Skill vs Luck in Video Poker

[Alan Mendelson]

In another thread, with a different subject, Vegas Vic wrote this as part of post:

If my skill alone isn't capable of supporting my VP avocation, I'll be in real trouble.

The question about skill vs luck as a factor in winning comes up in discussions about "live poker" all the time. So I would like to raise the question when it comes to video poker.

Unfortunately, I think that while skill is important in video poker that luck plays a major factor. The classic example is this one:

You are dealt a straight with four to the royal. The skillful play is to sacrifice the straight to try for the royal. And that's where the "luck" comes into play. You have one out of 47 chances to hit the royal, or various other cards for a flush (perhaps a straight flush), straight, high pair.

In live poker when skill vs luck is discussed, percentages are assigned to skill vs luck. In live poker the skill of making a large bet can make you a winner because it can force others to fold and the players will never see the final cards or the so-called "showdown."

But in video poker there is always a showdown. You will always see the end. You can't force out the machine to fold with a big bet. So does that mean there is more luck than skill in video poker?

[Rob.Singer]

I've often written about this in my columns over the years and discussed it on several radio programs. Those who sell optimal play have said the game of vp is mostly skill with a little luck thrown in. Some of the math people have, as usual, taken it to further extremes by the silly claim that there is "no such thing as luck--it's just simple mathematical distribution at work". But they're all misleading....and indeed, confused....in much the same way. Here's why.

For the regular player as well as for the professional, we wouldn't be playing the game without a basic knowledge of poker. That's a given. Knowing the intracacies of which hold has more value over another on a deal is a little more demanding, but becomes second nature in very short order if you are at all serious about your play.

So what's the real deal so to speak, when you sit down to play? Well, let's say you do know what you're doing, and let's say you immediately understand the mechanics of how the machine operates. You push max bet, and out comes JJ479.

What just happened? You were LUCKY because the machine dealt you a paying hand, and if you improve on that winner then YOU WERE EVEN LUCKIER! How much "skill" did it take to get dealt that winner? ZERO skill, that's how much. How much skill did it take know what to hold? Next to none. And how much skill was required if a third J came on the draw? Why, we're back to ZERO again!

It's arbitrary when applying percentages, but it's also very obvious. I've always said that video poker is about 95% luck & 5% skill. Every winning hand is nothing but a matter of having good luck. You could be dealt a hand where you could have several options for a hold where you're relying on the draw to give you at least a push, but if the machine doesn't cooperate then you lose. IE, if you are not LUCKY, you will not win.

Finally, people who laughably believe there's no such thing as luck are generally the type people you do not want to have a conversation with, because you will find they reside mostly inside their own heads and overall lead sour lives compared to the rest of us in society.

Good luck in your play.

[arcimede$]

As usual wheels shows us his ignorance.

What he fails to understand is what he calls luck is imbedded in the probability distributions. We will all get some "lucky" deals and some "unlucky" deals. I don't know of anyone that plays regularly who hasn't been dealt a pair of jacks, or for that matter, quad jacks. So, any person who plays regularly is going to see a distribution of these hands that matches close to expectation. That is, we're all going to get about the same distribution of hands over time.

So, the luck factor cancels out over time. What is left? Skill? The same argument I just gave for dealt hands also holds for draws. On any particular hand where you are dealt, say 3 aces, you will receive the 4th ace about once in every 24 hands. Is it "lucky" when you hit that ace? Well, not really, it's just a low odds draw that happens to everyone at this low frequency. So, once again the luck factor tends to be reduced over time. You might go 100 tries without hitting the 4th ace and then hit one 4 of the next 10 tries.

What is left is skill. Play the best that you can and over time you will find yourself close to the expected return. Make poor strategy choices (or machine choices) and you will end up close to the expected return determined by those choices ... which will be lower than the optimal case.

Now, as I mentioned numerous times there is a range of actual values defined by a bell curve surrounding the expected value. The luck factor can be seen by looking at the bell curve. Those on the left side would be somewhat unlucky and those on the right side would be somewhat lucky. Most people will fall close to the middle. In addition, the more one plays the tighter the bell curve becomes. That is, more and more people end up very close to the expected value (average luck).

The problem for all of us is there is no way to influence where we end up on that bell curve. While luck cancels out to a large degree, there will be a small residual effect over which we have no control. What we can control is the center of the bell curve. That is the expected return. By playing better games we shift the entire curve to the right. This means that even if we have worse luck that average, we could very easily still do better than a person playing a much worse ER game who is having good luck.

The bottom line is the only thing we can control is the amount we play and our personal expected return of the games we choose to play.

[Rob.Singer]

That's the same set of nonsense, and excuses, that Chuck DiRocco fired Dancer for putting in his column, and why my explanation was accepted as sensible. It's also why Dancer got fired after 6 months and why I quit after almost 8 years.

BTW, please use "10 wheels" when pretending to call me a name out of an over-abundance of agitation!

[arcimede$]

Did you have a point, wheels? I could care less what some "Chuck" thinks. I suspect he thought Dancer was boring and most people wouldn't understand. Probably true, but they are still the mathematical facts. There don't require belief by anyone.

[Vegas Vic]

I've often written about this in my columns over the years and discussed it on several radio programs. Those who sell optimal play have said the game of vp is mostly skill with a little luck thrown in. Some of the math people have, as usual, taken it to further extremes by the silly claim that there is "no such thing as luck--it's just simple mathematical distribution at work". But they're all misleading....and indeed, confused....in much the same way. Here's why.

For the regular player as well as for the professional, we wouldn't be playing the game without a basic knowledge of poker. That's a given. Knowing the intracacies of which hold has more value over another on a deal is a little more demanding, but becomes second nature in very short order if you are at all serious about your play.

So what's the real deal so to speak, when you sit down to play? Well, let's say you do know what you're doing, and let's say you immediately understand the mechanics of how the machine operates. You push max bet, and out comes JJ479.

What just happened? You were LUCKY because the machine dealt you a paying hand, and if you improve on that winner then YOU WERE EVEN LUCKIER! How much "skill" did it take to get dealt that winner? ZERO skill, that's how much. How much skill did it take know what to hold? Next to none. And how much skill was required if a third J came on the draw? Why, we're back to ZERO again!

It's arbitrary when applying percentages, but it's also very obvious. I've always said that video poker is about 95% luck & 5% skill. Every winning hand is nothing but a matter of having good luck. You could be dealt a hand where you could have several options for a hold where you're relying on the draw to give you at least a push, but if the machine doesn't cooperate then you lose. IE, if you are not LUCKY, you will not win.

Finally, people who laughably believe there's no such thing as luck are generally the type people you do not want to have a conversation with, because you will find they reside mostly inside their own heads and overall lead sour lives compared to the rest of us in society.

Good luck in your play.

95% luck? That's a joke. If you play Deuces as if you were playing JOB, or play DBP as if it were Deuces, no amount of luck will save your money. Application of knowledge is skill, and without it, you're a fool for sitting down and playing. I have sat next to many players (some of whom who were being "coached" by idiots) with no awareness of how to play or with limited skill and have seen them get eaten alive. Without the ability to make good decisions, any luck you hope to have will be offset by the "bad luck" you invited by setting yourself up to fail.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's my point guys. Yes, there is a certain amount of skill involved. No one should dispute that. Again the basic example is knowing when to drop a straight and go for the royal. That is one clear case. My question really is about the game in general.

Do we accept or not accept that there is more skill involved in live poker -- because you read players, deal with emotions of other players, can force "weak" players to fold, etc.?

I have not been able to "read machines" except that I can read pay tables, and while I have played on tempermental machines it referred to their mechanics and not the playing style, and I can't pressure a VP machine to fold. LOL

[arcimede$]

Here's my point guys. Yes, there is a certain amount of skill involved. No one should dispute that. Again the basic example is knowing when to drop a straight and go for the royal. That is one clear case. My question really is about the game in general.

One person seems to dispute it. He claims it's 95% luck. How can you not laugh at silly comments like that?

Do we accept or not accept that there is more skill involved in live poker -- because you read players, deal with emotions of other players, can force "weak" players to fold, etc.?

I have not been able to "read machines" except that I can read pay tables, and while I have played on tempermental machines it referred to their mechanics and not the playing style, and I can't pressure a VP machine to fold. LOL

Alan, the skill set is different. It's hard to say which requires more. With VP one of the skills I mentioned earlier is scouting for games. You also need to understand the returns (and strategies) of many games if you want to be successful. Another skill for progressive play is charming employees to call you when progressives get high. Of course, math is required in both games. Another VP skill is staying under the radar. Learning how to pull your card (not as important today) was a big deal a few years ago.

Like I said, the skill sets are different.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, Arc, Rob might me correct when he says the game of VP is 95% luck. You can only do so much with the cards you choose to hold and then its all up to the machine and the RNG. And I agree that the skill sets are different between VP and live poker.

But I am guessing that there is more luck in video poker than in live poker, even with the things you mentioned such as scouting for games, paytables, choosing progressives, etc.

[arcimede$]

Actually, Arc, Rob might me correct when he says the game of VP is 95% luck. You can only do so much with the cards you choose to hold and then its all up to the machine and the RNG. And I agree that the skill sets are different between VP and live poker.

It's only "luck" over a small sample size. This is stat 101 level of difficulty. Since you can't understand these very simple concepts one wonders why you would make statements that oppose what professional statisticians tell you. Do you think you are smarter than the experts?

Stupid is as stupid does.

[slingshot]

IT'S NOT A JOKE! Two days ago I just hit me SECOND Royal. It was on tdbp=and I always give this game a shot every time I go. I know you must think I'm joking, but it was the same scenario I hit the 4 A's, and the 4 3's. It was getting a few full houses and flushes to keep me interested. Then, all of a sudden, it went dead. I could sweep the hand when dealt razgu and always get a high pair to keep me going. So whenever it dealt me even the two different high cards with small matching suits, I would sweep them and get a pair or trips to keep me going. About 60 hands into the game I swept-Royal flush! In hearts! Skill my A--!

[Rob.Singer]

Ha! Say something arci doesn't agree with and watch him come apart at the seams!

Imagine this guy playing LIVE poker? He'd get so flustered with other live players he'd get booted out in record time because he takes everything so personally.

There is no math in live poker. That misconception came into play when TV started televising the game with analysts who continually showed % opportunities based on other hands and remaining cards. The reality is that since no one knows what cards have been dealt out and/or remain in the deck, it's totally impossible for any player to use math to calculate their probabilities.

As far as skill in live poker, sure there's all the pretending and such, but by & large you're not going to win the hand unless you get the right flops. But still, live poker has a higher skill requirement than video poker.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's Saturday morning and I just returned from a long day trip to a casino where the head of marketing took me to dinner. We were discussing advertising. Over the years I've performed advertising services for various casinos in Nevada and California. This will be a new client.

During the course of dinner I discovered the marketing manager is an avid craps player so we got to talk about craps and luck and skill. I told him I don't believe in dice control but the casinos are deathly afraid of it which is why three casinos made it clear I was not welcome because I set the dice and used what appeared to be a controlled throw. Do I control the dice? Heck no. Dice control is impossible. Dice influencing is possible and there is a 300-yard difference between the two.

Then we got to talking about video poker. This casino has decent video poker but they don't want to advertise it. So while discussing video poker I asked him: Live poker players say their game involves luck and skill, and video poker player say the same thing. So which game requires more luck?

His answer was video poker. He offered this percentage: Live poker is about 20% skill and 80% luck. He said he couldn't give me a figure for video poker (he said he never heard this question before and it was a new question for him) but he said video poker requires much more luck.

Think about it: you can't bluff a video poker machine.

By the way, I asked him how many RNGs are in a video poker machine? He said only one with a different program for each game that uses the results of the RNG to determine the payoffs on the game chosen by the player. He then offered to show me inside a machine.

[Alan Mendelson]

There is no math in live poker. That misconception came into play when TV started televising the game with analysts who continually showed % opportunities based on other hands and remaining cards. The reality is that since no one knows what cards have been dealt out and/or remain in the deck, it's totally impossible for any player to use math to calculate their probabilities.

As far as skill in live poker, sure there's all the pretending and such, but by & large you're not going to win the hand unless you get the right flops. But still, live poker has a higher skill requirement than video poker.

Rob I agree that live poker has a higher skill element than video poker. But this comment of yours that it's impossible to use math and probabilities in live poker is wrong. The correct statement would be that it is much more difficult to use math and figure the probabilities -- it is not impossible.

What a live poker player will do is not only figure the long odds he has, but also the long odds that his opponent or opponents have.

For example: when the flop comes 555 (trip fives) you say to yourself -- with eight other players at the table the chance that one player has the case 5 is 1/47. So as these guys start betting one of them might have it, others might have pairs, others might have just an ace.

The other night at Hollywood Park casino, in one hand, the flop came 555. I have a policy about such flops. If I don't have the quad card, I stay out of the pot, even with AA. However, in this hand, it was a family pot pre-flop all 9 players were in the hand. Then the flop 555. I was the only one who folded after the flop. The eight others battled it out till the river. Three players had an ace. Two players held pairs. One player had KJ and there was a jack on the river and he though he had the winning full house. Another player had JQ and he also thought he had a full house. And the remaining player in the hand? He had the case 5.

Now what happened in that particular hand. You had one player who was chicken -- me. You had one player with the nuts, the quad 5. And you had 7 other players who thought they could win. Seven of the eight players still in the hand figured no one held the case 5.

The chicken player (me) just watched the entertainment.

In a less dramatic example, you are holding a pair of Jacks and the flop comes Q Q 3 and you say to yourself "I think my jacks are good because two queens are already out, and I made a big raise pre flop with my JJ and I doubt anyone with a Queen-rag would still be in the hand so that limits the danger to someone holding QQ or KQ or AQ or JQ or Ten-Queen.

So you see Rob, the "math" isn't as exact as in video poker, but you still have to do that kind of reasoning when you play live poker.

[arcimede$]

Let me understand this right. You think a marketing manager has insights into the mathematics behind gambling. You keep on coming up with good jokes, Alan. I've got to give you credit.

[Alan Mendelson]

Let me understand this right. You think a marketing manager has insights into the mathematics behind gambling. You keep on coming up with good jokes, Alan. I've got to give you credit.

I'm sorry, I should have said more about his background. He's been in the business for more than 20 years, I figure, and has been with his particular group of casinos for more than 15 and has been at more than 10 properties during the course of his career. In the smaller markets he was head of slots/vp and he has been a casino manager, and a tables game manager. Now that he has moved up he is now a marketing exec. His job also involves buying machines, and setting paybacks on slots and VP. We even talked about how his company is lowering paytables and cutting back on comps and free play as the rest of the industry is doing.

Yes, he knows his stuff. He just doesn't buy advertising on TV. But that was a valid question, Arc.

[arcimede$]

Was this guy from a casino where there are no positive games? If so, then he's probably not that concerned with skilled players. It doesn't matter too much when, first of all, the numbers of APers are extremely small and second, anyone with any real skill wouldn't play where they don't have an edge.

It's like asking wheels about anything that has to do with math. He doesn't understand it and so it doesn't enter into his thinking. A casino without APers wouldn't understand the issues.

Of course, given the number of ridiculously good promotions some casinos have come up with in the past, I'd also have to say being a slot manager is not necessarily an indication of knowledge.

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay Arc. There is no arguing or even discussing anything with you. You know it all. So what's your answer?

When it comes to video poker, what percentage of the game is skill and what percentage is luck? Give us the facts.

[arcimede$]

Okay Arc. There is no arguing or even discussing anything with you. You know it all. So what's your answer?

When it comes to video poker, what percentage of the game is skill and what percentage is luck? Give us the facts.

You're not arguing with me, Alan. I'm just repeating what professional mathematicians tell us. Essentially, we all will fall within the bell curve. In addition, we cannot control where we will fall inside the bell curve. Since math describes the process completely one could say there is no such thing as luck. Just normal probability distribution.

Of course, if you're on the left side of the bell curve you will feel like you are unlucky compared to those on the right side. And, you will have less money in your pocket. So, clearly there is a difference from and individuals perspective. Let's put it this way. Once you make a knowledgeable decision on the game to play (which defines the bell curve) and learn the proper strategy, then everything after that could be construed as luck.

The problem is most gamblers don't do the first part of that scenario. Hence, even if they are lucky relative to others who do the same thing, they are often worse off monetarily compared to those who take the first part seriously. Hence, the luck factor gets overcome by the skill factor and, more importantly, there's very few people where the luck factor will make them more successful that a person who applies good skills.

[Alan Mendelson]

Answer the question, please, Arc: When it comes to video poker, what percentage of the game is skill and what percentage is luck?