Skill vs Luck in Video Poker

[arcimede$]

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

You need to slow down and read more closely. There is no precise answer.

But, maybe I can help with a little visualization. Picture a straight horizontal line of VP returns. The far left will be returns at 90% and the far right will be returns over 100%. Now picture a set of bell curves above the line. One might be centered on high return games like FPDW at 100.75% and one might be centered on a game like 8/5 DDB at <97%. Others will exist at many various places along the line. Now, the left tail of one of the high paying games may intersect the right tail of a low paying game. However, the further left one goes the amount of overlap with high paying games gets less and less. The two examples I gave would have almost zero overlap.

So, what does this tell you. It tells you that the skill to select a good game (and play it well) is far more important than any luck that a poor game's player might have. Out of 1000s of players there may be one person who does better than the worst player playing the better game. Obviously, the knowledge, ie. skill, is the major factor.

However, if you look at just a single game, like 8/5 BP then there is only one bell curve for those who play optimally. The only difference between players will be luck. So, when looking at it this way luck becomes the predominate factor.

Hope this helps.

[Vegas Vic]

So, what does this tell you. It tells you that the skill to select a good game (and play it well) is far more important than any luck that a poor game's player might have. Out of 1000s of players there may be one person who does better than the worst player playing the better game. Obviously, the knowledge, ie. skill, is the major factor .

I won't ever pretend to comprehend the deep math you so often write about (the basics, yes), and any discussion between VP and live poker is irrelevant to me as I never have, and probably never will, play live poker. So, from my perspective, I would say this: if knowledge of VP and the skill to put it to favorable use is so miniscule, then 2 things would be happening... 1) there would be more winners from the huge subset of players who use the S.W.A.G. method of playing (the bread and butter for the casinos) and they would lower the pay tables even more 2) it would make more sense for good players to dump nearly every dealt hand and rely on the "luck of the draw" to bring up a winning hand.

Since neither of these are actually happening, or likely to, the skill to place yourself into the most favorable position for the draw is an important requirement for sustained success. (I do understand that no one can control the deal or the fill of the draw, i.e. the luck factor.) For the completion of the hand on the draw to be anything but a losing hand, it behooves you to be in position to maximize those cards you do hold. This is where the skill comes in. Without it, losing sessions would be much more overwhelming and more frequent than they are. If anyone doesn't believe that your skill level at VP is very important, then go to your favorite casino for a year and do your best to forget what you know. Sit down, play stupidly, and rely on luck. Get back to us with the reports of the good time you had winning.

[Alan Mendelson]

You need to slow down and read more closely. There is no precise answer.

I read what you wrote the first time. What I wanted you to say was "there is no precise answer." That's all Arc.

[arcimede$]

I read what you wrote the first time. What I wanted you to say was "there is no precise answer." That's all Arc.

Well, hopefully you more out of than that. The key information is that overall skill is far and away superior to luck. Luck only becomes a big factor when skill is about the same.

[Rob.Singer]

Well, hopefully you more out of than that. The key information is that overall skill is far and away superior to luck. Luck only becomes a big factor when skill is about the same.

Now what in the world kind of genius response was that?

[Alan Mendelson]

What we say in "live poker" is also appropriate for this discussion about video poker: "skill is overrated in this game."

If skill were really such a deciding factor, we'd all be getting more royals when we have a one card draw. I've said it before: playing video poker is not a test of what is the right cards to hold. Video poker is praying that the RNG will give you the cards you hope to get.

[arcimede$]

What we say in "live poker" is also appropriate for this discussion about video poker: "skill is overrated in this game."

Actually, a better quote would be ... luck is overrated. But, you don't want to believe that so you will hang on to whatever myths you can find.

[redietz]

Interesting tidbit -- I read some debates about how much the best hold 'em player in the world would be favored to finish better than a decent but unspectacular player in a large tournament. Opinions ranged from +200 to +400 in a soft tournament like the 10K WSOP event. Evidently simulations have been run assigning assorted math skills to segments of large tournament populations. So Chris "Jesus" Ferguson, who makes no math errors, would be somewhere between a 2-1 and 4-1 fave to finish better than an average player. Pretty scary that the best would only be that much of a fave.

Where his skill would be dominant would be heads up or on a really short table, but in full-table scenarios, he can't really impose his skill. Anyway, I don't want to say luck is huge factor -- just want to say that overwhelming skill doesn't correlate with overwhelming results. If that translates into "luck," well, I guess that depends on your definition.

[arcimede$]

The problem of trying to apply skill and luck to a single tournament is somewhat like trying to apply them to a single VP session. In short time frames luck will have a much larger influence. However, over time the skill factor becomes dominant. I suspect that is just as true in live poker as it is in video poker.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, a better quote would be ... luck is overrated. But, you don't want to believe that so you will hang on to whatever myths you can find.

Once again you contradict yourself. Look at what you wrote above: "luck is overrated." But earlier when I asked you about the percentage of luck and skill in the game you wrote: "there is no precise answer."

Well Arc, how can you overrate something when there is no precise amount? Is this another bell curve or coin flip?

[Alan Mendelson]

Interesting tidbit -- I read some debates about how much the best hold 'em player in the world would be favored to finish better than a decent but unspectacular player in a large tournament. Opinions ranged from +200 to +400 in a soft tournament like the 10K WSOP event. Evidently simulations have been run assigning assorted math skills to segments of large tournament populations. So Chris "Jesus" Ferguson, who makes no math errors, would be somewhere between a 2-1 and 4-1 fave to finish better than an average player. Pretty scary that the best would only be that much of a fave.

Where his skill would be dominant would be heads up or on a really short table, but in full-table scenarios, he can't really impose his skill. Anyway, I don't want to say luck is huge factor -- just want to say that overwhelming skill doesn't correlate with overwhelming results. If that translates into "luck," well, I guess that depends on your definition.

You brought up an excellent point. The main event at the WSOP has been referred to as a lottery. The proof that luck is the dominant factor in large tournaments is the number of "no name" and newcomer players who make it to the final table, and the lack of big name players at the final table. Look at how early many of the top pros get busted out.

And consider this: if luck weren't such a major factor in poker, holding AA would always win. In a hand with 5 players and you hold AA and the four other players each holds a pair, you only have a 45% chance of winning, and almost a 55% chance of losing.

[Alan Mendelson]

The problem of trying to apply skill and luck to a single tournament is somewhat like trying to apply them to a single VP session. In short time frames luck will have a much larger influence. However, over time the skill factor becomes dominant. I suspect that is just as true in live poker as it is in video poker.

We had this discussion before on other forums. There is no long term in a poker tournament. Because when you bust out, you're gone. Unlike a session of video poker, you can't take more money out of your wallet and start over (unless it is a rebuy tournament).

Now, in live games where multiple rebuys are not only allowed but are common, it is true that better players will win more money over time. ironically, the "pros" who fail to win the big tournaments (the lotteries where luck is such a big factor) will rule the cash games and that is where they make most of their money.

I personally have given up playing tournaments because there is "too much luck" involved, and I play strictly cash games now where I have more control. Remember that in tournaments the luck of the draw/deal can kill you as the blinds and antes increase. If you are "card dead" when the blinds and antes are high you are doomed. Bluffing has less impact late in a tournament when the bluffer is a short stack.

[arcimede$]

Alan, the long term in live poker is multiple tournaments. In VP the long term is multiple sessions. The same holds to some degree in things like baseball. Even the bad teams win lots of games, but over an entire season the cream rises to the top. Is that luck? Nope, but in single games it is more likely that a pitcher might get hot, or a bunch of bloopers drop in, etc. That's why they play 162 games.

VP is basically the same type of situation. Anyone can get hot in one session, but after a 100 sessions the better players will come out on top.

[Rob.Singer]

No Alan, it's that somehow he found a third foot to put in his mouth.Every time a player sits down for whatever amount of time to play vp, luck is what will determine the outcome. The only purpose some like to lump all those sessions together is so they can claim a win over the long term....with, of course, every creative way of self over-valuing their slot club fluff. Why do you think arci is having such a terrible time getting anyone to believe his BS? No "genius" (and he tested for it, ya know ) would ever have such an issue with all the little people.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, the long term in live poker is multiple tournaments.

That's nice in theory, but in practice... no. A good player might never win a large tournament. Just look at the results of the WSOP since it became a mega event.

The last "established pro" to win the WSOP Main event was in 2002 when there were 631 entrants.
The first "newcomer" to win was in 2003 when Chris Moneymaker's $2.5-million "from out of nowhere" win over 838 other players launched the poker explosion. Since then a "new name" has won every year as the number of entrants grew to a peak of 8773 in 2006 the year Jamie Gold won.

Jamie Gold worked in advertising/media, played low limit games and tournaments at The Commerce and The Bike and was never really a successful player, until in 2006 he won $12-million with 8,773 entrants. And he hasn't won a big tournament since, though he has placed in some local tournaments here in LA. He has only one WSOP bracelet (although one is damn good, isn't it?)

In fact, there hasn't been a repeat winner of the Main Event since it had 312 entrants.

[redietz]

A couple of points here:

1) Interestingly, the bigger the tournament, the less the "perfect player" is favored to outperform an average dude. Now, this goes against the grain of what Arci said (but doesn't invalidate it), because the bigger the tournament, the more hands get played. So "more hands" actually aides the average dude. Don't ask me why or the math of it -- other than this means longer time at full tables, I know nothing.

2) A lot of dominant players have the motive and means to employ less-than-forthright gimmickry to win big tournaments. I recommend the ESPN fictional series with "The Matador" for an overdramatised and simplistic bunch of examples, but you'll get the drift. Big names can employ horses who dump chips to them and such -- signalling is certainly an issue between "teammates." Anyway, I would expect big names to actually win more often than simulations suggest they should due to these. I have no idea if they do or don't.

3) I have no idea how to evaluate Arci's angle regarding cream rising over multiple tournaments. That 2-1 and 4-1 argument was regarding a "soft" tournament like the WSOP 10K. Other tournaments draw a lower percentage of amateurs and actors and so forth, so the degree "perfect player" would be favored over "average dude" would actually drop some.

All interesting stuff.

[Vegas Vic]

What we say in "live poker" is also appropriate for this discussion about video poker: "skill is overrated in this game."

If skill were really such a deciding factor, we'd all be getting more royals when we have a one card draw. I've said it before: playing video poker is not a test of what is the right cards to hold. Video poker is praying that the RNG will give you the cards you hope to get.

B.S. Alan. If you really believe there's no reason to hold the right cards, then don't do it and see how much you win. Better yet, hold no cards and draw 5 new ones every time.

[redietz]

The LVA used different formulas to determine their coupon book's value. One was an AI value (Any Idiot), another was average, another was expert. I think what Alan's emphasizing here is that the gap between average and expert is not very large, and the gap between walking, talking Any Idiot and expert may not be huge, either, in poker tournaments and vp. I don't think he means Stevie Wonder playing video poker. But Alan can certainly defend himself -- I just had to work in the Stevie Wonder line.

By the way, sad as it sounds, I saw a completely inebriated guy make it to a final table of a large tournament once. He couldn't even talk right -- no raises for him. He either folded, called, or went all in. He could say, "Call," and then the dealer would help him with the right amount of chips. Really sad -- he beat me. Anyway, I walked away with a healthy disrespect for playing sober.

[Alan Mendelson]

B.S. Alan. If you really believe there's no reason to hold the right cards, then don't do it and see how much you win. Better yet, hold no cards and draw 5 new ones every time.

What are you talking about? Of course I hold the correct cards based on "optimum strategy" but that doesn't mean I am going to win! The other element is luck.

I play the right cards when I play live poker too, but its luck that determines whether or not MY "right cards" will win.

In video poker you could be dealt As Qh 2c 3c 10c in Bonus Poker. The "correct play" is to hold AQ. Well the RNG decides to give you two clubs on the draw. Happens all the time.

In live poker you are dealt AK hearts. You bet big. You get four callers. The flop comes three spades. You played correct and luck beat you.
In live poker you are dealt two black aces. You bet very big. You get three callers. The flop comes three diamonds, all low cards. You played correct and luck beat you.

The original question stands: how much of video poker is skill and how much is luck? No one said you shouldn't hold the "right" cards.

[Rob.Singer]

Every session you go in to play is almost totally determined by luck....good or bad. There is no way to change that fact by creating a long term myth about it. It is and always will be, a session-by-session affair. Once I finally dropped my pig-headed beliefs about that and maximized my chances to produce as many of the big winning hands as possible, I won more consistently and probably more money overall, directly from the machines, than anyone ever has.