How much luck do you think is involved in poker? Well now you know.

I've seen posts here and there where people asked how much luck and skill poker is, well I was reading BLUFF mag and apparently they did a study on it about a year ago. Thought I would share to those who never read this.



Full 16 page report here.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13710664/C...nalysis-Report

wow those numbers surprising, i need to quit folding.

Lol. I like how they get 88%

how does this work for low stakes games? Low stakes games see a lot more show downs because there are a lot more calling stations. Is there a lot more luck in a low stakes game?

Not more luck just bigger swings.

Isn't luck the reason for swings, I mean your usually not going through a down swing because all of a sudden your playing like crap, it's usually cuz ur cards aren't hitting as much.

That's a completely erroneous conclusion because it assumes skill was involved in every non-showdown win.

According to this so-called study, if someone is dealt AA and bets/raises it appropriately, and his opponent calls preflop with 89s but misses the board and subsequently folds, that's skill. Sorry, but that's complete BS! The winner got lucky and it was easy to keep betting his aces, and the loser failed to get lucky by not hitting the board. Really no skill involved there, unless it's turned around and the player who missed is clever enough to push the best hand off the pot.

In order for any conclusions drawn to be accurate, they'd have to analyze a lot more about non-showdown hands that just "uh, this hand didn't go to showdown so it must have been skill!"

I'm one thats always kinda hated the 'luck' factor in poker (the times I lose, of course), but never thought luck was a major part of the game, only a part. I agree, 88% is a very interesting percentage.

Yeah, I don't get how being dealt the best hand overall, but folding after the flop (because you hit nothing) implies that the others made you fold out of 'skill'

EDIT: Guess I said the same thing Roundcat said, before seeing his...

I don't believe this 88% luck maybe at low stakes.Btw is this study for online or live or both poker.

88% skill.

pretty incredible, I always thought it was something more in the range of 60% skills and 40% luck. I'm pretty sure that in micro stakes is more in the range of 70-30 favoring luck because of all the horrid players in the micro stakes.

This is really bugging me. OK, let's say 80% of hands that don't go to showdown are won by players holding the best hand. I think that's a reasonable percentage. So it could be argued that winning without showdown is 80% luck (for simplicity's sake, this assumes the players are playing their hands in a standard way). Luck would then account for 60.56% of all wins, and adding to that the 12% luck percentage cited above would = 72.56% luck.

Roughly 27% skill vs. 73% luck is still a huge skill factor. While it doesn't support an argument that poker is "mostly" based on skill, it creates a wide gap between poker and most gambling games, which are often 100% luck and 0% skill.

The 88% figure is just ridiculous. Was this study performed by people who actually play poker?

This is 12 percent luck 88 percent skill... 100 percent concentrated power of will (Willing that river to be a blank!)

No time to read the whole study now, but 10 million hands would have had to deal with either on of the sites, or a group of trackers who got together and merged databases.

So I would venture an educated guess that 103 million hands approaches statistical norms...

Am I brilliant or what?

The problem with the luck factor is that no one can define luck.

Many games I feel lucky that I get such rotten cards they offer no temptation to play them at all. I see that as good fortune, i.e. luck. Other times I get great starting hands and then brick the board.

So for anything like this to be valid, 'Luck' has to have a valid definition.

Um, luck does have a definition, lol.

It seems a bit of a stretch to call it 88% skill. Their reasoning is a little contrived, just cuz there ain't a showdown doesn't mean the person scooping the pot played with skill it just means his/her opponent didn't have the cards to call.

OK, I just read the whole article and have to agree, that according to the test parameters, which seem well thought out and relatively thorough, that Texas Holdem is 88% skill.

The skill seems, from my take of the analysis, to come from ones ability to somehow convince his opponents to fold the better hand.

This leads me to think that all those agrodonks we complain about so much are really on to something.

Stakes used in the study are not micro stakes for the most part and several (14) players corroborated the million hands provided by Stars during December 2008. The study states the data provided by Stars was accurate with just short of perfect confidence {99.9999%}.

They only define luck as being the deal of the cards. No mention about good cards bad cards, green cards or upside down cards.

Read it yourself.

The study has a foundation, but 88% skill if you take it at face value is wrong, there are very few fools in the online poker world that play any two cards, and at the very least most players that play a lot of cards play passively. If you played against a bot for example programmed to call and do nothing else on every street, you may have somewhere near an 88% skill edge.

What we look for in our games is a skill edge over our opponents, which by and large are minimal.

Yes, but the huge problem with this study is that it doesn't take into account the fact that in many (likely the majority of) non-showdown hands, the winners "convinced" their opponents to fold the worst hand. There's little to no skill in that.

Actually I know quite a few good players who really don't care what cards they are holding after the flop and can convince players with the better hand to fold.
I love it when they do it to me and show

You actually NEED Both, skill & luck,, Example> in the WSOP you need a run of 7 to 10 days of both skill & luck or you`ll never win it,, thats just my opinion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,buck

I will pretty much open raise this from any position and three bet it from late positions.

EDIT: nvm read you wrong

So, taken at face value, we all need to determine just what those elements of poker skill are. Tis why we join forums right?

And if we concentrate on how we can convince our opponents to fold, we will accomplish that task.

Live table can't count here because there are poker faces to deal with. I for one think mine sucks...tis too pretty and expressive.

Online we have few tools. The raise and continuous pressure are the big ones. Sneakiness is another. Intimidation. Many will say position, but from my read of the results, it is not necessary to worry so much about position if you 'overagress' the rest of the table.

Playing the right stakes might be an important tool, for we all know that the micros can't count for much either. I have long thought that I am not bankrolled for the games I could probably do very well in.

It is important to understand that that study DID NOT deal with tourney's. It dealt with ring only.

No argument about the value of skill and betting in the long haul.

But, next to impossible to give luck/skill a % value using math.

I have to really question the methodology and conclusion (not the math, formulas or information provided) of this study.

It's obvious to all here that there is a lot more to poker than who had the best hand, especially when you don't get to see the cards.

The fact that you ended up having the best 5 card hand and didn't win a hand is meaningless.You have to make a decision before you even see a flop. Because you would have drawn a straight, and won with a 2-7 starting hand isn't indicative of anything. The study seems to imply that somehow players with the best finishing hand should win a larger % of hands.

To evaluate the game properly, I believe you need to break up the hands into separate parts. Let's do a preflop study first. A game in itself without a card being turned over. Bets, re-raises, check-raising stealing blinds etc. Those 2 cards you are dealt are a huge indicator of how long you will be in the hand. After the flop, more and more of the same.

This reasoning for the conclusion on his part alone taints the results of the study.

Having said that, just based on observation and experience, it would seem to me that skill, heart, knowledge and experience in this game heavily favor the better players over a period of time.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that can truly say that in the times that they made a final table, and then went on to win,pretty much did have some luck involved, you have to have some luck to be dealt some great cards then you need skill to get as many chips as possible out of these hands, heck I've been dealt pocket A's and then everyone folds,and I've been unlucky enough to lose 13 times straight when I was dealt pocket A's and I played them every which way you could an still lost ?you know I'd say the heck with luck an skill, poker is just a gamble if you ask me you never really know if your gonna win or lose!!!

Luck or fortuity is a belief in good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance, and attributed by some to reasons of faith or superstition, which happens beyond a person's control.
Luck refers to that which happens to a person beyond that person's control.
Luck as a self-fulfilling prophecy, In personality psychology, people reliably differ from each other depending on four key aspects: beliefs in luck, rejection of luck, being lucky, and being unlucky. This is clearly likely to be self-reinforcing one way or the other depending on the persons outlook.
It cannot be shown that luck actually exists, hence luck is nothing more than a word used by one in an attempt to explain events of which one is informed or which one witnesses and are unable to understand those events.
Here is my example of luck: I am dealt K8 off in BB and several players call, just as I go to click on the "check" button, the last player goes "all-in" and just as I am clicking on the "check" button it changes under my pointer and I click the "call" that puts me all-in. There are three other players that call the "all-in" and all have better starting hands but my K8 wins. I think that is a good example of luck. Now turn it around and K8 lost would you call that bad luck, maybe stupidity for not being patient but that has happened and the above is a real example. So even if it is a stupid mistake win or loose it is an example of luck, if you think luck is a good word.
Games
A Game may depend on luck rather than skill or effort. For example, Chess does not involve any random factors such as throwing dice, while Dominoes has the "luck of the draw" when selecting tiles.
Lotteries


A National Lottery "play here!" sign outside a newsagents on the Euston Road, London.
Many countries have a nationallottery. Individual views of the chance of winning, and what it might mean to win, are largely expressed by statements about luck. For example, the winner was "just lucky" meaning they contributed no skill or effort.
Means of resolving issues
"Leaving it to chance" is a way of resolving issues. For example, flipping a coin at the start of a sporting event may determine who goes first.

Someone please let me know when they figure out what to do with a percentage of luck vs. skill.

Until then, just accept the tried and true statement:
In the short term, poker is about luck (this includes any tournament, no matter how big or the format).
In the long term (100,000's to millions of hands), poker is about skill.

Obviously, in the short run poker is about skill too, but your winrate will still be primarily be determined by your swings.

I agree. People who fold 59 offsuit preflop only to see a board of 559KQ somehow lost because they weren't skillful enough? The study should only take into account post flop hands. (I may be wrong, but I think the study looked at hands that were folded preflop also)

I had a hand today that was the combination of bad luck and bad skill on my part. I had KK on SB. I open raised to 3bb. Got called, and the flop was 10J6 rainbow. I lead out with a sizeable bet. Got called. Turn is a 6h. I bet almost the size of the pot again. Got called again. Then the river comes another J, and I knew I was beat.

I checked it. He shoves all in. Now, if I played this correctly I should fold because I was almost certain he has a J. I only had a lil more than $1 left, and I was getting more than 3:1 to call, so I did. He had J10 and had me on the flop.

It was bad luck that he beat me even though I was 4:1 at least against him going in, but it was bad skill in that I could not fold my KK.

I am down 5 buy ins in the last week because of hands like this. I would get QQ to AA but fail to lay it down even though my gut said I was beat. Yeah it's really shitty luck that 4 out of 5 times I've gone in with the superior hand I've been outflopped, but it's my own fault that I couldn't limit my losses.

I kept track - Of the last 11 times I went to showdown with the QQ-AA, I lost 8 times. Most of them were all in preflop, but of the 3 that I could have folded and saved maybe 1/3 to half my stack, I didn't.

It was going bad before that (that's why I began keeping track), so my run has actually been a little worse. I dunno the exact stats before I kept track.

Wow-poker 88% skill? Wonder how Backgammon and chess rate then

Chess has no luck what so ever.

Short term 1% skill 99% luck.
Long term 1% luck 99% skill.
Thouse are obvs just completly arbitual numbers with no real meaning + the fact that how long the long run is can be debated alot.

Also i think this whole study is pretty lol worthy.

Yes and no. There are frequently situations in which players choose among situations that seem equal to them, but are in fact of widely different values. That's why you are encouraged to seek complicated positions against superior players. It introduces more luck into the outcome.

It is 99% luck when you are playing me.

Very interesting. Thank you for posting this.

Now I just need to convince other people who never believed me when I said that it's not 100% luck :P