Luck/Skill? Most important elements?

We are going to play a hypothetical HUNLE against Phil Ivey. All the normal rules of poker will apply, and we'll add the following additional rules:

1) Phil Ivey cannot look at his cards.

2) We cannot look at our cards.

3) All bets must be "all-in"

4) First to act must bet.

5) Second to act must call.

So basically, we're just going to deal two hands, put all the chips in the middle, and see who wins... 100% luck, right?

If Ivey were allowed to change this game, one rule at a time, which rule, would he want to change/eliminate first? What is the minimum amount of rule changes he would have to make to be able to implement skillz?

Combining two other threads?

Poker...more luck or skill?

http://www.cardschat.com/f13/most-im...-poker-190088/

Phil Ivey cannot look at his cards, then first to act must bet. This leaves him being able to look at his cards, see if they are above average and whether to bet or not. If he decides to bet second player must call and it must be all in. Its statistical win win

Maybe...

The luck/skill question/debate needs definitions of luck and skill. That's tough using poker as a framework because it has elements of both... Maybe by starting w/ a game that is 100% luck, and making incremental changes, we'll be able to see when/where skill comes into the picture?

Then, maybe, we'll be able to develop a hierarchy of skills/elements?

If he chose 1) first (ie - he can look at his card), wouldn't he then simply be able to look at his hand and determine whether it had better than 50% equity again an ATC range, then simply shove or fold based on the preflop value of his hand.

Win money in the long run this way.

Basically exactly what I put then lol

No, because rules 3, 4 & 5 mean that both players must shove even if they do know their hole cards. If you eliminate any two out of rules 3, 4 & 5, then you have a game where the best psychic has the advantage.

I see that the idea of rule 1 or 2 was talked about a few years ago:
Ever played without looking at your hole cards?

I've played a play money SNG where I covered my hole cards and it was an interesting experience. Though it probably doesn't work well if your opponent knows that you aren't looking at your hole cards.

I think he would change rule 2 first meaning his opponent had to look at his cards. The stress on opponent would be devastating.

Phil is like Chuck Norris, he can't lose with that edge.

And this approach to the never ending 'is poker luck' or 'luck vs skill' 'discussion' seems refreshingly twisted........
and I use quotes too much....

The fact that he does not have to shove to play. He does not need to look at his cards. He just needs to be able to bet/call/etc. Then it goes to you looking at your cards and then him looking at his cards. It more important what you have than what he has.

Eliminate rule 5 first. Giving Ivy the choice Would add much to his prospects of winning. Then rule 3 to agin increase his options. then rule 2, Ivy's ability to read players come to the fore. This is all the help he needs.

I think Phil should take this route as well. He wants to be able to decide whether or not to bet. He wants to be able to look at his cards, calculate his equity against ATC, and then decide between shove/fold.

So, we'd have to eliminate Rule #1, and change Rule #4 to: First to act must bet/fold. Right?

We stumbled on two skills here (I think)... estimating our hands equity against our opponents range and deciding if we should bet.

But, do these changes make our hypothetical game a game of skill? More so than... Roulette?

I could learn the odds Roulette offers (estimating equity) and then decide not to play (fold)... Is not playing Roulette a skill?

Right, if they know that you don't know, then they can put you on ATC and play accordingly.

If we told Phil that he couldn't change Rule #1. Then he'd have to make a lot of changes to implement his skill set...

We'd have to be able to look at our cards. We'd have to be able to decide bet/fold. Actually, we'd probably have to implement an option for both players to call AND bet sizing options before it'd be more than "luck of the draw" for Phil.

After spending more than 3 minutes contemplating this I am sure that Phil Ivy would decide not to play under these conditions.

And he would laugh at anyone who proposed it.

That's debatable... I've read that he plays some craps, the game in the OP gives better odds than a craps table... but we could just assume we have him cornered on a flight to Australia and he's really bored.

These changes would certainly give Phil back his edge. But, we have to change 3 rules to get there. Eliminating Rule #1, and changing Rule #4 to: First to act must bet/fold introduces an edge into the game with fewer changes; better satisfying the second question in the OP.

As a prop bet with odds, I think he would do it. Might Phil take a bet at 2:1 odds that he could beat a series of random schmucks pulled from a 1/2NL table at a casino without looking at his hole cards? The schmucks can't know he's not looking at his hole cards, but if he hides the cards with his hands and goes through the motion of looking without actually lifting the corners it could work. (Only rule #1 applies)

I don't know if 2:1 odds are too high or too low. He obviously can't see many showdowns, and has to win a final hand by luck, but if he can build a big enough chip lead just by psyching the opponent out, then it could be an interesting contest.

What kind of odds would he need to try this against a pro?

You are changing the rules. Only rule 1 applies?

Any fool would take 2:1 odds on a prop bet, but even that fools would want/need to know what the rules are. Unless of course you pick 'Old Maid' players from a drunken alley. Remember that not only would he win his villains money, someone would be matching it via the 2:1 odds part of it. Effectively giving him up to 3:1 on a 50/50 situation.

I guess I didn't put enough detail into my post. I found rules 3,4 & 5 uninteresting since they reduce the game to pure luck. And I was assuming that the prop bet was large (Ivey has done multi-million dollar prop bets), while the non-pro would be playing for around $100. I see that the pros sometimes do this from this post: http://www.cardschat.com/f46/my-brag-story-190290/#post1644610

It doesn't work if the non-pro knows what is going on because he'll know Ivey is always bluffing, but if you chose to play Ivey for $100, would you complain if you found out afterward that he wasn't looking at his hole cards? Since the other player is really just a helper in the pro-bet, they could decide to pay him $100 win or lose. Either way, it would be too small an amount to affect the odds of a large prop bet.

So if 2:1 is too high, do you think he'd take the bet at even money? What odds do you think would be right? What if the other player was Daniel Negreanu? I think it would mess with his head if he couldn't come close to putting Ivey on a hand.

I'm too lazy to do math... but last line got me thinking.

Does having "an edge" necessarily make poker a skill game?

I mean, if I talk you into flipping a (biased) coin for dollars then I've got an edge. But once we start flipping... there's no skill involved.

It seems like, the most basic skills (most important elements) of poker are: estimating your equity and deciding whether or not to bet. If you have two or more players who are actively estimating their equity and deciding when/how much to bet THEN you have a skill game.

But if we go with the hypothetical game (OP), eliminate Rule #1, and change Rule #4 to: First to act must bet/fold... then Phil is really just flipping a biased coin.

I haven't had any coffee....

If Phil can see his cards and choose whether to shove or fold, and his opponent has to call, then yes, it's an extremely biased coin flip. Where's the fun in that?

The prop bet I proposed comes down to a contest of whether Phil's psychological/mental game can defeat an average player's mathematical one. I think I read somewhere that it's the skills in playing the opponent rather than just the cards that separate the pro's from the mere mortals.

A lot of the "rigged" crowd seems to come from players who say they do well live, but then suck at online play so it must be rigged against them. I suspect this stems from them being able to make up for weak math skills with better than average psychological ones. psychological skills don't play nearly as big a part in online play, and the math skills of their opponents are probably better than they're used to, so they're suddenly at a big disadvantage and can't understand why.