Looking for an appropriate challenge to those who say poker's all luck

[NYCNative]

The Ohio AG made the following comment in a release about what is and isn't considered legal gambling for charity in Ohio:[ QUOTE ]
A game of chance includes poker, black jack or any other game in which a player gives up anything of value in the hope of gain, the outcome of which is determined largely by chance.


[/ QUOTE ]I made the following overly emotional statement in another forum in response to this:[ QUOTE ]
If poker is "determined largely by chance," how is it that the same players are always on my TV? There are many pro poker players who make livings off of poker alone and the same can be said for blackjack - why are there no pro slot machine players?

I challenge Jim Petro to sit down at a poker table with two of his Neocon cronies and three of the best poker players in the Rat Pack [note: The Rat pack is a local group of poker players in central Ohio] in whatever games and stakes and formats they want. The money they win above their buy-in will go to the charity of their choice. The money we win above the buy-in will go to the Ohio Democratic Party. If it's "determined largely by chance," they have as good a chance as us, right?

[/ QUOTE ]Now, it occured to me that if I was going to want to initiate some kind of challenge that it should fit the following criteria:

a) Demonstrate that poker is not "determined largely by chance."

b) Do so in a relatively short period of time since politicians and the media are all about sound bites.

Is it possible that I can come up with some kind of challenge that would show that poker is a game of skill that still manages to hedge my bets against the luck factor which is admittedly more prominent with smaller sample sizes?

[silvershade]

[ QUOTE ]
b) Do so in a relatively short period of time since politicians and the media are all about sound bites.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that in the short run poker is indeed largely about chance. We should be thankful for that as it camouflages the good players advantage, I know I prefer my opponents to believe that I'm a luckbox rather than that any skill is involved.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
The money we win above the buy-in will go to the Ohio Democratic Party. If it's "determined largely by chance," they have as good a chance as us, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, they do.

The good players just know when their chance of winning is greater (and bet at those times), or when they're being laid sufficient odds relative to the amount wagered and the likelihood of winning. This is no different to sports betting.

[ QUOTE ]
A game of chance includes poker, black jack or any other game in which a player gives up anything of value in the hope of gain, the outcome of which is determined largely by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
This definition is perfectly accurate. On each hand you wager money on an outcome is unknown and determined largely by chance. The fact that good players bet on chances which are > 50% (or less than 50% getting X:1 odds), doesn't change that fact.

There is no challenge to come up with because you're missing the point of the above definition.

[NYCNative]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no challenge to come up with because you're missing the point of the above definition.

[/ QUOTE ]So you have table A with Doyle Brunson, Phil Helmuth, Jesus Ferguson, Phil Ivey and Annie Duke and table B with five players who know the ryules to NLHE from playing free games online. You are asked, "which table would you like to sit down at," and your reply will naturally be "pick the table randomly from a hat because I stand an equal chance to win at either table."

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
>And why would you want people to think that poker is a game of skill?

So that it can be legalized here, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]
This says it all. Why do otherwise intelligent people put blinders on when they want something?

[ QUOTE ]
So you have table A with Doyle Brunson, Phil Helmuth, Jesus Ferguson, Phil Ivey and Annie Duke and table B with five players who know the ryules to NLHE from playing free games online. You are asked, "which table would you like to sit down at," and your reply will naturally be "pick the table randomly from a hat because I stand an equal chance to win at either table."

[/ QUOTE ]
You can win money in the long term playing slot machines with a sound mathematical strategy. Are slot machines a game of skill? Or would they be better classified as gambling/a game of chance?

The bottom line is this:

In poker, you're wagering something of value where the outcome of each wager is largely determined by chance.

That you can do it a million times with a small edge each time doesn't mean jack. It's still a game of chance. You can do exactly the same with sports betting/ horse racing if you're intelligent, it's still considered gambling.

[NYCNative]

[ QUOTE ]
This says it all. Why do otherwise intelligent people put blinders on when they want something?

[/ QUOTE ]As another poster mentioned, the changing of the minds in a few people that poker is a game of skill made a profound difference in at least one jurisdiction.[ QUOTE ]
You can win money in the long term playing slot machines with a sound mathematical strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]I would like to see a citation for this.[ QUOTE ]
Are slot machines a game of skill? Or would they be better classified as gambling/a game of chance?

[/ QUOTE ]The world must be black and white where you live. The issue is the word "largely." I disagree with the term as it relates to poker and blackjack for that matter.[ QUOTE ]
In poker, you're wagering something of value where the outcome of each wager is largely determined by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]The verbiage in the AG's annoucement doesn't say anything about each hand. It says the "game" of poker (and blackjack) is "largely determined by chance." I would not argue that winning a single hand is largely determined by chance, but that's not the issue, nor is it what the AG says. The "game" of poker is not "largely" determined by chance in my opinion any more than the "game" of football is largely determined by luck even though I could mention numerous plays that succeeded or failed "largely" because of luck.

It is because I can see the difference which is why I asked this question in the OP (remember that) looking for a game that would have the least variance in the shortest amount of time. That is mathematically an oxymoron, I realize, but at some point the two extremes have to merge and change places.

Possibly you missed the forest for the trees, so I shall try and reword this question in a manner that will hopefully be pedant-repellant:

GIVEN: Winning one hand of poker is luck.
GIVEN: Winning over the course of an infinite amount of poker hands is skill.

MY POSITION: Somewhere between those two extremes, skill overtakes luck as the determining factor for profitability.

YOUR JOB: Find it.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CHALLENGE: Can a relatively short-term session be set up that will allow for the skillful player to have enough of an edge to beat the game. It might be impossible to come up with this scenario. Saying so would answer the question just fine, incidentally, but do it for the right reasons.

You also never answered which of the two tables I mentioned above would be +EV to play at. I think I know why.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
GIVEN: Winning one hand of poker is luck.
GIVEN: Winning over the course of an infinite amount of poker hands is skill.

MY POSITION: Somewhere between those two extremes, skill overtakes luck as the determining factor for profitability

[/ QUOTE ]

yuk

one hand of poker is not luck or chance - its all skill because poker is a game of skill not a game of chance

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[XlgJoe]

[quote.[ QUOTE ]
You can win money in the long term playing slot machines with a sound mathematical strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]I would like to see a citation for this.[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume he is talking about video poker. In Vegas there are machines with over 100% payout if correct stategy is used. Again that is long term, short term you will be a loser.

[erby]

[ QUOTE ]
You are asked, "which table would you like to sit down at," and your reply will naturally be "pick the table randomly from a hat because I stand an equal chance to win at either table."

[/ QUOTE ]

...did the article you referenced claim that poker is a game of "equal" chance, or just chance?

"Dumb and Dumber"

"what are the chances of a girl like me and a guy like you ending up together? Like, One in a thousand?"

"more like one in a million."

"SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A CHANCE!!!!!"

ERBY [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[KidPokerX]

But I would choose the table with 5 random players only because my chances of winning are greater. This does not, however, change the luck involved with short term. The point you are tyring to make with this competition sounds like an attempt to prove that the short term luck involved in poker must be mastered before the long term can take place.