More fuel for skill vs. luck poker debate

[jetset]

POKER IS MORE SKILL THAN LUCK SAYS ACADEMIC STUDY

Doctoral research claims empirical proof that skill is the main decider

The skill vs. luck debate regarding the game of poker was revived again this week by a report in Science Daily detailing the results of studies at the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland which apparently showed that skill is the deciding difference when it comes to winning.

Michael DeDonno, a doctoral student at the university carried out two poker-related studies with students which he claims provides empirical evidence that it is skill and not luck that dominates the game.

In the first study, DeDonno had 41 university students play eight games totalling 200 hands of turbo Texas Hold'em, a computerised simulation of ten-player hold'em poker. The majority of the students had little experience playing poker but half were given charts ranking two-card combinations from best to the worst and were told that professional poker players typically play only about 15 percent of the hands they are dealt.

The other half was given background on the history of poker but with no strategies and did not fare as well as the group who were given strategies. Before starting the study, 64 percent of the students personally opined that winning at poker was 50 percent luck.

'If it had been pure luck in winning, then the strategies would not have made a difference for the two groups,' claims DeDonno.

To statistically verify the results, DeDonno conducted a second study with students playing 720 hands. Again the group was divided and while all students improved their playing with practice, it was the section given strategies that continued to do better.

DeDonno found that students reduced the average number of hands they played from 27 at the beginning to 15 after they were given strategies, which improved their games and validated that ‘fewer hands result in improved performance’.

[Zoozie]

In the first study, DeDonno had 41 university students play eight games totalling 200 hands of turbo Texas Hold'em, a computerised simulation of ten-player hold'em poker. The majority of the students had little experience playing poker but half were given charts ranking two-card combinations from best to the worst and were told that professional poker players typically play only about 15 percent of the hands they are dealt.

This sounds like an Aprils Fool news. You are 1 day late Jetset! (I hope!!!!)

So he takes 41 totally unskilled poker players and then belives giving half of them a paper makes them 'skilled'... Besides the sample size is too small.
The right way would be to have 20 professionals and 20 amaturs playing lots of tournaments. And then see how often the landed in top 3.

Basically he had 41 unskilled players poker players and his result just showed they were all equally unskilled.

[SeattleSinner]

I'm not sure it's much of a debate. Math doesn't lie. The fact that their are still people out there who believe poker is a game of luck only makes it more profitable for those of us who know its not.

[chuchu59]

What they did not factor in is the (financial strength) of the players. I suppose that luck plays a bigger part when players with a small balance are pitted against others with a much bigger balance.

[Zoozie]

Real life poker in Denmark is not allowed outside the few B&M casino. It is legal to play online however. This is due to a recent trial where 3 stupid judges decided poker was a game of LUCK only. I compare this to the religious trials in the past where it was decided the earth was fat. So embarrasing this can happen in Denmark today. But in short the question wether poker is skill or luck has fundamental impact on poker in Denmark. Even Danish B&M casinomanagers testified it was only skill! (they of course want to monopoly poker)

Poker players was furious over this of course and want to play heads-up against the casino manager. It was just luck, right ? Also why does casinos then not offered as heads-up against a casino-dealer? (with a small rake of course...)

[GrandMaster]

If it is considered a game of skill, why is it restricted to casinos?

[Zoozie]

If it is considered a game of skill, why is it restricted to casinos?

I meant LUCK! And I have edited my post. Thanks for catching this.

[GaryWatson]

It's a lucky game of skill whereby the skillful players appear lucky and the lucky players appear skillful. To win you need both luck and skill.

In order of qualities required.

1) Luck & skill
2) Luck
3) Skill

In conclusion, to answer this question of luck or skill would be neither here nor there because I am rambling about nothing but if an individuals choices and actions can effect the outcome its skill. Also every competitive game has an element of luck. So it is neither one nor the other but both. So if it has an element of skill then it is a skill game even though some luck is involved.

I just felt like typing for the sake of it. testing out a new keyboard. Quite nice.

[winbig]

If it is considered a game of skill, why is it restricted to casinos?

If it was restricted to casinos, then why are there B&M card rooms in the USA that offer up games?

[guesswest]

We need a study to prove that skill is a factor in poker as much as we need a study to indicate that the sun rises in the morning. All you need to identify skill as a relevant factor in poker is to acknowledge that decision x can have more/less positive expectation than decision y. You have a royal flush and your sole opponent pushes in, do you call or fold?

Also, saying poker is x% luck and y% skill is a nonsensical statement, whatever x and y are.