Poker, Skill or Luck? what %

I say poker is mostly about luck, u gotta be luckyto even get a decent hand, i say its: Luck=80%
Skill=20% LOL.

more like skils=85% Luck=15%

It depends.

Short term, 85% luck, 15% skill.
Long term, 1% luck, 99% skill.

Thing this sums it up preaty well

I think that is correct. ^^^

(And for the record, tourneys have a bit more luck factor than ring games where there is very little long term luck)

a billion percent skill and a billion percent luck

THATS TWO BILLIONS

I'll drink to that - but then, I'll drink to most anything ...

Actually, I do not drink and I really do agree with the poster above.

short term... 80% luck, 19% skill... 1% missclicks...
long term... hope to live to tell it...

Terrible assesment in my opinion. There is luck in a poker hand, but not so much in a given game, tournament, or poker playing career. To put a percentage to go it, your 80/20 split is probally about right, you just need to flip the skill and luck parts.
Also anyone who feels that "poker is mostly about luck" is probally no kind of player anyways. Also poker is a lot more than getting a "decent hand", if your not good enough to play different hands, change gears, mix up your aggresivness then its time to hit the play money tables.

I agree with you BuffaloDolly: the good player must be able to mix different styles, and most of all he must have a good reading on the other players at the table. This ability (reading of other players hand) is where the skill of a player can really make the difference.

If the percentage is 80/20, the skilled player is the one who can "Kill Luck" with his skill, and get money from other players with hands that are not the best hands at the table.

Bye
miz.

I agree Mizun, reading the opposition is the main factor and I didnt even mention that. Makes me wonder how some good players would do online, without ever seeing their cards. If you put something on the screen covering you cards but just took notes on other players, you could probally prove that there is less luck involved than some think.

When you can define luck, you will likely get good replies to questions like this.

Yesterday I played a big MTT where the cards were bad, but when they did come I got big gains. I latched on the my phrase of yesterday, which was "I'm not even getting cards good enough to lose money with". I ended up several steps into the money. With really poor cards. This would fit into a skill column. The bad cards into a 'bad luck' column.

I contend I skillfully manipulated bad luck! OR, was I lucky that the cards were generally so bad I couldn't be swayed into playing sub premium hands?

Define luck, and the answer will be self contained.

as amount of poker played approaches infinity, luck factor approaches 0.

great 2 articles from Annie Duke here read it..

Skill vs. Luck in Poker

I had a very perplexing and heated debate with a poker pro a few weeks ago about the skill vs. luck argument in poker. The gist of the debate had to do with my making the assertion that poker is a game of skill. I know it sounds weird that that would cause debate with another pro. For sure, the general public might argue the point with me. But a poker pro?
The pro basically asserted the following: Yes, for winning players poker is a game of skill because they are good at determining their mathematical expectation and, thus, are playing with an edge. But most people are losing players. There are always people on the losing end of the transaction and those people are not playing a skill game but are playing to get lucky, playing at negative expectation. I know that on the surface his argument might seem compelling. Sure, if someone is playing at a negative expectation they might be trying to overcome that expectation and win anyway. They rate to lose and they are trying to thwart their EV. That I agree with. It is the leap that those players are not playing a game of skill, that for players playing poker at a negative expected value that poker is a luck game, that I don't agree with. In fact, I couldn't believe that a pro would ever claim that just because a player is not an expert that they are playing a luck game; that it is only pros who are playing a game of skill. Frankly, it is absurd to assert that the skill level of a player in any game, much less poker, has any effect on whether the game itself is a game of skill or not.
Take golf as an example. I think everyone can agree that golf is a game of skill. And the game has specific skill elements that we can identify, like putting and driving. As well, we can all agree that a player like Tiger Woods applies those skill elements very adeptly. Now what about a golfer who shoots a 120? Clearly, that golfer applies the skill elements very poorly. He is a poor putter and a bad driver of the ball. If we pit Tiger against this bad golfer, Tiger would win every time.
Here is the question I have for you, "Is the game of golf itself more of a game of skill when Tiger is playing it than when the 120 handicap golfer is playing it?" The question sounds completely absurd when I ask it about golf. Of course golf is a game of skill whether or not someone applies those skill elements well or poorly. The quality of the player has no bearing whatsoever on the absolute fact that the game is a skillful one.
What is interesting is that while that logic is so completely transparent to people when it comes to a game like golf or football or baseball or bridge, it is not completely transparent when it comes to a game like poker. I think because there is wagering involved. But think about it, the logic is exactly the same as the logic for the golf example. We can all agree that there are skill elements in poker like whether you bet, fold or raise at any given decision point, or how much you bet or raise if you make that decision. These are elements of skill and how well a player executes these skill elements determines the likelihood of winning or losing. As in golf, we can all agree that the top players, players like Erik Seidel and Phil Hellmuth, apply these skill elements very adeptly. But what about a player new to the game? Obviously, a new player to the game would apply these skill elements poorly, just as the 120 golfer putts poorly. And just as with golf, the fact that a new player applies these skill elements poorly has no bearing whatsoever on the absolute fact that poker is a game of skill. A player who is a poor decision maker at the table is, to be sure, executing the skill elements of the game of poker very poorly but even when a bad player is player the game, he is still playing a game of skill. He is just not playing it well.
So a poker player can be playing at a negative expectation and still be playing a game of skill. That there are bad players in the world actually reinforces the argument that poker is a game of skill in this sense: In a game of pure luck, like Baccarat, a player cannot be bad or good. The only decision in that game is whether to be player or bank and both decision have the same expectation. So one player cannot be worse than another since the only decision in the game that affects the outcome is neutral to the player's expectation. In a skill game like poker, on the other hand, one player can be worse than another because there are skill elements, multiple decision points that do have a direct effect on a player's expectation. In a pure luck game like baccarat or the lottery, no player can be worse than any other. Only in games of skill can there even be a tangible difference between players. Poker is one of those games.

IS THERE REALLY ANY LUCK IN POKER?

My brother, Howard Lederer, and I have recently been having some really interesting discussions about the luck factor in poker. Now we all know that there is skill in poker but the general consensus has been that there is a preponderance of skill, not that poker is a game that is all skill. Arguments for the preponderance of skill have centered on the fact that good players, in the long run, will come out winners but in the short run anyone can win. So the argument has been that poker is a game with a significant luck factor in the short run but over the long run the law of large numbers will play out and the better players will win.
But is this really true? Is there really any luck in the short run at all? Howard has come up with a very compelling argument that the answer to that question is no.
Let's say we program a machine so that it knows the rules of Texas Hold'em. It knows that you are dealt two cards. It knows that a flop, and a turn and a river comprise the community cards. It knows that you can check, bet, call or raise on any given street. It knows the rules and mechanics of the game. But let's also say that we program the machine to play with no skill at all. This means that the machine will randomly choose at any given decision point whether to check, bet, call or raise. Now remember, on any given street there are up to 5 possible decisions (a bet and four raises) and our machine will behaving randomly, with no skill, at any of those decision points. How would the machine do? Terribly, obviously.
If you put our machine into a short event, like a sit and go, against 8 skilled players it would lose every time. The skilled players would quickly come up with the most effective strategy against the machine, which would be to raise the minimum against the machine every time. This would always put the decision back on the machine for the lowest risk and 1/3 of the time the machine will fold, 1/3 it will call and 1/3 it will raise, regardless of its hand. And the machine will behave this way regardless of its hand. It will be as likely to fold Aces full as it will to fold 9 high. It will be as likely to call with top pair as I will to call with 5 high. You can see pretty quickly that our unskilled machine would never win, even in the short run.
Howard's argument shows that poker players tend to drastically over estimate the luck factor in poker, mainly because in general we are playing against very skilled players and whenever we close the skill gap between opponents in a skill game it appears that there is more luck involved. We can take baseball as an example to demonstrate this. No one argues that baseball is not a game of skill. And the same thing happens in baseball when we narrow the skill gap that happens in poker. If we take the Yankees and pit them against a little league team where the skill gap is very large then the Yankees will win every time. But if we take the Yankees and pit them against an equally skilled major league team, say the Red Sox, now luck appears to play a much larger factor. Factors like injuries, weather, etc. now play a much larger role in determining the outcome of the game. While the better team will win over a series of games, the outcome of a single game will appear to be determined by luck, by factors outside of the control of the teams.
And poker is no different. Good poker players will overestimate the luck factor in poker because they forget exactly how skilled the opponents they are playing against are. The fact is that most players are very skilled at hand selection and betting theory that you play against, even in the smallest games, compared to a totally unskilled player like our machine. As in baseball, the more skilled the players are that you play against, the more there will be the appearance of luck in determining the outcome in the short run. To take the baseball analogy further, if we take the very best professional player in the world and stick them in a .50/$1 NL game, they will crush the game just as the Yankees will crush the little league team. If we take that same player and pit them against the other top pros, they will win in the long run, but the short run outcome will be largely determined by luck just as in baseball in a similar situation when the Yankees play the Red Sox the outcome will be determined by factors like injuries.
The interesting thing is that if we took our same unskilled machine and programmed it to know the rules of the lottery but gave it no skill it would perform the same as a human being. This is because there is no skill to the lottery. Once you know to purchase the ticket and fill out the appropriate number of circles on the ticket and give it back to the attendant to receive your ticket you are good to go. Once you know the rules there is nothing more to the game. And yet, lotteries are excluded in the current gaming legislation but poker is at risk. Seems illogical to me.
Poker is a game of skill. It is a game where the outcome is as determined by skill as baseball. Once we understand this, it is clear poker should be set aside from gaming legislation that legislates games of chance since it is clearly not a game of chance. It is just a matter of getting people to truly and deeply understand the difference between games of skill and games of luck.

Great stuff,... interesting article by Annie there,.. and Howard's input, the 'thinking machine' of poker........
This is about 'poker', right? What about 'online poker',.. where ya take into consideration the 'donk factor',.. ya know,.. the myriad of "Come on Nine!!" types (Fulltilt tv commercial, with Chris Ferguson losin' to the donk hopin for a '9').

when it comes to % taking into consideration pot odd,bluffing odds,hand odds,
table presence,tells,money managment, hand rankings , starting hands
with all this information a well informed poker player can usually survive and win most of the time which makes their luck better than mine andthe more info you have the more luck you have

There's a flaw with that argument, taking it to the most basic, a one hand session, the random action machine could certainly win, in a one hand session it's got about a 10% chance of winning (.5*(2/3)^4 of it not folding and showing down the best hand,) since it's chance of winning on any given hand is greater than 0 there must be a chance greater than zero for it winning over an arbitrarily long period of time, though as the number of trials increases the chance of it winning approach 0 against a superior strategy but never actually reaches it. QED there is some element of luck involved though the quantity varies with the length of the session.

Sorry but I read the Annie Duke article before and still think it's a bunch of crap. No one's playing against a machine. The definition of there being luck involved in the short term is can an extremely good player (of course that's somewhat subjective when winning is part of being good) lose to a bad player? The answer is clearly yes (Jamie Gold anybody?). Of course the luck aspect diminishes as the skill gap increases, but the opposite is also true. If you sit down two really good (or really bad actually, but no one would want to watch that ) poker players and they played millions of hands, most of the short-term wins would be luck. As time went on the small edge one of them has may become apparent. Alternatively, if Phil Ivey went up against me, I could have a hand where I bust him. He could flop a set of kings, read me for strong, use that good read to get all my money in only to find out I have a set of aces. Even if somehow he gets a read and doesn't commit all his chips (something I WOULD do and thus a long-term edge he has on me since in the future the opposite will happen if we play enough hands), no one's committing 0 chips there and nothing can stop me from winning the hand. He's obviously leaps and bounds above me skill-wise, but I could win a few hands against him. That means that luck DOES exist in the short run. Sorry, but Annie Duke should stick to playing poker, she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about in this article.

btw every time I see this thread one thing keeps going through my head:

"10% luck
20% skill
15% concentrated power of will..."

5% pleasure!
50% pain!



...which pretty much makes me 100% lame.

i was just thinking about that song too

I don't think there's a problem with the machine analogy as that's just a demonstration of a completely non-skilled player. If you were to add a small amount of strategy, such as removing the fold options just leaving checking and calling you'd come to a 50% chance of winning any particular hand rather than about 10%. While it would still lose money fairly quickly on average with this strategy it would be much slower than the completely random situation. And the chance that it would be profitable over an arbitrary number of trials would be greatly increased even if it approaches 0 against a infinite number of trials of a superior strategy. Since an infinite number of trials is impossible in practice there must always be a chance greater than zero that someone can consistently play badly and be a net winner in poker, therefore there is some luck involved. The fewer number of trials the more likely this is to occur. Now you could make a strategy that always lost, but that wouldn't be luck (never betting and always folding the river for instance.)

Exactly. She was trying to say there was 0 luck in the short run. Long run I agree there is luck in the short run, and the closer the skills of the players, the more luck in the short run and the longer the long run is.

It's unbelievable how some of these pro poker players make it to final tables over and over again. That means they can not be that lucky every single tournament. They have to be doing something right, but its not always skill. I have played hands amazingly, but to be rivered on a 1 outer. So, I would believe 70% skill 30% luck.

With the one outer thing how many hands out of a 100 do u lose by a real bad beat? my guess whould be 1 maby 2 so then the luck part based on that might be 98%-2% but then you have to calculate how much the luck of what your hole cards are. Witch i whould think whould be maby 10% since even if your completely card dead you can still just sit out and try to pick up a big one and double up.

But im gonna stick with my 85%-15% even thou i think "LUCK" is only a standard for the unlucky ones.

Basically it boils down to the more hands you play the less luck there is. Tournaments are slightly different as it's basically a microcosm of your playing career. How lucky you are in a particular tournament makes a large difference, but over a lot of tournaments it's less influential. Even in a huge tournament like the WSOP ME where the winner and 2nd place finisher of the tournament would be playing say approximately 2400 (assuming about 30 hands per hour for 10 hours a day for 8 days) that's a huge luck factor, anyone who's played a lot of poker knows that over that few hands luck is a large factor. When you consider the escalating blinds there are going to be a lot of times where you're going to have to take big risks and end up as an underdog and get lucky to stay competitive with the rest of the field, there's no two ways about it. There's even a paper on arxiv.org that talks about the optimal frequency for being all in during a tournament. So there's even more luck involved in tournaments than in cash games. This is because luck is a decreasing factor the more hands are dealt assuming a skill differential between players.

Speaking of which if you want proof of luck being involved, pit two identical bots playing the identical strategy against one another, it's very likely one of them will be ahead of the other over an arbitrary number of trials since it's basically a random walk problem.

Until you define what a certain % luck even means such statements are worthless. What does it mean for an event to be a certain percentage luck? You cannot use numbers when you have no idea what they mean. It would be like me pointing at a tree saying "that tree is 17.4". the number has no meaning, numbers need to have meaning. Define your terms please.

Exactly the amount of luck is a variable based on the skill differential and the number of trials, without those being specifically defined you can't define how much is skill and how much is luck except in the abstract that as the number of trials approaches infinity luck approaches 0.

No but you could say that in your opinion that tree is 17,4 and no one could say other ways cause its YOUR opinion witch whas what the op whanted our opinion on % of luck/skill factor in poker.

I do have to say that I am a true believer that online poker has a high% of luck vs. live poker. Online reads are tuff, live they can be tricky, but easier IMO.

I enjoy live a ton more and I'm way better live than online. I am down approx. $2000 online and I'm up approx. $2000 live so you do the math... Now I will say that I have yet to loose a big hand unless someone sucked out in a cash game (ok maybe a couple of bad hands I've played). Live cash games $1/$2 sometimes $5/$10 I have only had 3 loosing sessions amoung many break even sessions and then some win big sessions.

My poker league which is live free poker (but as good as any low limit SNG I've played at Foxwoods) I've played in a total of 28 tournaments and I've won 7, three times came in 2nd, and three times came in 3rd (we only keep track of top 3 except monthly and quarterly tournaments). So I'm ITM approx. 47% of the time (although ITM = points and gift cards).

I do have to admit that I think online I play poorly cause I can never get a good read on anyone and live I can read people really good.

It's not a matter of opinion vs. fact, it's a matter of what does a % of luck/skill mean??? Say we determined that poker was 50% skill and 50% luck. What would that mean?

lol at you doing bad equaling luck.

all luck no skill

Dude, and how about that yesterday I lost twice with AA vs very weak hands
both allin preflop with my opponent (0.25/50 for a 50$)
Last week I had similar experience - Lost 3 times with KK (allin preflop)
- 2 times on a cashtable, and once in a freezout.

So, don't tell me it's about 15% luck.
I can tell the luck is about 60% according to my experience in poker.