Comments on: Skill vs. Luck in Poker

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:43:00 +0000

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?

By: Bogie Bob

Bogie Bob — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:29:27 +0000

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.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:49:42 +0000

@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.

By: Both Parties To Blame for Liberty-Restricting Poker Ban | Conservatives for America

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 15:31:39 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Tim Laws

Tim Laws — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:58:24 +0000

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?