US States
NJ Online Casinos
WV Online Casinos
PA Online Casinos
Michigan Online Casinos
Online Casino California
Online Casino Arizona
Online Casino NY
Real Money Casinos
Fastest Payout Casinos
Mobile Casino Apps
New Online Casinos
Casino Payment Methods
Sweepstakes
Sweepstakes apps
No deposit bonus
Daily login bonus
Sweepstakes games
Crown Coins
Funrize
Hello Millions
High 5 Casino
Jackpota Casino
Mcluck
MegaBonanza
PlayFame
Pulsz
RealPrize
Stake.us
Sweepstakes coins
Awards
Search forums
Free Games
Free Blackjack
Free Online Roulette
Free Slots
Bonuses
No Deposit Bonus
Crown Coins Promo Code
Funrize Primo Code
Hello Millions Promo Code
High 5 Casino Promo Code
Jackpota Promo Code
McLuck Promo Code
MegaBonanza Promo Code
Pulsz Promo Code
RealPrize Promo Code
Stake.us Promo Code
Games
Online Slots
Blackjack
Roulette
Poker
CardsChat Freerolls
How to Play Poker
Poker Hands
Poker Strategy
Free Online Poker Game
Poker Bonuses
Poker Tools
Poker Podcast
Poker School
Forum
News
Log in
Join
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Install the app
Install
Forum
Poker Discussion
General Poker
Poker, Game of Luck or Skill?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="STL FAN, post: 2605450, member: 120788"] I find it interesting, a topic that appears again to be discussed. Luck is a word that is more opinion than facts to support the topic that would make any comment empirical. Most of what is said is opinion with little real facts to persuade a reader to come away with a clear belief one way or another. I will however, use examples that I have just went through to cloud this topic further, not to give an empirical answer; just offer more information for thought. I recently posted about what I went through in my tournament about playing 12 hours to reach the final three people in a field that mostly had people that have read little or no poker books, were looking to get their premium hands all in pre or post, one pair, top pair on flop or any street, not observing board texture, not thinking about what an opponent might hold, when they got married to hands the last thing was to think about folding if they thought there was a chance of being beat. This is just a partial observation of my opponents however; this is what had been done routinely, universally over and over for 12 hours. To understand and know where I stood in each situation I was in pre or post, knowing what my opponent had, did not have, or at the very least 1-3 exact hands. My approach was not to run a race but extract chips or save chips while either ending or seeing the hand until river. What I observed was differences of skill, a variance of play from very little skill that boarder on almost no skill, but rather my opponents wanting to see all five cards through aggression, the cards they held regardless of the situation, the people involved in the hand. My approach was to limit the times I chose to run a race even if knew I was ahead. The option to fold rather than letting the cards I held dictate the situation. I laid down many strong hands at different times, streets to avoid a situation against the wrong person or persons because of how long I knew it would take to reach the final table. The difference in skill levels can be attributed more to the end result of a hand than people saying they were lucky or unlucky. Going back to the beginning of the hand or where the money went in is where the difference in skill can be defined, either having more or the lack of skill than your opponents. The variance of skill I believe is a fairer comparison than being lucky or unlucky to explain results of a hand. Looking at the end result is easier to explain if a person can use being lucky or unlucky rather than seeing that a person of lesser skill contributed to the end result that a person of more skill allowed themselves to be in a situation that the end result could actually be a variance of skill? The cards are the cards and the %’s are the %’s when and where(pre or post) all the money goes in, visual results from this now is explained with luck or the lack of it as the reason? The skillful person does not mind being sucked out on this is part of knowing you are ahead or have the other person crushed, this comes from trusting your reads properly for a long period of time, this is the small skill edge; mentally they just have to accept the consequences of their actions, results good or bad. Surrendering my skill to someone that is less skillful is a mental leak if I allow myself to play their game, repeating this because of what I hold is a fundamental mistake against the less skillful person. In conclusion, I believe it is a variance of skill that contributes to people attaching luck to results of a hand, cash session, and tournaments. This could also could be a reason to stop learning, not improving, and just accept the results; then explain that luck is the reason why they won or lost. This is why the more skillful person will adjust to the competition and skew the strategy just a little, or even simplify what they do in any one tournament for example. This will help to play in any tournament regardless of skill level of their opponents. I enjoy talking and giving my opinion about different topics, hope all is going well and enjoy the rest of your day. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Poker Discussion
General Poker
Poker, Game of Luck or Skill?
Top