Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is poker a game of chance or skill?

math.tau.ac.il

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Is poker a game of chance or skill?

#21

Post by tptacek »

ThomPete wrote: post #14
skinnymuch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything that isn't? Sure poker has more luck than other things, but to just boil it down to simply saying 'luck and skill' seems wrong.

Chess

Hey, message board geek? (And, I'm calling you that because it takes one to know one.)

We know there are things that have little to no luck involved in them, and things that have a lot of luck in them. Yes: there is more "skill" (let's not have the message board geek argument about what that word means) in chess.

Exactly what is the point you're trying to make?

Re: Is poker a game of chance or skill?

#22

Post by ThomPete »

tptacek wrote: post #18
ThomPete wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly a proper comparison.

Perhaps! But at least it's something we can attempt to discuss. As opposed to whether or not "luck" is a component in something, which is just a message-board dork argument.

You seemed to be the one who made the grand statement about it being a game of skills.

How is me saying that it's both skills and luck a message-board dork argument? Pray tell.

The point is that there are games that are not luck. Such as chess or go then there are games that are pure luck such as drinking games with highest card drink.

Re: Is poker a game of chance or skill?

#23

Post by tptacek »

Apreche wrote: post #5

This article is correct, mathematically, from what I can tell. However, the author seems to not understand the meaning of skill. Apparently to the author a skilled player is one who knows and plays all the odds correctly whereas an unskilled player plays randomly, or sub-optimally. If all players are equally knowledgeable of all the probabilities involved, then the game is a game of luck. A true game of skill is one…

There is luck involved in boxing. There is much less luck involved in boxing than there is in poker, because poker is a game that is about managing risk and uncertainty.

Chess and Go may be "pure skill" games, but there are very few popular games, sports, and practices that are similarly pure, and so the notion of how valuable or important "skill" versus "luck" is becomes murky.

Re: Is poker a game of chance or skill?

#24

Post by tspiteri »

ThomPete wrote: post #6
Apreche wrote: post #5

This article is correct, mathematically, from what I can tell. However, the author seems to not understand the meaning of skill. Apparently to the author a skilled player is one who knows and plays all the odds correctly whereas an unskilled player plays randomly, or sub-optimally. If all players are equally knowledgeable of all the probabilities involved, then the game is a game of luck. A true game of skill is one…

Exactly. Chess is another example.

There is a good article about luck in chess here: http://www.chessninja.com/migonchess/migonchess005.htm

To quote a bit:

There is no "chance" on the chessboard, the pieces don't move by themselves. ... However, "extraordinarily improbable" things happen all the time.

Re: Is poker a game of chance or skill?

#25

Post by ThomPete »

tptacek wrote: post #21
ThomPete wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chess

Hey, message board geek? ( And, I'm calling you that because it takes one to know one. ) We know there are things that have little to no luck involved in them, and things that have a lot of luck in them. Yes: there is more "skill" (let's not have the message board geek argument about what that word means) in chess. Exactly what is the point you're trying to make?

That your conclusion is wrong. The correct conclusion would be that Poker is a game of both luck and skill.

I fail to see why that is by any metrics message board geeky but fair enough if that is what it is then by all means...

Re: Is poker a game of chance or skill?

#26

Post by tptacek »

ThomPete wrote: post #22
tptacek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps! But at least it's something we can attempt to discuss. As opposed to whether or not "luck" is a component in something, which is just a message-board dork argument.

You seemed to be the one who made the grand statement about it being a game of skills. How is me saying that it's both skills and luck a message-board dork argument? Pray tell. The point is that there are games that are not luck. Such as chess or go then there are games that are pure luck such as drinking games with highest card drink.

Since everybody already knows that games exist on a continuum from solvability to coin-flip randomness, you haven't contributed any insight to the discussion, but you're very intent on demonstrating to us all that you know that the continuum exists, and that at least 2 games you can name exist on the far end of that spectrum.

Re: Is poker a game of chance or skill?

#27

Post by tptacek »

ThomPete wrote: post #25
tptacek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, message board geek? ( And, I'm calling you that because it takes one to know one. ) We know there are things that have little to no luck involved in them, and things that have a lot of luck in them. Yes: there is more "skill" (let's not have the message board geek argument about what that word means) in chess. Exactly what is the point you're trying to make?

That your conclusion is wrong. The correct conclusion would be that Poker is a game of both luck and skill. I fail to see why that is by any metrics message board geeky but fair enough if that is what it is then by all means...

I'm sorry. I've mishandled this. What I should have said to begin with is, "Yes, ThomPete, you are right, and I was wrong. Poker is a game of both skill and luck. Thank you for clarifying that for all of us; it would have been terrible indeed to let stand the incorrect notion that luck was not a factor in poker."

Re: Is poker a game of chance or skill?

#28

Post by yurisagalov »

ThomPete wrote: post #19
yurisagalov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not exactly correct. Poker is a game of probabilities, which means that it has built in varience, which people call "luck". In a game of poker where two "grand masters of poker" play againt each other in a vacuum (i.e. one tournament, or one hand, or whatever you want), the result may be determined by the cards alone. HOWEVER, as is the nature of varience and probability, given a sufficiently large sample of h…

Wouldn't that would mean an accumulation of grand masters that would then by an large win all tournaments in the long run. Is that in fact what is happening? Gus isn't winning every tournament. That might be due to the fact of other better players entering the game. But if your theory is correct wouldn't it mean that the more you play the better you become? It would seem to me that a game where so much information is…

Phil Hellmuth has 11 WSOP bracelets and 75 "in the money" (ITM) finishes

Doyle Brunson and Johnny Chan have 10 bracelets as well as 33 and 42 ITM finishes, respectively

Erik Seidel has 8 bracelets and 57 ITM finishes

Phil Ivey has 7 (two of which he got last year, and he final tabled at the main event as well) and 36 ITM finishes.

Daniel Negranau has 4, and 42 ITM finishes

and this is just in the WSOP. I'll leave the WPT tournaments to you to look up :-)

I don't know what's going on with Gus, I don't really follow poker much anymore, but I know he's still a formidable player, even if he's not winning as much as he used to. That being said, Gus isn't someone I'd consider a "grandmaster"

Playing alone does not make you better unless you strive to improve (this, at a high level means, learning. playing != learning in the game of poker. playing is definitely crucial, but you really need to review and study the hands and the players post mortem. This is very similar to chess, imo.)

The younger players coming in (i.e. Tom Dwan) have the stamina and energy to put in _serious_ hours that allow them to improve and adapt much quicker and faster than older players, it's just the nature of the beast.

Re: Is poker a game of chance or skill?

#29

Post by ThomPete »

tptacek wrote: post #27
ThomPete wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That your conclusion is wrong. The correct conclusion would be that Poker is a game of both luck and skill. I fail to see why that is by any metrics message board geeky but fair enough if that is what it is then by all means...

I'm sorry. I've mishandled this. What I should have said to begin with is, "Yes, ThomPete, you are right, and I was wrong. Poker is a game of both skill and luck. Thank you for clarifying that for all of us; it would have been terrible indeed to let stand the incorrect notion that luck was not a factor in poker ."

I see your point

Re: Is poker a game of chance or skill?

#30

Post by aquateen »

tansey wrote: post #17
Apreche wrote: post #5

This article is correct, mathematically, from what I can tell. However, the author seems to not understand the meaning of skill. Apparently to the author a skilled player is one who knows and plays all the odds correctly whereas an unskilled player plays randomly, or sub-optimally. If all players are equally knowledgeable of all the probabilities involved, then the game is a game of luck. A true game of skill is one…

I agree that the paper makes some naive assumptions. However, you seem to be equating poker to chess, which is a common but erroneous analogy. Poker is a MUCH tougher game (dozens of orders of magnitude, depending on the variant) than chess. We have no idea how close to optimal any human is at the game. Similarly, computer opponents can only play well in very limited settings like heads-up, fixed-limit Hold'em, where…

I am not sure how you quantify toughness, but this is the worst use of "orders of magnitude" I've ever seen.

More so, since I have spent a nontrivial percentage of my life playing both games.

Post reply on HN