Skill, luck and addiction.

I wanted to address the arguement in Dingodaddy's thread about whether gambling is a game of skill or luck. I believe it is a game of skill with elements of luck just like cribbage or backgammon. Luck has a lot to do with the game but in the long run the best players will be on top. However when you figure addiction into the equation, it is just a game of luck. An addict has no self control and you can not be a good player without self control. It is very hard for a non addict to understand the lose of control but believe, it happens. So when he said "flame away" it was just him being very down on himself and not what he needed.

Err Alon

Hope you dont think it was my post that caused this.

Anyway my opnion, over 10thousand million hands poker is 99.99999999999999% SKILL

Over 1 hand its 99.99999999999999% luck

Everything else falls somewhere in between. With the gamblers fattening the pot for the rest of us.

Sorry, This post was not to put anyone down but to make a seperate point and as I stated above that I didn't think belonged in Dingodaddy's post.

man i've never seen it put so well nice post tenbob

My opinion:

I think the real question was whether or not poker is gambling. I explained it pretty simply in the other topic. Look up the definition of gambling. Then look up the definition of the word "certain". Certain is 100%. Apply that to poker, and realize how often you're 100% to win a hand.

Tenbob, according to your logic, poker isn't gambling if you play 10 billion hands. So is it gambling if you play 10,000? How about only 10? What if you played one billion separate sessions of 10 hands each? Was each of those 10 hands a gambling session, yet all of them combined was not gambling? You have to realize this logic essentially doesn't make sense. Poker either is a gambling game or it isn't.

The way of looking at the balance of luck and skill is over a given number of hands. Although tenbob over-egged it a big, in one hand, it's mostly luck. Over 10 hands, it's still significantly more luck than skill. Depending on the game, skill may be starting to show after around 100 hands, but luck is still probably a bigger factor, as you can easily have a session of over 100 hands where you miss most of your hands, or get lucky just a couple of times, to have the effects of luck swamping the trend created by skill. Over 1000 hands, you'll generally see skill coming into prominence, with luck starting to balance out, but again a serious up or down swing can bias that. Only after more like 10,000 hands will you have a large enough sample to expect the main factor to be luck.

If you translate that into sessions, you can get lucky once or twice against an opponent and take them to the cleaners, whether they're a pro or not. Over a 2-3 hour session online, the pro's skill would be starting to tell, although in a day's play, even pro's have losing days. Over a month of regular play (averaging 2+ hours a day) you'd expect skill to be raising its head, and starting to show whether you're profitable on average, although a seriously good or bad streak would still off-set that. Only over the period of a month or so full-time, or several months frequent part-time play can you expect skill to be the dominant factor, so never rush into judgement (positive or negative) about your own ability after just a few hours or even a few days of play.

Before I knew how to skillfully play it, I would want to classify poker as "gambling". If you are betting on the outcome of random cards, sure it's a gamble. A gambler would think "I'll just put my money out there and see what happens." Same with blackjack, craps, roulette, etc.

But then I learned one thing that makes this game a whole lot less of a "gamble": I can control this game, baby! I can control the odds. I can control my opponents' willingness to defend. I can control the information my opponents get.

Hmmm. Sounds kinda like baseball or football or basketball. Sure, there's luck in those sports, also. Some parts of those games are a "gamble". Stealing a base is a gamble. A fake punt is a gamble. Double-teaming a basketball player is a gamble. Do these things make these sports "gambling", also? Golf is another great example. Try playing golf on a windy day. Good luck! (pun intended)

Everything we do has some "gamble" to it. The more I watch the news, the more I think getting in my car or even walking down my street is a gamble.

Of course, poker has more lucky elements to it than many athletic sports. But in my opinion (and many, many others on this earth, including the lawmakers in my state of California), you can't lump poker in the same "gambling" category as strictly outcome-reliant games like roulette, craps, and blackjack. Those games take strategy, yes. But you can't control those games with skill like you can in poker. It is a huge difference.

Maybe we should come up with a hybrid category. We could call it "Skill-bling" or something. Then we'd all be happy.

Okay here is my 2 cents worth.

I agree on both arguments if you can agree with both sides?

Even though you may know pot odds, EV, ratios etc...... You can't control these, you just know what they are with each card to come. You don't know what card is going to come out next either. You can't control that. You can just basically calculate your "chances" of you making the flush, straight, full house etc...... with each card coming out. You can't control the donkey sitting at the other end of the table holding 72os that hits his boat on the turn.

The only things you can control is your bankroll, how well you play the cards your dealt, how well you play the players sitting at your table. Also you can control your emotions whether you go on tilt or not. You can control what information that you want to send out to your opponents. And how you handle the donkey at the other end holding that 72os full house when you hit your flush.

I agree there is skill involved with poker, but you have others gambling around you that makes your skill fail sometimes. In poker it takes all 5 cards to make a hand.
It is about taking "chances" when you need to when your skill failed.
IE: tournament play and short stacks.

Whether you are new to the game or a seasoned pro, you are still Betting on the "outcome" of random cards which in the end is gambling.

I'm not sure where the skill ends and the gambling begins in poker percentage wise. I have heard from 10% skill with 90% luck. I have heard the total opposite.

But I do know one thing this debate will never be over!

Alright, Skillbling or Skambling, which is the better name for it?

Hmmmm, nobody seemed to pick up on the addiction part of my post. Maybe everyone's in denial.

No I'm not.

I like "skambling" best I think And as Juicee said, the debate over luck and skill will likely never end.

When it comes to the addiction part, each of us needs to decide for ourselves when it stops being fun and starts being an obsession. It seems to me that the line between those two can vary a great deal. Not sure if that is the sort of comment you were looking for Alon......... guess I should find and read Dingopdaddy's thread to be sure.

It is pure luck the cards you are dealt..but its skill is knowing how to play them......

If I'm winning, it's a game of SKILL
If I'm losing, it's a game of LUCK

:turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: