of Ivey, Negreanu, Hellmuth, Mizrachi, etc. Put simply, there are quite a few pros that I would like to have my picture taken with or an autograph of, but Moneymaker isn't one of them.

here's what i was looking for. he was 2nd...
http://www.tourney.com/stats/Chris%20Moneymaker.html

Good luck = positive outcome. Bad luck = negative outcome. Every time I have lost in a tournament it has been through bad luck. Its a part of the game. I can do everything right and play my odds perfectly but even a 95%-to-win shot still loses 5% of the time. Is it good/bad luck? No. Its a game of chance. That's why it's called gambling. As long as I come away from the table feeling like I made the correct move then lucky or unlucky Im still happy.

Originally Posted by vster

Every time I have lost in a tournament it has been through bad luck.

Lucky