Game of Skill - The debate continues

PiperT

Came across this earlier....link to full document provided below.

A study completed at Case Western Reserve University and published in the Gambling Law Review has determined poker to be a game of skill, rather than a game of luck or chance.

Dr. Douglas K. Detterman and Michael Dedonno conducted this study with two groups of poker novices. Each group was supplied with the basic rules of poker, and each group played a predetermined number of hands against "Wilson's Texas Holdem Software."

After the first set of hands was completed, one group was supplied with instructional materials which included starting hand rankings and other basic strategy that would set apart a beginner from a complete novice.

Their first study used a total of 200 hands, and the group that had received instructional materials significantly outperformed the group that received no information. They completed another set of hands, 720 this time, and gave the first group even more instructional materials. The new instructions included the concept of outs, and some basic strategy on flop, turn, and river play. The results were the same, with the treatment group outperforming the control group.

One notable conclusion that the two conducting the study came to was that "the reason that poker appears to be a game of luck is that the reliability of any short session is low." Any poker player will tell you poker is a long run game, although it might appear that luck is a huge factor in the short run - and there's no denying that sometimes.

Dedonno and Detterman went on to conclude, "Luck (random factors) disguise the fact that poker is a game of skill. However, as these studies show, skill is the determining factor in long-term outcome."

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/glr.2008.12105

TommyGunne

Its all luck obv. Kinda obvious really. How can someone bad win a hand if it isn't luck? Therefore they aren't really bad they're the same as everyone else, so some people just run hot. Probably a gammy study anyway. I'm sure they mixed up their ANOVA somewhere.

This debate will continue for a long time, especially here, considering so many people here are in denial about their incredible luckboxing abilities. That's why they believe they are "good" at poker. Luckboxes. All of you.

PiperT

TommyGunne wrote: »

This debate will continue for a long time, especially here, considering so many people here are in denial about their incredible luckboxing abilities. That's why they believe they are "good" at poker. Luckboxes. All of you.

LOL. On a downswing at the moment ?

ollyk1

TommyGunne wrote: »

Its all luck obv. Kinda obvious really. How can someone bad win a hand if it isn't luck? Therefore they aren't really bad they're the same as everyone else, so some people just run hot. Probably a gammy study anyway. I'm sure they mixed up their ANOVA somewhere.

This debate will continue for a long time, especially here, considering so many people here are in denial about their incredible luckboxing abilities. That's why they believe they are "good" at poker. Luckboxes. All of you.

Ah its all 50/50 you either win or you lose Tommy.

TommyGunne

ollyk1 wrote: »

Ah its all 50/50 you either win or you lose Tommy.

Exactly. I know my probabilities. They're 50% HU. End of.

RoundTower

it's not really a "debate"

WECpoker

There certainly is no debate that it can be many times a "game of pain" :eek:

Mr.Plough

Hope it continues to be known as a game of luck obv

RedJoker

PiperT wrote: »

Came across this earlier....link to full document provided below.

A study completed at Case Western Reserve University and published in the Gambling Law Review has determined poker to be a game of skill, rather than a game of luck or chance.

Dr. Douglas K. Detterman and Michael Dedonno conducted this study with two groups of poker novices. Each group was supplied with the basic rules of poker, and each group played a predetermined number of hands against "Wilson's Texas Holdem Software."

After the first set of hands was completed, one group was supplied with instructional materials which included starting hand rankings and other basic strategy that would set apart a beginner from a complete novice.

Their first study used a total of 200 hands, and the group that had received instructional materials significantly outperformed the group that received no information. They completed another set of hands, 720 this time, and gave the first group even more instructional materials. The new instructions included the concept of outs, and some basic strategy on flop, turn, and river play. The results were the same, with the treatment group outperforming the control group.

One notable conclusion that the two conducting the study came to was that "the reason that poker appears to be a game of luck is that the reliability of any short session is low." Any poker player will tell you poker is a long run game, although it might appear that luck is a huge factor in the short run - and there's no denying that sometimes.

Dedonno and Detterman went on to conclude, "Luck (random factors) disguise the fact that poker is a game of skill. However, as these studies show, skill is the determining factor in long-term outcome."

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/glr.2008.12105

This is a clear case of results orientated thinking.

strewelpeter

RedJoker wrote: »

This is a clear case of results orientated thinking.

:D:D

NickyOD

Of course it's all luck. We're all just gamblers at the end of the day. We don't pay tax on our winnings so it must be a luck game. Please don't try to convince people otherwise.

Russh

After what I witnessed at the S.E. 500 game at the weekend I'm under no illusions whatsoever about Poker....Pure Luck...:(