It's all luck

[ponyboy]

I was at a family event last night and my brother in law's father was there. He's an arrogant know it all about most things and we all usually just shake our heads at some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth.

Someone brought up poker and instantly he starts talking about how it's all luck, there's no skill involved blah blah blah. Feeling like I need to defend my hobby I pipe in and state that actually it's mostly skill. Luck is involved to a certain extent but there is a lot more involved than the regular player realizes. He was not the type of person that likes people telling him he's wrong so he goes off on a rant and I just shake my head. I can't wait to actually sit at a table with him but that's another story.

How much luck do you think is involved with poker?

[a500lbgorilla]

He'll agree that there is a wrong way to play a hand. Folding AA preflop, shoving every time you get 72o, correct? So, if there is a wrong way to play, there's a right ways to play. If everyone played 'perfectly,' the game would be completely luck based. However, as some people may tend to make moves analogous to folding AA/pushing 72 (though not as clearly cut and dry terrible), those that make fewer bad moves will have an edge. Thus, one player could expect to win more money than his opponents at the same table on an infinite timeline.

Try that argument and tell me how it goes.

[ezosresyek]

hello shane, this is beta

[a500lbgorilla]

hello shane, this is beta

hi beta, please dont spam 10 post just to make the min post quota.

[Stacks]

He'll agree that there is a wrong way to play a hand. Folding AA preflop, shoving every time you get 72o, correct? So, if there is a wrong way to play, there's a right ways to play. If everyone played 'perfectly,' the game would be completely luck based. However, as some people may tend to make moves analogous to folding AA/pushing 72 (though not as clearly cut and dry terrible), those that make fewer bad moves will have an edge. Thus, one player could expect to win more money than his opponents at the same table on an infinite timeline.

Try that argument and tell me how it goes.

This. Hell of an argument imo.


And Rilla, What makes you this "beta" is gonna spam just so he can post a link?? I mean, I though that totally random introduction was a great first impression.

[givememyleg]

i agree with your brother in laws father

[a500lbgorilla]

He'll agree that there is a wrong way to play a hand. Folding AA preflop, shoving every time you get 72o, correct? So, if there is a wrong way to play, there's a right ways to play. If everyone played 'perfectly,' the game would be completely luck based. However, as some people may tend to make moves analogous to folding AA/pushing 72 (though not as clearly cut and dry terrible), those that make fewer bad moves will have an edge. Thus, one player could expect to win more money than his opponents at the same table on an infinite timeline.

Try that argument and tell me how it goes.

This. Hell of an argument imo.


And Rilla, What makes you this "beta" is gonna spam just so he can post a link?? I mean, I though that totally random introduction was a great first impression.

he's not going to spam. It's redgrape of old FTR lore.

[LuckySlevin]

Also of course the skill doesn't just come in knowing what hands to play pre flop but there's an amazing amount of skill post flop. Do I raise, check, fold? What am I up against? How many outs have I got? How many outs have my oponents got?

All of those things make luck vastly secondary to skill IMO.

You can create your own luck most of the time simply by folding weak hands. I assume he meant luck of the cards your drawn, but the weak cards your dealt have no impact in a cash game (or hardly any aside from the occasional blind) on your winnings providing you fold them in the right places.

I think in MTT's, or Turbo's luck is more relevent as you have a set amount of time before you're blinded out of the game - so some early good hands are useful. But even then if it comes down to it, a skilful player will take chances, push/fold etc depending on stack:blind ratio...

One other thing you could point out is the WSOP final table, if it was a game of luck everyone would have an equal chance of getting there, yet there are six poker stars professionals at the table.

Not to mention the likes of Phil Hellmuth who has 9 WSOP bracelets amazing how he defined the astounding odds to not only reach the final table but win the tournament 9 times, in a game that is purely down to luck.

[givememyleg]

phil hellmuth has won 11 bracelets, but they are all due to luck too

[LuckySlevin]

phil hellmuth has won 11 bracelets, but they are all due to luck too

BTW phil hellmuth page needs to get updated on site it says he's won 9!

[xptboy]

one individual hand could maybe be 90% luck: which hands you get

one orbit 80% luck: did you get any nice hands preflop

one session 50% luck: did you make good foilds when behind and win a lot of small pots, any bad beats/coolers? good enough reads to play good poker against villains?

a month of poker sessions = maybe 30% luck: did you go on a bad run of cards? good run? did you tilt?

after years of poker sessions: there's almost no luck, there's history between players and it all evens out as the best players are seen time and time again winning at tremendous rates

Doyle Brunson was "lucky" to win two main events with T2 and win 50 SnG's in a row, but he's a poker legend because time and time again he plays with and beats the highest stakes game.

In one session it's perfectly possible to get oneouterred time and time again, but in the long run, it'll all even out and you'll win big money.

[Deanglow]

The real answer is that people who do not post on/read internet forums about poker do not know shit about poker.

[Fnord]

I've been playing poker as a hobby for over 4 years now. Had a short run playing for a living.

I've had maybe 3 losing months. Never had a losing month where I put in a lot of hands or hours.

Then again I'm probably one of the most risk adverse nits on the site and my table/seat/quiting decisons put me in very good spots. I keep getting better at not chasing losses, quiting as loser with a loser image and putting in extra hours when people fear me.

Worst run at a single table: Just over 3 buy-ins. Left after a loose player stacked me twice in a row and got the best of me in couple other spots. Pretty sure I've dropped just short of 50 big bets at a limit table before.

Worst NLHE run: -12 buy-ins at 100NL 6 max. My game is sooo much stronger since then.

Worst LHE run: Probably around 175 big bets at 5/10 6 max. Crazy game with a crazy rake. If you count rake-back I probably lost half of that.

[Fnord]

If everyone played 'perfectly,' the game would be an online NLHE SnG, top 3 paid.

FYP

[spoonitnow]

The real answer is that people who do not post on/read internet forums about poker do not know shit about poker.

Rofl, not far from the truth with a relatively small number of exceptions.

[TonyB73]

I had almost this exact same argument with my uncle, who has the same type of personality. He'd watched a bit of WPT on TV and very quickly formed the view that poker is complete luck.

I apologise in advance for the long post, but I think the conceptual argument goes something like this (feel free to expand on the points and add in your own examples as required!).

Let's start with a game that is indisputably complete luck. Say, roulette. No-one has any control over which number is coming up next (assuming an unbiased wheel), so whether you win or lose is utter dumb luck. BUT, the other thing we know about roulette is that over the long term, the house will ALWAYS win. Why? Because of course it makes sure that the odds are skewed in its favour. When your number comes up you win 35x your bet, but because the number will only come up once every 38 spins on average (or 37 if there is no 00), over the long term you WILL lose.

Poker is like roulette insofar as the hand you get and the hand your opponent gets is utter dumb luck. Whether you would win or lose a particular hand at showdown is utterly out of your control.

The key here though is that unlike roulette, the chances of winning at showdown vary wildly from hand to hand, depending on the cards. And, also unlike roulette, the size of the return you can get on your bet also varies wildly, depending on how much you bet and what the other players do, and doesn't necessarily bear much relationship to the chances of winning at showdown. It will sometimes be much better, and at other times much worse. So, a player who picks his spots well and only puts his money in when the potential return on his bet is better than his odds of winning (ie. consistently makes +EV decisions), will have the odds skewed in his favour and will win in the long term. So how do you make +EV decisions? This is where part of the skill comes in - you calculate odds and probabilities, and only stick your money in when you have the best of it. Simple.

So my uncle then points out that calculating odds and probabilities is well within the capabilities of many people, and if everyone is doing it, they can't all win because its a zero-sum game (actually less than zero due to the rake). So you can do that perfectly and still lose over the long term. Aha, I says, thats where the other key characteristic of poker comes in, which is that it is a game of incomplete information. If all hands were played face up, you could always mathematically calculate your chances of winning at showdown and therefore the return on your bet you would need. But the fact is that you can't see some or all of your opponent's cards, so except for the extremely rare case that you have the stone nuts (or anti-nuts), you don't know exactly what your chances of winning at showdown really are.

This is where the other more important elements of skill come in - player reading, hand reading, bet types, bet sizing, etc, etc. And it works in at least two ways. First, the better you can read your opponent through betting patterns, tells, etc, and accurately put him on a range or hand, the more accurate your calculations will be and therefore the more +EV your decisions. Secondly, even better, a very good player can use these skills to take the cards right out of it on occasion. If you understand your opponents' style and tendencies, you can exploit them to get more of his money in if he has the worst hand, or get him to fold the best hand. And of course thats why position is so powerful - it gives you that extra piece of information (your opponent's action ahead of you) to help you make your decision. Doyle Brunson famously said in Super System that if he could have the button on every hand, he could beat most any poker player without even looking at his cards. This is ALL skill.

I think the best way to think of all casino games is as a series of betting situations that are created through various random and artificial means. Poker, like blackjack, uses cards to create those situations, while roulette uses a ball and a big wheel. For most of these games the house makes sure that your potential return if you win is ALWAYS less than the odds of winning. The single difference with poker is that the chances of winning are not always worse than the return for winning, and it takes SKILL to recognise and exploit those times that it is not.

That's why poker is a game of skill.

[donkbee]

If everyone played 'perfectly,' the game would be an online NLHE SnG, top 3 paid.

FYP

lol

[SoCalBruce]

Now, this, even to a noob like me, is a very interesting subject. The very thing that fascinated me about poker is, looking at it objectively, yes obviously there IS SOME luck involved, but if you study the game carefully, (as all of us here are trying to do), you will see, that as another poster said you can make "your own luck" by literally knowing when to fold em.

The loud mouthed uncle that watches WPT for a few minutes and declares its all "Luck?" I would have to laugh at the guy and tell him, well, it's a bit different then being at a table or even watching from the rail, because on the TV shows we can see everyone's hole cards, and therefore the TV audience knows, when someone has the nuts, is making a bad bet, bluffing and so on. Yes there IS some luck in re draws and suck outs, but for the most part, no. I would also tell someone like that well, I'd like to see you sit down at a table with those folks and see how long you last. lol

The unique thing about poker, as opposed to other table games is, you are not playing the "house" (casino) you are playing the other players. (Or their cards as some have told me). With high stakes 21 or Baccarat, the house has a big interest if you win, its "their" money. While it can be argued you can win at these games if "you know what you're doing" they are (based upon an honest deal by the casino) mostly luck vis. what card comes out next. Sure some peopne can "count cards" but when you're talking about multiple deck shoes, and all that, well my brain sure isn't big enough.

However, though I presently am terrible at poker, I know that with practice I can learn the game, not just what to do, but when to bet on which hands, when to raise, how much, position, and all that. From what I have seen so far, you never stop learning. But it's knowledge, and skill, mostly, in my opinion.

Luck happens too, though, I have played 7-2 suited, and got trips a couple of times, and got A-K and missed the flop completely. But, how often does that happen?

[RockyMoose]

Name the top roulette players in the world? Name the top slot machine players? Anyone?

You can't. There's no skill involved. Now name 5 famous poker players! No sweat. That's because poker has a large element of skill to it, and certain players will stand out.

Similar to backgammon and bridge, it is a game that combines skill and luck. There are many variants of poker, and one of the reasons hold 'em is so popular is that it has a very nice balance of incomplete information and skill. Two hole cards, 5 common cards . . . what a sweet spot of short term variance and long term skill! There is skill and beauty in giving your opponent the wrong odds to call your bet, thus putting him in a lose-lose situation.

Do a google search for "Annie Duke's testimony before the House of Representatives" last year and you'll see a very compelling argument for how poker isn't a mere game of gambling.

This is nothing we don't already know, but it makes for good ammunition and lively conversation when discussing luck vs skill with people unfamiliar with the game.

[a500lbgorilla]

Guys, I owned this thread 17 posts ago.

[SoCalBruce]

[quote="Do a google search for "Annie Duke's testimony before the House of Representatives" last year and you'll see a very compelling argument for how poker isn't a mere game of gambling.

This is nothing we don't already know, but it makes for good ammunition and lively conversation when discussing luck vs skill with people unfamiliar with the game.[/quote]

Oh, GOD there's the problem with about 84% of life. If the idiot politicians would stay out of our lives, life would be so much better, and easier. Remember when adults could make their own decisions? Now, they're getting ready to regulate what we eat. I hope Annie gave them hell. A "mere game of gambling" UGH. We should get a march together on washington. Tell those bastards to get out of our bedrooms out of our kitchens and out of our pockets. Because of THEM, I can't easily put a deposit on PokerStars and play for real money. Because of THEM I can't enjoy a fine cigar without paying three times the MSRP due to taxes. Because of THEM people that sell products or services they dont like or cant tax, lose their businesses and can't feed their familes. I wish they would invite ME to testify.