3 ms·

There's only "too much luck" in games like poker, or backgammon, sports betting, over a short timeline, which is probably longer than you think. That can be hun

There's only "too much luck" in games like poker, or backgammon, sports betting, over a short timeline, which is probably longer than you think. That can be hundreds, or even thousands of hands or games. Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players.

airstrike 6y ago
> Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players. That's true of any game or sport, though. Poker is just one in which that is "less true".
- LargeWu 6y ago
  I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this. While it's true that the more skilled party in a traditional physical sport will do better over the long run, their advantage will also be more apparent over the short run. Skill in poker comes from managing variance over a long horizon; the advantage for a particular hand is largely determined by randomness The advantage in sports does not derive from randomness, but from physical skill, and is generally apparent, and quantifiable, over a single contest (typically represented by a point spread or odds of winning). It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players. > It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt. Not directly relevant, but it just occured to me that, if you're playing poker against someone you know is more skilled than you, the best strategy is to not look at your cards.
    - LargeWu 6y ago
      Not true. Consider the following example: Two players are playing, heads up. Both players always play every hand, and there is always exactly one bet and call per betting round. Under this scenario, the EV for each player is 0, since we could expect them to both win half the hands, and importantly, win exactly the same amount of money each hand. Now consider a second situation in which player A plays every hand the same way, but player B folds with the lowest EV hand before any additional cards are revealed. (in hold'em this is 2-7 offsuit). What happens is that player B is losing less money with their worst hand than player A. And since this is zero-sum, it means player B will expect a very slight profit. Now, extrapolate this to player B only playing +EV hands, while player A doesn't even look at their cards and plays every hand. The following betting rounds still proceed the same way. Player B will be losing a small amount - the ante - on poor hands, and willing a much larger amount with their good hands. This gets to the heart of my argument - that skill in games like poker or backgammon - will inexorably prevail over a long enough timeline. Sure, player A might catch a great string of cards and beat player B sometimes. But play enough and player B will eventually dominate player A even if no other decisions are made. This is all, of course, just a thought experiment, but it's meant to illustrate that skill in poker is equivalent to making +EV decisions in the face of incomplete information.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    > It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt. You're literally making my point, now, namely: luck is a much bigger factor in poker than in other card games, so I prefer to play those that require less fortune from me and more strategy.
    - LargeWu 6y ago
      If you want to call it "variance" instead of "luck", I would agree with that. There aren't that many decisions to be made in a given poker hand, and many times they won't matter anyway. So, I get what you're saying. However, variance is exactly what makes poker a great gambling game. The very skill in poker is managing the variance. I would also add that poker, in the absence of real money, is not that fun, and that for pure entertainment value, I would rather play a game that relies less on variance.
    - testnew2 6y ago
      Just because poker involves luck does not mean it requires less strategy than any other game.
- danenania 6y ago
  Poker (or Hold 'Em at least) is right in the sweet spot between "too much luck" where skilled players either don't reliably win or the long run takes too long to converge and "not enough luck" where recreational players don't have fun because they feel like they can never win. Luck obscures who is really winning in terms of EV enough to keep the game going. If there were much less randomness involved, it wouldn't be so popular.
- testnew2 6y ago
  And it’s why bad players play it. Poker players should embrace luck because it’d the only reason whales exist.

airstrike 6y ago

> Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players. That's true of any game or sport, though. Poker is just one in which that is "less true".

LargeWu 6y ago
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this. While it's true that the more skilled party in a traditional physical sport will do better over the long run, their advantage will also be more apparent over the short run. Skill in poker comes from managing variance over a long horizon; the advantage for a particular hand is largely determined by randomness The advantage in sports does not derive from randomness, but from physical skill, and is generally apparent, and quantifiable, over a single contest (typically represented by a point spread or odds of winning). It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players. > It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt. Not directly relevant, but it just occured to me that, if you're playing poker against someone you know is more skilled than you, the best strategy is to not look at your cards.
  - LargeWu 6y ago
    Not true. Consider the following example: Two players are playing, heads up. Both players always play every hand, and there is always exactly one bet and call per betting round. Under this scenario, the EV for each player is 0, since we could expect them to both win half the hands, and importantly, win exactly the same amount of money each hand. Now consider a second situation in which player A plays every hand the same way, but player B folds with the lowest EV hand before any additional cards are revealed. (in hold'em this is 2-7 offsuit). What happens is that player B is losing less money with their worst hand than player A. And since this is zero-sum, it means player B will expect a very slight profit. Now, extrapolate this to player B only playing +EV hands, while player A doesn't even look at their cards and plays every hand. The following betting rounds still proceed the same way. Player B will be losing a small amount - the ante - on poor hands, and willing a much larger amount with their good hands. This gets to the heart of my argument - that skill in games like poker or backgammon - will inexorably prevail over a long enough timeline. Sure, player A might catch a great string of cards and beat player B sometimes. But play enough and player B will eventually dominate player A even if no other decisions are made. This is all, of course, just a thought experiment, but it's meant to illustrate that skill in poker is equivalent to making +EV decisions in the face of incomplete information.
- airstrike 6y ago
  > It would be almost impossible to quantify odds of winning a given poker hand before any cards are dealt. You're literally making my point, now, namely: luck is a much bigger factor in poker than in other card games, so I prefer to play those that require less fortune from me and more strategy.
  - LargeWu 6y ago
    If you want to call it "variance" instead of "luck", I would agree with that. There aren't that many decisions to be made in a given poker hand, and many times they won't matter anyway. So, I get what you're saying. However, variance is exactly what makes poker a great gambling game. The very skill in poker is managing the variance. I would also add that poker, in the absence of real money, is not that fun, and that for pure entertainment value, I would rather play a game that relies less on variance.
  - testnew2 6y ago
    Just because poker involves luck does not mean it requires less strategy than any other game.
danenania 6y ago
Poker (or Hold 'Em at least) is right in the sweet spot between "too much luck" where skilled players either don't reliably win or the long run takes too long to converge and "not enough luck" where recreational players don't have fun because they feel like they can never win. Luck obscures who is really winning in terms of EV enough to keep the game going. If there were much less randomness involved, it wouldn't be so popular.
testnew2 6y ago
And it’s why bad players play it. Poker players should embrace luck because it’d the only reason whales exist.