in your opinion, how much of poker is skill

[jfresh]

as opposed to luck

i'd say skill includes everything from reading your opponents to controlling your tilt/emotions.

[bdk3clash]

Any answer other than 100% skill is wrong.

[TBag]

Very dependant on the time span we're talking here.

[Reef]

the more short term you get, the more and more luck has a role. the more long term you get, the lesser and lesser luck has a role.

[bdk3clash]

No one plays in the short-term. They just think they do.

[og5]

what if we shorten the timeframe down to a session? How much does skill matter when you play a home game against your friends, vs luck? (for example)

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
No one plays in the short-term. They just think they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think a player is pretty much still in the "short" term until your PT stats has the most winningest hands as AA, KK, QQ... 72o, in order - assuming you don't have a noticeable leak with any particular hand.... or maybe 1M hands, whichever comes first. The 1M is just a shot out in the dark guess.

obviously, a true lifetime winning player will have a higher % of being +$$$ after X hands than a true lifetime loser.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
what if we shorten the timeframe down to a session? How much does skill matter when you play a home game against your friends, vs luck? (for example)

[/ QUOTE ]
By what measure?

[autobet]

If you are talking 1 year then over 90% skill
If you are taling 1 hour then 20% skill

[SomethingClever]

Poker is Peer gynt. By gynt I mean luck.

[Victor]

what kinda skills?

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
what kinda skills?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills...

[SinCityGuy]

As the time played converges towards infinity, the skill % converges to 100%.

[autobet]

Are you saying the older you get the better your skills?

If yes, then if I live long enough I'll be a skilled player!!! Sweet!

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
As the time played converges towards infinity, the skill % converges to 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
As the time played converges towards infinity, the skill % converges to 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

YES!!!

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Any answer other than 100% skill is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you expect to play an infinite number of hands in your lifetime, your answer is wrong.

Since Im pretty sure you arent going to play an infinite number of hands, you answer is wrong.

[TStoneMBD]

props on your assessment.

[bvaughn]

Maybe my logic is flawed this morning, but I voted 40-60/40-60 and would put is around 51% skill - 49% luck even over the long term.

If the very best players in the world can grind out only 2-3 BB/100 or 2-3 BB/HR at the higher limit games, over a few hundred thousand hands, then that tells me that very skilled players have a realtively small edge against other skilled or not-so-skilled players. How many BB's are wagered every 100 hands or ever hour? Yet, the very skilled player still only manages to profit only 2-3 of the BB's wagered? Even if the very skilled player is making the best decision humanly possible every time, his edge is still quite small.

[The_Bends]

Your defeating your own arguement there. If you accept that the very good players beat the good players by a few bets an hour then you accept that as the lenght of time increases the percentage effect of skill increases.

[Alobar]

when Im winning, its all skill. When I'm losing, its all luck.

[ripwalk]

[ QUOTE ]
when Im winning, its all skill. When I'm losing, its all luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

[michiganfan9]

[ QUOTE ]
Any answer other than 100% skill is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that poker is a lot more skill than luck but it's not 100% skill. That is completely wrong and I can't believe you would say that. I know it is very skillfull but you can't tell me that there is no luck involved what so ever.

[DMBFan23]

all of it

[DMBFan23]

if this is a statistics problem, then CMI is right as far as results are concerned - that's just confidence intervals.

however, in my opinion, it's your EV that matters, and that is 100% skill dependant, even once you consider people who make correct plays but dont know why - they wont make as many good decisions in different situations

[Two_Slick]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you expect to play an infinite number of hands in your lifetime, your answer is wrong.

Since Im pretty sure you arent going to play an infinite number of hands, you answer is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's to say he won't play an infinite number of hands? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[witeknite]

0% percent of poker is skill.

100% of winning poker is skill, over infinite time.

WiteKnite

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
if this is a statistics problem, then CMI is right as far as results are concerned - that's just confidence intervals.

however, in my opinion, it's your EV that matters, and that is 100% skill dependant, even once you consider people who make correct plays but dont know why - they wont make as many good decisions in different situations

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... its sort of an ambivalent question.

I mean... if I say "poker is 97.3% skill" what exactly can you conclude from that?


A possible definition could be:

Of all players, what percentage are on the wrong side of their EV?

But, even that definition has its drawbacks.

[chickenbeaks]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is Peer gynt. By gynt I mean luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peer gynt is suite. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[silvershade]

If you play enough hands you will reach a point that only your skill level affects your results. This will only happen after a very large number of hands though.

In any particular session luck is probably the major factor, with skill acting only as a modifier, reducing losses in losing sessions somewhat and increasing wins in winning sessions also.

[Toddy]

THe more and more i play i think its about 3% skill. How many times can i play a hand perfectly and take a bad beat?

[Rah]

[ QUOTE ]
Any answer other than 100% skill is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, your answer is wrong (unless you mean an infinite number of hands)

[AliasMrJones]

This sounds like the kind of question someone who learned poker from TV would ask. It changes over time so there is no way to answer this question because the timeframe (or the particular game, for that matter) haven't been specified. Anyone who voted should be kicked off the forum.

[Siingo]

Why? So you think the most skillful player always will win 100% of the money at the table.

I say that even if you are skilled then your edge is still not very big over a player that do not have any skill. But you do not need a big edge if you play many hands.. A casinos edge in mnay game is often not more than 5%. Still they win alot...