In a single hand, luck can be decisive, whereas over 500,000 hands, skill becomes far more important. Poker is not like chess, where virtually everything depends on skill. Nor is it like roulette, where virtually everything depends on chance. It lies somewhere in between: there is randomness in every deal, but skill determines who wins in the long run.
As has been said many times before. Poker is a game of luck in the short term and skill in the long term. Luck affects individual hands and tournaments, but over a large sample, better decision-making, strategy, and discipline allow skilled players to consistently outperform weaker ones. Ultimately, skill determines long-term success and profitability.
I think poker is mostly a game of skill, but luck is what makes it exciting.
In the short term, luck can decide who wins and loses. However, over a large sample of hands, skill becomes the dominant factor.
bankroll management, discipline, emotional control, and consistently making good decisions are what separate winning players from losing players.
If I had to put a percentage on it, I'd say poker is around 70-80% skill and 20-30% luck in the long run.
In the short term, luck can decide who wins and loses. However, over a large sample of hands, skill becomes the dominant factor.
bankroll management, discipline, emotional control, and consistently making good decisions are what separate winning players from losing players.
If I had to put a percentage on it, I'd say poker is around 70-80% skill and 20-30% luck in the long run.
Interresting question. I saw/read somewhere or seen something like winning say 36% of the time, makes you profitable. consistent over a long period. So the skill is in managing your game, bankroll, hands etc to stay profitable over the long term. if you were only lucky or unlucky 100% of the time. you would be unprofitable for certain. so skill must make up the balance. There are consistently well performing players out there, so tells you skill is absolutely important and the deciding factor
Luck is not under our control, so it shouldn't be spoken about. Skill very much is. Of course studying makes a difference. It increases your edge over your competition and that can be huge given the magnitude of what there is to learn. Rake is rake, easily beaten with proficiency and consistency. Be nice if we didn't have to pay it but the sites have gotta eat and it's remained somewhat consistent over the years.AdelsonFagundes said:
"Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard" - to answer your final question. As in every walk of life there are people with innate talent. But a disciplined person who has none (talent) will mostly always outperform the lazy genius.
Sometimes we feel so smart that for us, it would be impossible to exist something that we can't learn. We can to hold accountable a lot of things by our own lost but only correcting our mistakes will bring us to the profit. If we don't trust on the game, why would we continue playing?😉
We've all seen situations in which a player takes the money as a big favorite and ends up losing by an unlikely card on the turn or river. That doesn't mean that the decision was bad, but that the variation is part of the game.ferxo said:
Good morning, everyone.
I have been playing poker since 2018 and, over the years, I have read a lot about variance, probabilities, hand equity, and strategy. Whenever someone asks whether poker is luck or skill, my answer is that poker is much more skill than luck.
Luck exists and it is important, because to win tournaments you need to win some all-ins and key situations. However, skill is fundamental for knowing which hands to play, which hands to raise, call, or fold, and for identifying your opponents' tendencies.
For example, in the later stages of tournaments, the players I consider strong usually play tighter ranges, so I know I need strong hands to face them. Against recreational players, the strategy can be different.
In the short term, luck has a significant influence on results. But in the long term, players who consistently make correct decisions tend to make money, while players who play poorly tend to lose money. That is why, in my opinion, poker is about 90% skill and 10% luck.
I have been playing poker since 2018 and, over the years, I have read a lot about variance, probabilities, hand equity, and strategy. Whenever someone asks whether poker is luck or skill, my answer is that poker is much more skill than luck.
Luck exists and it is important, because to win tournaments you need to win some all-ins and key situations. However, skill is fundamental for knowing which hands to play, which hands to raise, call, or fold, and for identifying your opponents' tendencies.
For example, in the later stages of tournaments, the players I consider strong usually play tighter ranges, so I know I need strong hands to face them. Against recreational players, the strategy can be different.
In the short term, luck has a significant influence on results. But in the long term, players who consistently make correct decisions tend to make money, while players who play poorly tend to lose money. That is why, in my opinion, poker is about 90% skill and 10% luck.
The skill is in getting the best out of your big hands, or at least not losing a load of chips. The even bigger skill is making the best of any luck you might have, and not thowing a big win away needlessly. Everyone should read Dan Harrington's books, even if you decide you can't play like that.
I agree that luck plays an important role in poker, especially in the short term. However, I think the key is to differentiate between the outcome of a hand and the quality of the decision taken. Sometimes you can measure all the chips with the best hand or with the best mathematical probability and still lose. That doesn't mean the decision was wrong.ferxo said:
The variation is part of the game and is precisely what allows less experienced players to win specific hands or sessions. In the long term, odds and good decisions usually prevail, but in the short term, luck can change any outcome.
