Do you think there is too much luck in hold'em?

[el_grande]

This is not the beginning of a bad beat story. I'd like you to think about this one a little, so I posted it here in the theory forum.

Playing hold'em well takes a lot of study. The best players are usually those who devote significant time to studying and practicing the game just like any other. Do you think the luck factor is too large of an offset to this ability?

Obviously without luck, the weaker players would be fewer. We can all agree that there should be some amount of luck in the game. But do you think that expert play should be rewarded more often short-term?

No solutions here, just a theoretical question. Would you be happier, and would you show more profit if winning sessions occured say 80% of the time rather than say 60% of the time, but with fewer fish?

[Dov]

Think of it this way.

Many of the biggest fish think they are winning players. They are such big fish because they keep coming back to play. You can easily identify them by their whining and complaining at the table.

Take away some of the luck and their lack of skill will be quickly obvious. That wouldn't be good for those at the top of the food chain.

[RoundersRocks!]

Ever notice how little high stakes chess there is on televison?

Skill and gambling just don't belong in the same setance for the average person.

Even the notion of "proffessional gambler" is relatively new in terms of culturally being accepted as a legitimate proffession.

[TStoneMBD]

id like a little less variance. sometimes things get really stressful.

[Argus]

[ QUOTE ]
id like a little less variance. sometimes things get really stressful.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd accept a lower BB/100 if it meant I slept better at night. Bad runs are -EV for sleep too.

I don't think hold'em is too much luck based though, since as a previous poster explains the luck is the basis of many false beliefs about poker and some decent money for me.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Of all the forms of poker currently spread in casinos and online (the exception would probably be high draw, spread on Paradise), Hold'em has the smallest luck factor. i.e., the best hand dealt holds up the most often.

If you think there are too many suckouts in hold'em, don't play stud.

[Munga30]

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the forms of poker currently spread in casinos and online (the exception would probably be high draw, spread on Paradise), Hold'em has the smallest luck factor. i.e., the best hand dealt holds up the most often.

If you think there are too many suckouts in hold'em, don't play stud.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about two different things. HE hands run further apart than O8 hands, but limit holdem has what I consider a higher "luck factor" because the variance is higher. Winners win more consistently and losers lose more consistently in limit 08, limit omaha, limit stud-8 and NLHE, not necessarily in that order. Razz probably has higher "luck factor" that straight stud.

[PotatoStew]

[ QUOTE ]
Hold'em has the smallest luck factor. i.e., the best hand dealt holds up the most often.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this make for the smallest luck factor? "The best hand dealt" is determined purely by luck, not by any sort of skill.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

*All* poker has the same random factor in the dealing of the cards. What happens after that separates the different forms vis-a-vis variance.

[arcticfire]

Texas holdem gives those whom rely totally on luck a chance to have really great winning sessions. Thats a big part of why it's so apealing. It also has the opportunity to bluff which the vast majority of people assosiate with "skill".

The combination of luck and society image of the game (it's "the catilac of poker" afterall ) is why I think people flock to it. Other games where variance is low , luck is vertually non-exsistant like limit omaha8 are not nearly as popular because bad players barely ever win.