I think that I should "chip in" (lame joke) to this discussion. The truth of the matter is that chess is not a good analogy. No significant element of chance there, only the opponent's decisions. A much more fitting analogy would be backgammon or even stock - broking. In the former the roll of the dices determines a part of the game, but skilled players will eventually win as they adapt their strategy to both the outcome of the roll and the opponent's strategy. In the latter, the element of chance is provided by upswings and downswings on the market that are eventual, as anybody can buy or sell his shares and in fact any individual transaction is absolutely unpredictable, but the good brokers anticipate some moves, have better information, thus profiting on both situations.
I have to add here that I have a math degree, so I consider the biased-coin-flip that our friend LuckyChippy uses as a very good analogy too. In one of our early courses in probability theory we had to determine the absolute probability of a player winning at a non - biased roulette table. (It means in an infinite number of games - any native speaking math colleagues here please forgive me for any inaccurate terminology, It's all greek to me {another lame joke}). The answer to that is that a player's absolute probability is negative, check it out if you don't believe me. (Keep in mind that * and 0 are for the house). Accordingly the absolute probability of winning a non-biased coin - flip is exactly 1/2. (The times the coin stands upright are considered insignificant, although in statistics you have to take them into consideration too). In my limited experience, every single hand played is subject to a chance related outcome, but a poker player's absolute probability (unlimited amount of hands) has to incorporate his skills as a determining factor as much as the level of competition he is going to face. So those factors determine whether you are gonna be in <1/2 or a >1/2 position. Imagine that you play an infinite number of hands against the top pros. Imagine that you play against high-school kids. There is a difference, right? And keep in mind that even a 5% edge is a great multiplication factor.
Now whether you are going to call poker gambling or not is a matter of definition. If you consider stock - broking, backgammon, or even darts and pool a gamble, so it is. Having been a pool player for many years, I was an athlete in fact, I consider pool a skill based game, even if luck sometimes determines the individual outcome. I did win once against the champion, although my rank was lower than 300. So in my vocabulary poker is a skill based game with a twist of luck.
I sincerely hope that I made some sense here.
And because of that twist:
Good luck at the tables!!!
Tilt'em to your laps!!!
You make perfect sense and I thank you for this response. Can you clarify one thing for me? I would like to take advantage of that math degree you have, if you do not mind; It is lucky for me to have a poster with that here! If anyone can tell me I am simply nuts, it will be you, especially since I am trying to put into layman's terms what some other math geniuses have tried to teach me, as I am no where near your level of knowledge in this respect, trust me.
"Imagine that you play an infinite number of hands against the top pros. Imagine that you play against high-school kids. There is a difference, right?"
Yes of course. However, what is the cause of that difference? The long term proven odds never change. Only the short term odds
on the way to reaching the long term odds changes. So while the pro player is making the right play based on the odds he sees, in the same exact situation the weak player is not,
yet those same exact odds are still present. They hit or miss because of the short term variance that makes the final outcome.
Is that good luck then, when the short term lines up with the long term and bad luck when the short term does not line up with the long term as expected? Or is it just the odds expressing themselves? I guess you can say it is, yet the pro is aware of the odds and using them to base a decision off of. Therefore in the long run he will prove to be more successful,
not luckier. The high school kids are simply playing and their ignorant plays line up with the same odds that would make the pro do the same thing
or if he played the exact same hands that they do, he would, in the long run, win-lose
just as much as they do.
So if I take all the hands that a so-called "lucky" player won with and ran it over one million hands, a pro doing the same exact thing would have the same exact result over that same long run.
Therefore I conclude that poker is not a game of chance or luck, rather a game of skill and math. Blanketing the whole game as based
only or
mostly on luck only takes into account the short term and ignores the long completely. In the long term they will be exactly the same every time.
How can the exact same results every time played out in the long run be considered "luck"? Or am I just being stubborn and crazy as some have accused me of?
