luck vs skill

[darryl2172]

My poker career is going into year #2, as I have become more serious about my play, friends and family have been critical, becase they feel its all about luck. I personally think its 90% skill and 10% luck, but I would like the opinion of some seasoned veterans

[Baulucky]

As I have little or no skill, I rely on pure luck and bonuses.

[LetsRock]

While skill does provide an edge, luck is still a much bigger factor than many of us like to believe. Luck is something that everybody has. Sometimes it seems like I'm getting all the bad luck, but even I have sessions where I can do no wrong.

Skill allows us to get more $ out of our good luck and lose less when luck is favoring others. I think your 90/10 is way out of line and since luck is such a fleeting, uncontrolable thing (and it's difficult to actually know when you won or lost a hand because of luck) I'd guess that it's probably much closer to 60/40 (probably even closer than that). I'd love to be able to go back to every hand that I've had difficult choices on and be able to replay the hand from that moment using a differrent play just to see "what would have happend if...", but of course, that's not possible.

Skill prvides a lot of little edges; it doesn't dominate luck, it just gives you an occasional advantage.

[Prickly Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your 90/10 is way out of line and since luck is such a fleeting, uncontrolable thing (and it's difficult to actually know when you won or lost a hand because of luck) I'd guess that it's probably much closer to 60/40 (probably even closer than that).

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling that this one of those really undefinable things. I think of it as a long-term vs short-term issue. Short-term getting in with the best of it doesn't guarantee success, you're just more likely to have it. Long-term, you should be succeeding though.

Put it this way, if I have 4 out of 10 losing months, something's wrong. And it's probably more than my just being unlucky.

[darryl2172]

[ QUOTE ]
Skill allows us to get more $ out of our good luck and lose less when luck is favoring others. I think your 90/10 is way out of line and since luck is such a fleeting, uncontrolable thing (and it's difficult to actually know when you won or lost a hand because of luck) I'd guess that it's probably much closer to 60/40 (probably even closer than that). I'd love to be able to go back to every hand that I've had difficult choices on and be able to replay the hand from that moment using a differrent play just to see "what would have happend if...", but of course, that's not possible.

Based on what you said that would mean that a "lucky" player, has almost an even money shot against a skilled player. If that is indeed true, wouldnt that mean that the top poker pros of our time are just people who are luckier than most?
I understand that there is some luck involved, but 40% seems a bit too high. A monkey can sit a table or in front of a screen and have great cards dealt to them, but without a high level of skill, the cards are worthless, on the flip side the most skilled of players can take down a pot holding any 2 cards. IMHO

[The WET BEAVER]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
on the flip side the most skilled of players can take down a pot holding any 2 cards. IMHO

[/ QUOTE ]


So you can take down a pot with any 2 cards against 5 calling stations? You need to learn more.

[darryl2172]

So you can take down a pot with any 2 cards against 5 calling stations? You need to learn more.



[/ QUOTE ] First I never said I could do anything, I said "the most skilled players" of which I do not consider myself, so perhaps you need to learn to play closer attention to detail, it will benefit you in life and poker, or maybe you are just "lucky", so things like skill, and detail are not important.

[critterdude]

I don't post much anymore but Let'srock I think you are far off and newbies don't know better. Luck determines short-term variance but not your profit in the long run.

The edges that a player can get are cumulative. So the better the player and the weaker the opponent the bigger the edge, the more BB per hour you averager. This has NOTHING to do with luck.

There are 3 reasons why luck is even acknowledged by the strong pros. They are:

1. Variance and the impact it has on your bankroll
2. After each session you need to review your play.
A. Are losses because you were outplayed or they hit longshots (lucky) against you.
B. Were your wins because you outplayed your opponents or did you get lucky?
3. When someone runs hot or cold at a table superstitous players will change their play thus changing your optimum strategy.

Profit or profit per hour is uneffected by luck and completely effected by skill, period.

[The WET BEAVER]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't post much anymore but Let'srock I think you are far off and newbies don't know better. Luck determines short-term variance but not your profit in the long run.

The edges that a player can get are cumulative. So the better the player and the weaker the opponent the bigger the edge, the more BB per hour you average. This has NOTHING to do with luck.

There are 3 reasons why luck is even acknowledged by the strong pros. They are:

1. Variance and the impact it has on your bankroll
2. After each session you need to review your play.
A. Are losses because you were outplayed or they hit longshots (lucky) against you.
B. Were your wins because you outplayed your opponents or did you get lucky?
3. When someone runs hot or cold at a table superstitous players will change their play thus changing your optimum strategy.

Profit or profit per hour is uneffected by luck and completely effected by skill period.


[/ QUOTE ]


Welcome back Critterdude, you should stay. I liked your humor.

[LetsRock]

I agree with you to the point that I failed to specify long term vs. short term perameters.

My points were written under the framework of a short term thought - luck vs. skill in say, one session. I assumed that when someone is talking about luck vs. skill, they're refering to a very short-term frame work.

To me it's obvious that the little edges that skill add to a game pay off very handsomely over the long term.

But to believe that you can accumulate enough edges to beat someone who's running lucky (or to overcome bad luck on your own part) is just not true. A player could play 500 hands perfectly (so perfect that the hands could be face up)and still lose during any given stretch - luck is involved and we (pompously placing myself in the "skilled" category) have to be ready for "those days" when luck beats skill.