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

[MAX101]

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!!!

 

[budebuzz]

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.

 

[jdeliverer]

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.

 

[blueskies]

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 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.

 

[MFaith]

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

 

[IcyBlueAce]

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

Chess has no luck what so ever.

 

[S93]

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.

 

[KyleJRM]

Chess has no luck what so ever.

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.

 

[Debi]

It is 99% luck when you are playing me.

 

[NicolasWSOP]

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

 

[IcyBlueAce]

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

Just print out the report and give it to em lol.

 

[Dwilius]

Lol. I like how they get 88%

Rofl, this...but to be fair that was bluff's conclusion not the study's. All the study said was, "the majority of hands are decided by something other than the value of the cards" and, "only...12% of all hands does the player who could make the best hand go all the way to showdown and win." Its Bluff that decides that all those other hands were determined by skill, despite the fact as roundcat points out, the best hand is winning some/many of those non-showdown hands.

Also, by bluff's standards for its conclusion, two nits could face off heads up, fold every hand but aces and kings and openshove/call with those two hands every time...and because they would only run into each other and go to showdown once every however many k's of hands, it would be the greatest match of poker skill ever recorded.

 

[IcyBlueAce]

Rofl, this...but to be fair that was bluff's conclusion not the study's. All the study said was, "the majority of hands are decided by something other than the value of the cards" and, "only...12% of all hands does the player who could make the best hand go all the way to showdown and win." Its Bluff that decides that all those other hands were determined by skill, despite the fact as roundcat points out, the best hand is winning some/many of those non-showdown hands.

Also, by bluff's standards for its conclusion, two nits could face off heads up, fold every hand but aces and kings and openshove/call with those two hands every time...and because they would only run into each other and go to showdown once every however many k's of hands, it would be the greatest match of poker skill ever recorded.

Actually it looks like they copied and pasted an article..
http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/study-reveals-poker-is-a-game-of-skill-1724/

I'm sure 88% may be pushing it though, they just want the legal system to understand poker isn't just a gamble.

"In courtrooms across the country, judges and juries are finding that that poker is a game of skill - not chance like lotteries or slot machines - and this study admittedly confirms that fact."

 

[Dwilius]

Oh, ok...I made an assumption that they were responsible for articles in their magazine, only read the OP and the study.

 

[IcyBlueAce]

Oh, ok...I made an assumption that they were responsible for articles in their magazine, only read the OP and the study.

Nah, they just got a guy that browses the web copying and pasting all day long.

 

[belerophon]

I think one of the key aspects that eludes me with this study is it's analysis of what winning poker is. Far be it from me (a hack) to criticise but poker to me is not about winning pots but about making the right decision in each circumstance.
EX: I folded QQ yesterday on the turn, there was an ace, 3 to a flush, and paired board with big action between two others. The chances I was ahead there were very slim but it turned out my QQ was good. I wasn't the least bit concerned by it as I'd do the same thing again.

Now did they beat me with skillfully aggressive play? Did they get lucky that I wasn't "in a mood" and decided to call ? Either way I think I saved myself chips here and used my post flop skill to make a decision I felt was correct at the time. In the long run that will payoff more than not.

 

[AAChipMagnet]

So does this study mean to say that bluffing and getting away with it is "skill"?

 

[AtiFCOD]

88% seems to be a little much. There are too many luck-winnings in poker.

 

[dj11]

It is 99% luck when you are playing me.

We all consider ourselves lucky to be sitting at a table with XX...

 

[JEP712]

Very good thread IcyBlueAce! I would say "bad luck" is the other end of the probability of you winning. So with a 90% chance of you winning the hand, the 10% chance is the bad luck. Just a cool way to look at it I guess! : )

 

[JEP712]

Lol. I like how they get 88%

You feel as if it's a lot more huh?


Hahaha, you only feel that because I'm good luck charm that killing the other 18% for you!

 

[XPOKERCHIC]

This study must be a big giant secret from all the chasers and miracle calling stations, hoping for that suck out, donkey loving, poker players on Fulltilt. Just saying? Thanks for the information. X

 

[Pafkata]

Lots of luck involved... I really need to be lucky to win. I need couple of idiots playing with me ! Otherwise, the session will be break-even if all players are good.. It's simply because we will get even number of good and bad hands, and no one will make a huge mistake.

The real luck in poker is finding the idiot who will give you his stack with top pair

 

[TILTPROOF]

Interesting topic, and some great results from it!

For me poker is mostly a game of skill because you tend to play the player and not the cards generally. Also poker is a game about psychology as much as it is about statistics. Therefore simple things like the tone of your voice or the way you make your call and the look in your eyes can be tall tell give aways and someone can re raise you or make a value you bet causing you to fold the best hand because you do not have the same knowledge as the player does.

 

[TheNoob]

"A total of 75.7% of the hands examined as part of the study did not go to showdown. In these hands, the victor's skill of betting managed to win the pot for them, regardless of whether they held the best hand......"

A question that occurs to me is how many were actually betting with the best hand?

I kind of doubt the vast majority of poker is bluffing to win hands.