In Response to Re: Is poker really a skill game? : It's a fairly widely agreed point, there may be a bit of room for a few percent either way, but winning cash players (long term) don't win a massive amount of sessions more than they lose, just they win more on their winning sessions than they lose on their losing ones. It's in many a poker book, Carlo has said it on 861, and maybe other players have said it, with the variance involved, you're unlikely to ever be able to win more than 65-70% of sessions, and most of us don't completely CRUSH the game we play. Obviously the percentage you win will probably increase if A) you're playing at really low stakes and You're playing a super nitty game, but that doesn't necessarily mean the amount of money you win will be more, just that your sessions will be less swingy. Posted by Lambert180
Thats what i mean though, some sports people are naturally gifted they will win with there ability regardless. But in poker the best player can turn up and LUCK ruins there game, even though there more skilfull. So it has to be a game of skill rather then luck, skill takes u a certain way but then luck really decides it. Theres no way u can be consistantly good at poker because its mainly all luck, the skill part is just getting u in the posotion, u will only win long term if luck doesnt get in the way
In Response to Re: Is poker really a skill game? : Thats what i mean though, some sports people are naturally gifted they will win with there ability regardless. But in poker the best player can turn up and LUCK ruins there game, even though there more skilfull. So it has to be a game of skill rather then luck, skill takes u a certain way but then luck really decides it. Theres no way u can be consistantly good at poker because its mainly all luck, the skill part is just getting u in the posotion, u will only win long term if luck doesnt get in the way Posted by robbie1992
It's widely agreed poker is 20% luck 80% skill So skill is the deciding factor long term, but in the short term anyone can beat anyone as the playing field is more equal
Go and play federer at tennis and what chance do you have - 1% - he may fall over and break his arm and you win by default )
Play ivey in a hand of poker and you probbaly around 20% to win
if you look at football then it's more like 96% skill 4% luck varaince in football aye ) weather, referee, linesman etc... Arsenal always run bad !
You have to remember though, the luck factor is really what helps winning players win, even though it can be painful at times.
Think of it like this... Chess is a game where there is zero luck factor, there is no hidden information, both players are aware at all times of the full game state. Unlike poker, if you sat down and played the best chess player in the world, you would probably lose 100% of games.
Now imagine the best chess player in the world said, do you wanna play chess for £50 a game, would you play? No, because you are just burning money.
Now poker, the worst player in the world could beat the best player in the world if he ran like god, and it can be annoying when you lose (as the winning player) but imagine there was zero luck factor and everytime a bad player played, they would just lose, lose, lose, dya think they'd keep playing? It wouldn't take me long to give up the game if I lost 100% of the time I sat down.
So these bad players remember the time they called a 3bet preflop with 7To and flopped a straight and continue to do it, they don't remember the other 10 times they did it and just check/folded, or worse called and lost alot more. It's the luck factor that keeps them coming back, and keeps the winning players winning.
I seem to make a profit at 2p 4p were the skill level is lower but struggle when I play against players that have the ability to read my game. So there is know doubt that skill plays a big part IMO.
You have to remember though, the luck factor is really what helps winning players win, even though it can be painful at times. Think of it like this... Chess is a game where there is zero luck factor, there is no hidden information, both players are aware at all times of the full game state. Unlike poker, if you sat down and played the best chess player in the world, you would probably lose 100% of games. Now imagine the best chess player in the world said, do you wanna play chess for £50 a game, would you play? No, because you are just burning money. Now poker, the worst player in the world could beat the best player in the world if he ran like god, and it can be annoying when you lose (as the winning player) but imagine there was zero luck factor and everytime a bad player played, they would just lose, lose, lose, dya think they'd keep playing? It wouldn't take me long to give up the game if I lost 100% of the time I sat down. So these bad players remember the time they called a 3bet preflop with 7To and flopped a straight and continue to do it, they don't remember the other 10 times they did it and just check/folded, or worse called and lost alot more. It's the luck factor that keeps them coming back, and keeps the winning players winning. Posted by Lambert180
Yes people wil keep sayng they remember the one time they win and not the 9 times they lose. But who cares what they remember say it kept happening to u and you kept losing, even thought u no more then them. How can they be skill, you could no all the information in the world, but its luck no one says luck has to change you could keep running bad, would somone saying that the player that took ur money will lose 9/10 with that hand help,,.... i dont think so all you know is bad players get the cards come out for them and they won, no skilll in that
No offence but this is like talking to a brick wall lol. Probability is what it is, the more times you repeat a random event, the less likely it is you'll get an extreme result. For instance if you flip a coin 10 times, there's a 17% chance you'll get 7 or more heads... but if you flip a coin 100 times the chances of getting 70 or more heads (the same proportion) drop to 0.004%
A good poker player's edge is never gonna be THAT massive when taking into account rake etc, the best way to demonstrate this is...
Take a piece of paper and write 100 at the top and start flipping a coin.
Every time you get a head, add 10 to your total, every time you get tails take away 9 from your total.
Gradually you're total will go up but you will inevitably go through periods were your total just seems to be going down. Sometimes it'll be shooting up or shooting down, but it will gradually be going up
LOL @ comparing Poker to being a sportsman. Poker is gambling you know? You say 'ruined by LUCK' ... luck can be good or bad, it evens out over time believe it or not -
I think its mainly about finding your level and doing the right things at the table in the right order. Long term you will make a profit, but short term when finding your level a loss.
In Response to Re: Is poker really a skill game? : It's widely agreed poker is 20% luck 80% skill Posted by rancid
this is wrong, the relation between luck/skill is related to the sample size of hands. in 1hand it might be 90% luck 10% skill wheras over a billion hands it will be near enough 100% skill 0% luck
poker is still classed as a sport, every sport has skill. Tbh its not just bad players that say luck and good players say skills, we all no poker is really about 85% luck and 15% skill, we just dont mind ignoring this fact when were winning. Thats what running bad is , running bad is getting bad luck with the way cards come. Every hand u lost down to bad play? dont think so
In Response to Re: Is poker really a skill game? : this is wrong, the relation between luck/skill is related to the sample size of hands. in 1hand it might be 90% luck 10% skill wheras over a billion hands it will be near enough 100% skill 0% luck Posted by LOL_RAISE
yeah your right ) 80/20 is my general view on MTT luck given the number of hands you would play in any given MTT + I 'v heard 80/20 before here and there - it's by no means correct )
This is why people say cash poker is more skillful - o no not that debate again ! o but I would say, playing cash requires a broader skill set )
poker is still classed as a sport, every sport has skill. Tbh its not just bad players that say luck and good players say skills, we all no poker is really about 85% luck and 15% skill, we just dont mind ignoring this fact when were winning. Thats what running bad is , running bad is getting bad luck with the way cards come. Every hand u lost down to bad play? dont think so Posted by robbie1992
This sentence only applies to short term results.
If you did a challenge with some of the top players on the site, Scotty77, Coxy, Lol_Raise etc etc... you can pick whatever format you like.
Say you both are given unlimited BRs and you either both play 50,000 cash hands, or 500 MTTs, or 500 SnGs, both playing at the same stakes, I'm willing to bet you would almost certainly be completely crushed in terms of profit even over such a small sample. Now are these players just luckier than you? Or is it that they have more skill?
Bad players blame their poor results on bad luck. Sometimes your short term results are bad luck, and I moan about a bit of runbad like most people do, but long term I know it evens out. Essentially, if you play cash poker for 3 hours, there is zero you can learn by just looking at profit/loss for the session. You could have played terrible and run like god, played fantastic and ran awful, or anything in the middle.
If poker wasnt a skill game there wouldnt be countless strategy forums. You need skill to win in the long-run, any fish can win an mtt, any fish can win 24 buy ins at a cash table, it's whether you can play for years making a profit - fish always go broke FACT. Posted by percival09
I think iv just realised that i have always been the fish
mmm game of luck or skill... are we playing to get rich or for the fun of it...we all like to win but love to moan about losing ... i must say when i get a run of luck/skill (lol) then im more than happy and sure do whinge about the bad beats and players but for the most time i wont be giving up and play for the fun of it ....good luck to everyone !!
Comments
So skill is the deciding factor long term, but in the short term anyone can beat anyone as the playing field is more equal
Go and play federer at tennis and what chance do you have - 1% - he may fall over and break his arm and you win by default )
Play ivey in a hand of poker and you probbaly around 20% to win
if you look at football then it's more like 96% skill 4% luck
varaince in football aye ) weather, referee, linesman etc... Arsenal always run bad !
Think of it like this... Chess is a game where there is zero luck factor, there is no hidden information, both players are aware at all times of the full game state. Unlike poker, if you sat down and played the best chess player in the world, you would probably lose 100% of games.
Now imagine the best chess player in the world said, do you wanna play chess for £50 a game, would you play? No, because you are just burning money.
Now poker, the worst player in the world could beat the best player in the world if he ran like god, and it can be annoying when you lose (as the winning player) but imagine there was zero luck factor and everytime a bad player played, they would just lose, lose, lose, dya think they'd keep playing? It wouldn't take me long to give up the game if I lost 100% of the time I sat down.
So these bad players remember the time they called a 3bet preflop with 7To and flopped a straight and continue to do it, they don't remember the other 10 times they did it and just check/folded, or worse called and lost alot more. It's the luck factor that keeps them coming back, and keeps the winning players winning.
A good poker player's edge is never gonna be THAT massive when taking into account rake etc, the best way to demonstrate this is...
Take a piece of paper and write 100 at the top and start flipping a coin.
Every time you get a head, add 10 to your total, every time you get tails take away 9 from your total.
Gradually you're total will go up but you will inevitably go through periods were your total just seems to be going down. Sometimes it'll be shooting up or shooting down, but it will gradually be going up
i got lucky a thousand times in my recent challenge
(* *)
^
dev
poker is still classed as a sport, every sport has skill. Tbh its not just bad players that say luck and good players say skills, we all no poker is really about 85% luck and 15% skill, we just dont mind ignoring this fact when were winning. Thats what running bad is , running bad is getting bad luck with the way cards come. Every hand u lost down to bad play? dont think so
This is why people say cash poker is more skillful - o no not that debate again !
o but I would say, playing cash requires a broader skill set )
If you did a challenge with some of the top players on the site, Scotty77, Coxy, Lol_Raise etc etc... you can pick whatever format you like.
Say you both are given unlimited BRs and you either both play 50,000 cash hands, or 500 MTTs, or 500 SnGs, both playing at the same stakes, I'm willing to bet you would almost certainly be completely crushed in terms of profit even over such a small sample. Now are these players just luckier than you? Or is it that they have more skill?
Bad players blame their poor results on bad luck. Sometimes your short term results are bad luck, and I moan about a bit of runbad like most people do, but long term I know it evens out. Essentially, if you play cash poker for 3 hours, there is zero you can learn by just looking at profit/loss for the session. You could have played terrible and run like god, played fantastic and ran awful, or anything in the middle.