Luck, what percentage?

I was just wondering if there was a general consensus as towhat percentage of holdem Poker play is attributted to luck, around 25% is my guess?

do you really think there is a certain percentage of luck? Luck has no percentage.

Define luck, in context.

5% luck, 5% skill, 90% rigged in your favor

You lot are puposley being vague, u know what I mean in context.

Poker is a game of skill and luck, it`s impossible to say mathmatically (even if I could spell it) but we can hazzard an intelligent guess as to what % is skill and what % is luck, can`t we?

Ok I`ll re-phrase;
What % of your game do you regard as skilled play as opposed to lucky play?

Actually, putting it that way I think I would estimate it more Skill-90 luck-10. I don`t have that many lucky escapes, but then again, I have plenty of hands I should of won according to the odds that lost through bad luck. so I`ll stick to my original estimate of 25% luck 75% skill after all.

I guess the extent of the luck part of a persons game depends on how s\he plays as well.


I wish I hadn`t started this thread now,it`s way over my head

Do a search, my man. I'm pretty sure there are several older threads about this.

Gotcha, lol.

In reality, almost any number you could come up with could be justified.
I prefer to think of it like this;

If I play correctly I will be able to manipulate luck somewhat, I can not make luck.

The skill is in how to manipulate luck so that even when that luck goes the other way, I don't feel like I did it wrong.

Your context is still unclear since you use the word "play" too vaguely. If by "play" you mean Hold 'Em as a whole (infinite hands), "luck" would be 0% since everyone's "luck" would balance out over a period of infinite runs. However, "play" could also mean 1 tournament, 1 cash session, 1 month, or 1 good run. Thus, "luck" can not be given a number without very specific context.

ex: One tournament is about 90% luck and 10% skill, one year of poker play may be 10% luck and 90% skill, etc.

QFT except I don't think the 'one tournament' part is an accurate percentage. I would lean towards a higher number only because the better players have a firm grasp on stack preservation and applying advanced maneuvers unlike the vast majority of donks.

In the long term naturally I would agree with your estimate(s) but would lean toward even a higher percentage of skill vs luck. Over a giant sample size I think 'luck' as most people understand it becomes virtually irrelevant.

Yes I take on what you are all saying,
that luck (as we generally percieve it) evens out over time
so is therefore null.

So I guess that`s the answer then?
Poker is a game of pure skill only?

Which would mean only the best players would win nearly all the
time, barring the odd clanger and acts of god etc.

Why doesn`t that ttranslate to real life then?

Becaues the theory luck evens out over time may be more complex,
like the old saying "lucky in cards unlucky in love"
maybe luck gets spread around evenly over different aspects
of your life.

This could end up getting philisophical if we are not careful.

i don't agree w/that last post. clearly luck plays a part in winning, but you can't control that. i think it's one of those things that over time the better players will tend to win more, but there will still alays be times when they lose because of luck. it's just like gambling in vegas. take craps. you may get there to the table at the right time and win and leave with money. luck plays a part. but over time, the casino will always make out ahead. just like poker. over time, the better players will do well. but there will be times the not as good ones will win.

Let's not be ridiculous. "Luck," as defined in the game of poker, means tendency of events to be positive from your perspective (you being dealt better cards than your opponent - or otherwise favoring you). Over an infinite number of hands, events would favor every player the same exact amount of times (luck is "divided" equally amongst all players, given that all players play infinite hands), thus meaning that skill would be the only true determinant of winning and losing. So basically, the pros WOULD win whilst your average Joes would lose over a period of infinite hands. Infinity is impossible to achieve, and since players generally play very few hands in one given session (relative to infinity), the player who has the most "luck" (the player whom the cards have helped most in the session) may win more money than the more skilled player. In other words, in poker, luck outweighs skill in the short term, but skill outweighs luck in the long term (to quote Zen and the Art of Poker: the long run is longer than you think --> may be more than a lifetime of play).

Saying that "luck is spread evenly" outside of the poker world makes no sense, since "luck" may only be defined within a certain realm to be dealt with properly (how can you compare someone being lucky in cards (receiving good hands etc) to someone being lucky in love (being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right person)?) Luck must be dealt with contextually, and not as some type of ethereal force that "chooses" certain individuals or something of the sort, to be discussed intelligently. Otherwise I could just say "God chooses Jerry Yang to win the Main Event thus the game of poker is '100% luck,' because whoever God chooses is lucky.")

Know what I'm sayin'?


@ Ripptyde: Those numbers weren't serious - I was just trying to give an example of luck weighed against skill in a real context.

I believe that poker is a game of skill only...

Most people who say that poker is a game of luck and that they were unlucky to be involved in a bad beat are missing one point. We all know that AA is not a favourite to win against any other hand 100%. And that 72o will win, and has to win against AA at least some of the time. Therefore bad beats are part of the game.... they are not unlucky they are just statistical probabilities.

If AA was to hold up every single time then that in itself would be lucky and make it a game of luck. Good players can loose in poker in the short term and not because of an unlucky session but because of the fact that the best hand statistically MUST loose some of the time. Its not luck its part of the game.

That is where the skill comes into it, in learning the numbers and nuances of the game etc. And the bad news is that even if you have read all the books, played an infinite number of hands and are now the best player in the world, you MUST loose some of the time with the best of it or you are unreasonably lucky and not skillful.

over 100k hands, 0%. in just one single hand can it be 99% luck.

Diamond that was an excellent post.

Poker is a game of skill. As far as luck is concerned I would just say that some days you get good cards and some days you don't. Trick to the game is to walk away from the table when your not getting good cards.

Can`t argue with you on this Diamond:

just google it......let me do it for you....


How Much Luck? How Much Skill?

- Ben Roberts

March 30th, 2007

If you've ever sat at a poker table, you've invariably heard the questions asked in the title of this article. While all serious players believe poker is a game of skill, they don't always agree on how skilful a game it really is. Some people believe the skill to luck ratio falls at somewhere around 70% - 30%, while others argue that the ratio is closer to 90% - 10%. If you ask me, however, I'll tell you something you won't hear from almost anybody else. Poker is 100% skilful.
Now, I know many of you are already skeptical about how I can make this kind of claim. What about bad beats? Or the times you're out-drawn on the river? How can I not figure these kinds of situations into my thinking? The fact is, I already have. Variance is part of poker and it would be highly unusual if bad beats didn't occasionally happen or if two-outers didn't sometimes hit on the river, as this would defy the laws of probability. The fact is, these kinds of events should have less of an impact on your overall results the more you play.
If you only play a few hands or a few hours of poker at a time, luck will undoubtedly play a bigger factor in your results than if you play regularly. For example, let's look at a player who puts in eight hours a day, five days a week, for 50 weeks per year, which is equivalent to 2,000 hours at the table. Assuming this is a solid, smart player who doesn't vary his or her stakes throughout the course of the year, I believe their talent will outweigh the effect of luck to ensure that they produce positive results year after year. That's not to say this player won't run into the occasional rough patch or have losing sessions, but by sticking to their game plan, these occasional down-turns shouldn't adversely affect their bottom line.
In effect, all players get paid for every good decision that they make and penalized for their bad ones. By continuously making high-quality decisions over the course of so many hours, skilful players should make more good decisions than bad, and see their bankrolls grow as a result. I have done this for more than 33 years, and know many other professional players who have produced similar results for many years. What this shows me is that, over the long haul, luck is not only insignificant when it comes to your results - it's non-existent.
It takes a true professional to look at poker in this way, and I fully expect that many people will disagree with my conclusions. That's why I'm holding a scheduled chat session entitled "Poker - Luck or Skill" on Full Tilt Poker at 15:00 ET (3PM ET) on Saturday, April 7th. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about my position and further explain why I believe that, over the long term, luck has nothing to do with being a winning poker player.