What is the luck/skill ratio to be....

[TheTimeIsUp]

I don't relate winning 75% or 80% favorites luck, I see that as mostly skill. The best players around usually win a fair ammount of their chps without showing their hands. 90/10 luck is way out of hand. You are saying that everyone is near equal, which is not the truth at all. Can you honestly say Harrington is the luckiest man in the history of luck for making back2back wsop FTs? I think not.

[valenzuela]

Its not 90/10 its much, much less...BUT the difference between skill aint enough...more than 60% of the time players play their hands perfectly.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't relate winning 75% or 80% favorites luck, I see that as mostly skill. The best players around usually win a fair ammount of their chps without showing their hands. 90/10 luck is way out of hand. You are saying that everyone is near equal, which is not the truth at all. Can you honestly say Harrington is the luckiest man in the history of luck for making back2back wsop FTs? I think not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are talking about outliers and variance here. Harrington is amoung the top .1% of poker players (to pull another number out of my azz) and taking a two tourney sample and saying "see?" is a little dull. I think the question here is how much does the skill of the avg. run-of-the-mill 2+2er.... no wait, let's say the top 25% of 2+2ers who post here. How much of their skill matters compared to the luck involved? These are disciplined players who understand the Gap Concept and Continuation bets and who are even capable of making a good bluff. How much does their skill matter?

I think we all over estimate our own ability (myself DEFINATELY included) and underestimate our opponents ability. Put this in baseball terms. What is the difference between Curt Schilling and Jaret Wright? Wright is a damn good pitcher, and if he goes head-to-head with Schilling he will win 45% of the time (yet another made up number). Schilling, just for winning extra 5% of the time, gets paid $10 million more a year. I think a lot of us are Jaret Wrights. Good, solid players who deserve a spot on the starting rotation, but who won't get those millions that is the difference between good and great.

So, yes, in the long run exceptional skill counts for a good deal, but in any given tourney, Wright will win (or so will Jesse Orosco). AND a "good" player does not have the huge advantage that we all think he does.

CSC

[athosandaramis]

[ QUOTE ]

These are disciplined players who understand the Gap Concept and Continuation bets and who are even capable of making a good bluff. [ QUOTE ]



Could you expand on the "Gap Concept" and "Continuation Bets"

I guess I'm not as far along as I thought I was. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Potowame]

I think this is getting to general, a skilled player has bigger advantage at a higher buy-in.

At a lower buy-in luck is a bigger factor in making the FT. Mainly because players will make horrible calls that increase your varience greatly. The more times you have to show down a hand the greater luck is going to play a role in the eventual winner. It goes without saying a lower buy-in player will face more showdowns than a higher buy-in player.

I would put the higher buy-in around 60/40
Lower buy-in 40/60

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]

These are disciplined players who understand the Gap Concept and Continuation bets and who are even capable of making a good bluff. [ QUOTE ]



The gap concept says it takes less to open raise with than it does to call that raise. Meaning, you can open raise with KJs, but you can't call an raise with KJs.

Continuation bets - If you raise PF, you bet on the flop. (the next step says that other players know this too, so if another player makes a continuation bet, it means less than if he bets after calling PF.) But some players don't bet on the flop if they miss the flop. A continuation bet is "sort of" a bluff, but not really.

CSC

I messed up the quotes on this post, I give up.

[Blindcurve]

[quote
I think the question here is how much does the skill of the avg. run-of-the-mill 2+2er.... no wait, let's say the top 25% of 2+2ers who post here. How much of their skill matters compared to the luck involved? These are disciplined players who understand the Gap Concept and Continuation bets and who are even capable of making a good bluff. How much does their skill matter?

CSC

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the skill of *any* player determines the extent to which luck plays a role in their sucess. In the upper echelons of poker skill, a lot of the same players keep cashing and showing up at final tables, so clearly extreme skill limits the effects of "bad" luck and will take advantage of or create "good" luck situations. I'm talking about skills including, but not limited to: understanding different types of bets, starting hand discipline, having a clear sense of what their opponents do, having a clear sense of where they are in a hand, having a sense of how their opponents are feeling about their game right *now*: the list is long and not all of it can be learned simply by applying theory.
Obviously,in a game where you can do everything right, for the correct reasons with complete information (and we almost never have these advantages)and still lose, clearly luck takes a role. The more skills you have, or can develop, the more you can determine how much luck is a factor in your game. Truth be told, I think it's hard to define what "luck" is in this question. I assume we're assuming: winning coin-flips, avoiding suckouts, getting your fair share or better of "good hands".

[daveymck]

In a way I would say 100% skill.

But that is to be a winning tournament player long term rather than winning a single tournament. A good player who consistantly makes the correct decisions will more regulary get itm and win their share of tournies than a player of lesser ability.

A lot of us here understand the gap concept, continuation and probe bets etc etc but being able applying them correctly as well as being able to outplay people and mix up your game is the difference between the average 2+2 er and the real consistant top tournament players.

But long term is a long time in tournaments which could be many hundreds or thousands of tournaments some people think 20/50 or a 100 tournaments is long term I beleive not.