In Your Experience, What Percentage of Poker is Skill vs. Luck?

[Dave H.]

Oftentimes someone will ask me about my poker experience. Usually he/she will say something like:
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you play, it's all luck anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, before reading many books, many posts, and playing tens of thousands of hands, I assumed the same thing, i.e. that it was all luck.

Now, of course, I understand that skill makes a big difference, especially in the long run. So, if someone were to ask you what percentage of your poker is attributable to skill vs. luck, what would you say?

[lehighguy]

32.859% luck

I would probably say 60% skill 30% luck and 10% balls.

Even the best players have to allow luck into the equation. Their skills allow themselves to take calculated risks (i.e. counting outs vs. pot odds and such) and put themselves in a position to be lucky and profitable.

I do not understand. Really.

[UATrewqaz]

A single hand of poker is almost 100% luck

A single session of poker is still probably 50% + luck

But as the number of hands grows, the luck component goes down more and more.

ALA after 10 million hands the luck component of whether you are up or down is nominal.

[MicroBob]

Neither do I.


If you have enough skill to beat the game....and you play long enough...then the answer is close to 100% skill.


"So, if someone were to ask you what percentage of your poker is attributable to skill vs. luck, what would you say?"


I generally say that there is variance and fluctuation in the short-term...but it all evens out in the long-run and long-term success is not going to happen without skill.



If you were to say '90% skill and 10% luck' would that mean that 10% of players with crappy skill can still be successful in the long-term?
I'm not sure it would mean this or not. But I don't believe that 10% of crappy players can be successful in the long-term.


however...you can obviously catch a lucky big-score in the short-term and then just hang onto your money (like a Varkoni or Moneymaker for example).

I've actually been wondering something along these lines. Obviously if you're playing SNGs or ring games all day, over even a year your luck component is going to be minimal. But if your only game was giant MTTs, I think it would be possible to have a very lucky or [shudder] very unlucky lifetime. Scary thought.

I'd love to see some math on the variance of say 25 $10k/500ppl+ buy-in tourneys a year. Assuming you are a 100% ROI player (that's about what the very good players expect right?) or a 50% or 0% ROI player. IE - even if I am a dead-average WPT player, what are my chances of having a nice winning career?

Very curious here.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
10% balls.

[/ QUOTE ]


You know what you can't outsouce? Balls.

- Colbert

[A_C_Slater]

Barry Greenstein claims in 'Ace on the River' that a good player has a 3% edge in the long run if he plays in typical games. That may not seem like a lot, but remeber that house edge in blackjack is less than 1% if you play perfect strategy. There is math to support this, but me no feel like posting it.

[Zetack]

I can't remember where I ran into this or I'd link it. A guy took a poker simulator, ran it eight times with the identical profile player over the number of hands that simulated a life time of play. The results among the eight players varied by 2% over the course of a lifetime of full time play.

So, 98 percent skill, 2 percent luck. If we could live longer, I presume those percentages might change.

--Zetack

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember where I ran into this or I'd link it. A guy took a poker simulator, ran it eight times with the identical profile player over the number of hands that simulated a life time of play. The results among the eight players varied by 2% over the course of a lifetime of full time play.

So, 98 percent skill, 2 percent luck. If we could live longer, I presume those percentages might change.

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]


So that's a 2% edge. Greenstein claims if your lifetime winrate is 1 BB hour than your edge has been 3%. Of course, if you're really good it can be higher. Or if you're a hack it could be as little as 1% or if you're good, but playing in tough games for some reason or lack of availabilty.

[ QUOTE ]
I would probably say 60% skill 30% luck and 10% balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

gotta agree with this one.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember where I ran into this or I'd link it. A guy took a poker simulator, ran it eight times with the identical profile player over the number of hands that simulated a life time of play. The results among the eight players varied by 2% over the course of a lifetime of full time play.

So, 98 percent skill, 2 percent luck. If we could live longer, I presume those percentages might change.

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]


So that's a 2% edge. Greenstein claims if your lifetime winrate is 1 BB hour than your edge has been 3%.

[/ QUOTE ]


What zetack says has NOTHING to do with claiming that a winning player has a 2% edge. This would be completely different.

It means that winning players of equal strength can have a 2% difference in the winnings over the course of their WHOLE careers (assuming both play at the same limits and maintained the exact same advantage over their opponents for their whole lifetime...which, of course, would be ridiculous).



We don't know what it was in the study....but conceiveably both players could be playing at a 0.5% advantage (or a 9% advantage...or a more realistic 2-3% advantage) and then end up with this 2% difference in lifetime total winnings.

[sfer]

If I'm stuck it's all [censored] luck goddamnit

[Oblivious]

This question is 100% retarded.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember where I ran into this or I'd link it. A guy took a poker simulator, ran it eight times with the identical profile player over the number of hands that simulated a life time of play. The results among the eight players varied by 2% over the course of a lifetime of full time play.

So, 98 percent skill, 2 percent luck. If we could live longer, I presume those percentages might change.

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]


So that's a 2% edge. Greenstein claims if your lifetime winrate is 1 BB hour than your edge has been 3%.

[/ QUOTE ]


What zetack says has NOTHING to do with claiming that a winning player has a 2% edge. This would be completely different.

It means that winning players of equal strength can have a 2% difference in the winnings over the course of their WHOLE careers (assuming both play at the same limits and maintained the exact same advantage over their opponents for their whole lifetime...which, of course, would be ridiculous).



We don't know what it was in the study....but conceiveably both players could be playing at a 0.5% advantage (or a 9% advantage...or a more realistic 2-3% advantage) and then end up with this 2% difference in lifetime total winnings.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah yes, I seen now. Identical player profile. That is interesting.