Skill vs. Luck in Poker
I had a very perplexing and heated debate with a poker pro a few weeks ago about the skill vs. luck argument in poker. The gist of the debate had to do with my making the assertion that poker is a game of skill. I know it sounds weird that that would cause debate with another pro. For sure, the general public might argue the point with me. But a poker pro?
The pro basically asserted the following: Yes, for winning players poker is a game of skill because they are good at determining their mathematical expectation and, thus, are playing with an edge. But most people are losing players. There are always people on the losing end of the transaction and those people are not playing a skill game but are playing to get lucky, playing at negative expectation. I know that on the surface his argument might seem compelling. Sure, if someone is playing at a negative expectation they might be trying to overcome that expectation and win anyway. They rate to lose and they are trying to thwart their EV. That I agree with. It is the leap that those players are not playing a game of skill, that for players playing poker at a negative expected value that poker is a luck game, that I don’t agree with. In fact, I couldn’t believe that a pro would ever claim that just because a player is not an expert that they are playing a luck game; that it is only pros who are playing a game of skill. Frankly, it is absurd to assert that the skill level of a player in any game, much less poker, has any effect on whether the game itself is a game of skill or not.
Take golf as an example. I think everyone can agree that golf is a game of skill. And the game has specific skill elements that we can identify, like putting and driving. As well, we can all agree that a player like Tiger Woods applies those skill elements very adeptly. Now what about a golfer who shoots a 120? Clearly, that golfer applies the skill elements very poorly. He is a poor putter and a bad driver of the ball. If we pit Tiger against this bad golfer, Tiger would win every time.
Here is the question I have for you, “Is the game of golf itself more of a game of skill when Tiger is playing it than when the 120 handicap golfer is playing it?” The question sounds completely absurd when I ask it about golf. Of course golf is a game of skill whether or not someone applies those skill elements well or poorly. The quality of the player has no bearing whatsoever on the absolute fact that the game is a skillful one.
What is interesting is that while that logic is so completely transparent to people when it comes to a game like golf or football or baseball or bridge, it is not completely transparent when it comes to a game like poker. I think because there is wagering involved. But think about it, the logic is exactly the same as the logic for the golf example. We can all agree that there are skill elements in poker like whether you bet, fold or raise at any given decision point, or how much you bet or raise if you make that decision. These are elements of skill and how well a player executes these skill elements determines the likelihood of winning or losing. As in golf, we can all agree that the top players, players like Erik Seidel and Phil Hellmuth, apply these skill elements very adeptly. But what about a player new to the game? Obviously, a new player to the game would apply these skill elements poorly, just as the 120 golfer putts poorly. And just as with golf, the fact that a new player applies these skill elements poorly has no bearing whatsoever on the absolute fact that poker is a game of skill. A player who is a poor decision maker at the table is, to be sure, executing the skill elements of the game of poker very poorly but even when a bad player is player the game, he is still playing a game of skill. He is just not playing it well.
So a poker player can be playing at a negative expectation and still be playing a game of skill. That there are bad players in the world actually reinforces the argument that poker is a game of skill in this sense: In a game of pure luck, like Baccarat, a player cannot be bad or good. The only decision in that game is whether to be player or bank and both decision have the same expectation. So one player cannot be worse than another since the only decision in the game that affects the outcome is neutral to the player’s expectation. In a skill game like poker, on the other hand, one player can be worse than another because there are skill elements, multiple decision points that do have a direct effect on a player’s expectation. In a pure luck game like baccarat or the lottery, no player can be worse than any other. Only in games of skill can there even be a tangible difference between players. Poker is one of those games.
I am a poker player and also know that poker is a skill game. But, for the sake of debate, here are few points. First, you stated a 120 golfer playing Tiger would lose every time, which is true. But would Seidel beat a losing player every time? I would be more like 80-20 or 90-10. Wouldn’t this say the skill factor is much lower in poker than golf? Second, all the skills you pointed out about poker would apply to most house card games. Like 3 card poker, Car. Stud, blackjack, etc. Also in games like craps or roulette, some bets, sucker bets, lower your EV. So players who avoid those sucker bets have more skill than players who make them. Are these games then also skill?
[...] is a game of chance, skill or both is ongoing. Professional poker player Annie Duke insists that it’s a game of skill. Freakonomics author Stephen Dubner says [...]
@Tim Laws: Applying the argument that a losing poker player can actually beat a winning poker player and therefore must be a game of chance seems plausible. But, where this argument falls short is in the matter of the long run vs short run expectation.
Using the golf analogy, if a ’120 golfer’ is pitted against Tiger Woods, and the game was that of long drive contest, it is very possible that an amateur could win in a single shot (Tiger drives it OB for example). Heck, it’s even possible that an amateur could beat Tiger in a match play competition over the course of an entire hole…even over the course of a few holes. But clearly, Tiger would win over the course of the long run every time. Just as a skilled poker player would win over the course of the long run when pitted against lesser skilled opponents.
Luck is totally random whereas skill is significantly less random.
Both are prevalent every hand and every tournament.
When pocket aces are cracked by 7-2 off that’s luck and when Hellmuth, Seidel, Chan and others win multiple bracelets that’s skill and luck!
CONCLUSION: Luck can determine who wins a hand but skill determines who wins the most cash and tournaments.
Ive been playing poker for 7 years.
It is not completely a game of skill like golf for example. Golf is likely the most skill requiring sport that one can imagine. The biomechanics are just everything in golf.
In poker, sure there is a lot of skill involved but there is also a lot of luck involved, even in the mid term. People have been known to run bad for months on end for example.
There is no doubt that poker requires a deal of skill to be successful and those that are a long term success with the game deserve an applause as their mental strength must be something else.
Anyone can gamble which poker is(gambling) but it must be the most skillful form of calculated gambling.
Anyway, because there is so much information available for poker players these days, the edges for a winning professional are slimmer making it even more difficult to sustain.
I beleive the game of poker comes down to self discipline, bankroll management and a healthy balanced lifestyle with everything else being equal(skill level similar between opponents).
The professional grinder can win small ammounts over time(on average). For those that understand the game well, I think they would be more well suited to tournaments where the edges are mostly similar to the professional grinder in this format.
Its a shame however, that poker doesnt do a great deal of positive for society and it anything has more detrimental effects, in my opinion.
But I guess if some people are the compulsive gambler type, if poker wasnt around, they would probably be that way with something else anyway?