25 replies to this topic

[TheReaper]

Over the holidays, during one of my many poker excursions, a debate broke out between a few members of our group of about 30 or so as to the ratio of skill vs luck in the game of poker.I steered clear of this topic as I listened to the others argue their many different philosophies, And honestly I don't think anyone came to any definate conclusions.So I figured I would appeal to the masses who visit this forum, (it is the best one I know of with the brightest poker minds), to help me solve this little equation, for those who are in the need to know!And Id also like to take the time to wish everyone a very happy and prosperous New Year, and I thank you all for you insight into this matter.

[dna4ever]

I have had this conversation with people before and you will never come to a concrete answer as the bottom line is the answer is a mixture of both. There is no question it is a skill game that has luck.It all comes down to odds. Over the long haul if you play the correct implied and pot odds and continually make +value bets you will be the longterm winner. You can never avoid that 1:23 river gutshot that gets hit on you (which some call luck, but really is just beating odds).Thats my spill anyways

[Spidurman]

Every single card that is dealt is 100% luck unless the deck is rigged. There is a 1/52 probability of that card being 2d and a 1/52 probability of it being As. As a poker player your job is to use hand selection (play good cards) and betting strategies (including folding) in order to get slightly above average results. No player wins every time or anywhere near that - the edge of the good player is very thin. Just to over-simplify things, two players will play a series of one hand 'tournaments'. Player 1 ("Daniel") has two red aces every hand. Player 2 ("Spidur") has two black kings every hand. Our first player will win 81% of the time in the long run. Personally I would be happy to get my money in with that sort of hand in almost any scenario. However, I know I'm going to lose 19% (1 out of 5) of the time. I might lose two or three in a row, but that's the random card factor addressed above. As to the exact skill/luck ratio - on any one card its total luck. On a hand, its a little less. And with every additional hand dealt, the luck gradually decreases.

[bdluss]

In the short term there can be alot of luck. Over the course of several poker sessions luck can play a big role in whether or not someone is a winner or loser in the short run. But, without question in the long run over the course of several months, years, poker career it is a skill game. Everyone over the long haul is dealt the same number of aces and 27 offsuit, it is how well you play that determines your long run success and therefor it is a skill game.

[dpianomn]

"I am a great believer in luck and I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get."Thomas Jefferson.I liked the post above about not getting lucky when that 1:23 gutshot hits, but rather beating the odds. Dave.

[AvoidReality]

I like many other people make a living from playing poker, if their was alot of luck involved i wouldnt be able to do this, like someone said earlier sometimes the best hand is going to lose but the odds will hold up and you will win in the long run, you dont get beaten by luck, you get beaten by odds and Probability.

[illpoker]

limit poker is a game of repetitive mathematical situations. With discipline (a learned skill), patience (a learned skill), and simple algebra (a learned skill) you can be quite successful in the long run. In the short run luck plays a big factor as was pointed out above. One card is luck, one hand is a little less luck, one session even less and a lifetime very little luck is involved.No limit has more skills like people reading and bet sizing, and the long term "luck factor" has to be close to zero, the short term luck factor (one hand or even one tournament) is huge because of the risk factor.omaha/8ob hi/lo seems like all luck to me but that's probably because I suck at it.-ill

[Smasharoo]

omaha/8ob hi/lo seems like all luck to me but that's probably because I suck at it. It is.There's much less short and long term luck in O8. Good players win money from bad players fairly quickly in O8 particularly PL. I'm constantly amazed there are any bad O8 players left in PL.There's a tremndous amount of luck involved in Holdem. Good thing too, because if there weren't bad players would loose quickly and not play anymore.People can play amzingly well and have bad weeks months and even YEARS playing holdem. Just the way it is. Having a bad decade though would be pretty hard.

[AvoidReality]

Smasharoo said:

omaha/8ob hi/lo seems like all luck to me but that's probably because I suck at it. It is.There's much less short and long term luck in O8. Good players win money from bad players fairly quickly in O8 particularly PL. I'm constantly amazed there are any bad O8 players left in PL.There's a tremndous amount of luck involved in Holdem. Good thing too, because if there weren't bad players would loose quickly and not play anymore.People can play amzingly well and have bad weeks months and even YEARS playing holdem. Just the way it is. Having a bad decade though would be pretty hard.

I think thats maybe abit over the top, look at stu ungar, played the WSOP NL Hold'em event 3 times and won it at every attempt, he couldnt have done that if a tremndous amount of luck was involved.

[360f1]

I think winng poker is not about being lucky, it's about not being unlucky.When all the chips go in and the cards flip over, if you are a skillful player, most of the time you should be ahead. From that position, you don't need to be lucky, the other guy does.Having said that, it still helps to be lucky enough to get good cards (and good flops) more frequntly than the statistical average, in any one session.

[Smasharoo]

I think thats maybe abit over the top, look at stu ungar, played the WSOP NL Hold'em event 3 times and won it at every attempt, he couldnt have done that if a tremndous amount of luck was involved.No, he couldn't have done that if a tremendous amout of luck WASN'T invovled.Do you see why?Anyway, he entered it more than three times.

[TheReaper]

Wow, thats way more feedback than I imagined. Very interesting stuff guys and as always thanks for the imput.

Quote

In the short term there can be alot of luck. Over the course of several poker sessions luck can play a big role in whether or not someone is a winner or loser in the short run. But, without question in the long run over the course of several months, years, poker career it is a skill game. Everyone over the long haul is dealt the same number of aces and 27 offsuit, it is how well you play that determines your long run success and therefor it is a skill game.

But the quote above speaks volumes to me and in my opinion makes the most sense. Otherwise we would have to consider Daniel one lucky s.o.b for winning all them tournaments on his way to winning the Player Of The Year title now wouldn't we .

[SLTS]

Stu Ungar is an exception. Ungar was simply...amazing. I'm not a very mushy person, but I'll be hoenst and say his stories simply take my breath away. The man was amazing at any time cards were in his hand, at any game. Poker, Gin, Blackjack, it doesnt matter. I'm sure peoplr have heard of him naming correctly ALL OF THE CARDS remaing in half of a 6 deck BJ. His instincts were uncanny. The man had incredible reading abilities, ever hear the Jack high story? I can't say enough about him, he amazed me at the time and still thoughts of him amaze me now. There will never be another like him. Hellmith even said of the 1997 WSOP. Once Ungar entered he said "It's a battle for 2nd." And he was right.

[Smasharoo]

Ungar was a genius, no doubt, but you could play with someone showing you all of your opponents cards and still be unlikely to win it.

[jayboogie]

you know it's really crazy how luck can change a session around. I play for a few hours and get stuck a few bills, then 2 hands changes it all and I end up being back up. I was having the most frustrating session getting Aces cracked 3 times, outdrawn on the river like 6 straight times, then I play 2 suited connector hands and hit 2 straights and make it all back. It's really crazy how fast luck can change, you can be running terrible and then just get lucky.

[SLTS]

Smasharoo said:

Ungar was a genius, no doubt, but you could play with someone showing you all of your opponents cards and still be unlikely to win it.

.Exactly, I encourage any of those of you new to poker to read up on the man. He is my poker idol. Many degrade him due to his gambling. He was a gambler, He won 10 grand in a gin tourny at 14 WITHOUT LOSING A SINGLE HAND. Yet he lost all the money a week later at the tracks. The first 2 times he won the WSOP he lost all the money within a week. He was amazing at cards, but a slave to gambling at games he could not beat, and the drugs that affected him. He could not sit through a meal at a casino cus he needed to get back to the gambling of action. He needed a constant high whether it come from gambling or drugs, his story is a sad one. But his poker abilities were unmatchable. People who watch Rounders here that semi-bull of "I can play it blind" I can honestly say I doubt anyone here could consistantly beat a game without even looking at their cards...Stu was the only person I've ever heard that could ACTUALLY do that. Now that I'm on the subject of Ungar I'll go for ever lol. He was a millionare that went broke, would touch cards and become a millionare and go broke again. Repeating the process hundreds of times. With cards in his hand at ANY game he was a winner, but he gambled them away at EVERY game available. He dropped over 10,000 g0lfing (he had NO idea how to golf at all). He had a major gambling and drug (he was always looking for a rush) problem. But he was unstopable any time he held cards.

[Smasharoo]

Exactly, I encourage any of those of you new to poker to read up on the man. He is my poker idol. Many degrade him due to his gamblingI think it was more the crippling coke habbit, never paying his debts and abandoning his daughter.Good poker player though.

[SLTS]

Smasharoo said:

Exactly, I encourage any of those of you new to poker to read up on the man. He is my poker idol. Many degrade him due to his gamblingI think it was more the crippling coke habbit, never paying his debts and abandoning his daughter.Good poker player though.

You are right, did you happen to be a poker viewr back in 97? He had that pic of his daughter? Then he killed himself with his drug habbit a week later

[TheReaper]

I guess I got some investigating to do. I had heard of Stu Unger b4 but never realized he was that good.Personally, I have always held high regard for Doyle Brunson and John Moss. If anyone has any real good links with info on Unger id really like to get them and read up on this man you guys call your idol.

[tilted]

I believe luck is very important to win!Signed Greg Raymer