The implications of that decision are enormous, as was in evidence in a recent court ruling wherein US District Judge Jack Weinstein determined that a New York businessman accused of operating an illegal poker establishment was not violating federal gambling laws because poker is a game of skill.
The U.S. government's contradictory stance on the issue only further muddies the waters. While the Department of Justice shut down three of the biggest poker websites serving American players in April of 2011 on the basis that they violated anti-gambling laws, the federal government seemed to rescind that finding in December of the same year, declaring that said anti-gambling laws - namely, the Wire Act of 1961 - applied only to sports betting and not to skill games like poker.
Numerous studies have been undertaken to clarify the issue. Some have determined that poker is a game of skill; others that poker is a game of chance.
A recent German study looked at tt The methodology was as follows:
- Three average players and three experts sat down at a six-player table and played 60 computer-based hands of Texas Hold'em. In each hand, one average player and one expert received (a) better-than-average cards (winner's box), (b) average cards (neutral box) and (c) worse-than-average cards (loser's box).
- The standardized manipulation of the card distribution was intended to control for chance and thus reveal the differences in performance between the average and expert groups.
- 150 participants played a "fixed-limit" game and 150 individuals played a "no-limit" game.
The researchers in that study found that card distribution and not skill was the decisive factor in poker success. The study's results showed no distinction between the expert players and their average counterparts when it came to final cash balance. They did, however, reveal that the expert players were better able to reduce losses when confronted with challenges like worse-than-average cards.
According to the researchers, “Luck, rather than skill, was key in determining final balance, with experts taking no more, on average, that novices. Experts did play differently, on various measures, and seemed better able to cope with bad luck, losing less. But they also won less when given good cards.”
While the study's findings are based on fact (i.e. the outcomes were accurately reported), there were more than a few flaws in its basic construction.
First, the self-determination of by the players of their skill levels leaves a lot to be desired. It is conceivable that more than a few of the average players underestimated their talents and experience, while the reverse is likely true for the expert group.
Second, The limited number of hands played represents an insufficient sample size to reflect the statistical complexities of poker. Consider that there are 52 cards in a deck. A deck allows for more than 2.5 million possible five-card combinations. In Texas Hold'em games, which are played with seven cards, that number increases to approximately 133 million combinations.
So what is to be gained by the study? Frankly, not much. It's yet another example of the research world trying to define a game whose probabilities and nuances are next to impossible to quantify.
Particle physicist Michael Vonk puts it this way: "Good poker requires that you make sound game-theoretic decisions, but there is still plenty of freedom to try and outsmart your opponents. Other casino games miss that second element. All you can do in blackjack or roulette is make the best possible mathematical decisions, and even then, you will still lose in the long run. I have never been attracted to those games. It’s the fact that you play against other people that makes poker so interesting, and that makes it possible to actually be a winner at the game.”
Vonk breaks down the process of poker play to a few simple questions: What cards do I have? What range of cards do I think my opponent has? Given these, what are the odds that I will win the hand after all cards have been dealt? And lastly, given these odds, will I make money in the long run when I pay the bet?
While all of these questions are math-based, Vonk says that solid math skills aren't the only factor in poker. Good instincts are also vital. This is because poker is a game of incomplete information. The ability to calculate probabilities, though helpful, is simply not enough to consistently win. Variables like player numbers, game pace, consistent versus inconsistent betting and player temperament all work in conjunction to affect and alter each game's outcome.
“There are many people who hate math but are great poker players, but there are hardly any players who lack the people reading abilities and still manage to be good poker players,” says Vonk. “Mathematical knowledge can to a large extent be replaced by intuition and experience. After a player has played a million hands of poker, even if he does not know the math at all, he will have a decent feeling about when it is profitable to draw to a flush and when it is not.”
Thus, it stands to reason that a study examining only 300 players and 60 hands of poker cannot possibly take into account so many intangibles.
A 2008 study by researchers Michael A. Dedonno and Douglas K. Detterman asked the same question - 'Is poker a game of luck or skill? - but based its findings on the results of more than 920 hands divided into two distinct sessions.
The first session was played with participants receiving no poker instruction. The second session was played after participants received poker instruction. The aim of the study was to determine what effect player knowledge has on game outcome, and therein determine whether poker is a game of luck or skill.
What the researchers found was startling. In short, even the most elementary instruction and nominal practice changed game outcomes.
"The reason," say Dedonno and Detterman, "that poker appears to be a game of luck is that the reliability of any short session is low…. [O]btaining accurate estimates of poker ability may not be easy. Luck (random factors) disguises the fact that poker is a game of skill. However, as [this study shows], skill is the determining factor in long-term outcome.”
We couldn't agree more.
POKERMANTIS.COM
No comments:
Post a Comment