The article is overshadowed if you search the news in the late part of August for “poker”, “skill”, and “luck” by the ruling by the Brooklyn federal judge who ruled that poker is more a game of skill than of chance, a story which hit the news at about the same time as the research article. In that story the judge ruled that poker is more a game of skill than chance.

In the article that I read the researcher claims differently than the judge.

Where is the line dividing luck and skill? How much does chance determine success? It turns out that, from sport to the stock market, we are constantly deluded by an illusion of order, when in fact we are assailed by randomness. And a new study claims that, in one area where we ultimately expect skill to triumph – namely, poker – we may be far more at the mercy of fortune than we believe.

Anyone who has ever played Texas hold ’em or the like thinks they know how much talent is involved. But Professor Gerhard Meyer, of the University of Bremen’s Institute of Psychology and Cognition Research, says they are wrong. He says that we are, as in so many parts of our life, fooled by randomness into believing that we are masters of our destiny.

Poker, he insists, is largely a game of chance. Some games are clearly luck – roulette, for instance – while others, like chess, are matters of pure skill. But, as Meyer explains, “most games are heterogeneous, because they involve both chance and skill, and poker falls into this category.” The question is, how much skill is involved? Meyer’s study found that the workings of randomness far outweigh the importance of talent or hard work.

In Meyer’s study, 300 poker players took part, playing 60 hands each on tables of six. They were divided into “expert” and “average” players, and their ability to make money from good, bad and average hands was assessed. It turned out that – as you might expect – “expert” players lost less money on bad hands; but surprisingly, they did no better than average players on mediocre hands and even made slightly less on good ones. The conclusion, says Meyer, is that “poker players overestimate the skill factor in their play.”

Where is the line dividing luck and skill? How much does chance determine success? It turns out that, from sport to the stock market, we are constantly deluded by an illusion of order, when in fact we are assailed by randomness. And a new study claims that, in one area where we ultimately expect skill to triumph – namely, poker – we may be far more at the mercy of fortune than we believe.

First, LOL using 60 hands per player as a statistical basis. Even if you multiply 60 hands by 300 participants that totals 18,000 hands, which still isn’t significant for analyzing results even if those hands all belonged to a single individual. Any poker player who has done any study at all knows this.

Lose less with the bad hands? Okay. Win less with the good hands? Umm, what do expect when you are only going to play 60 hands? Decent players are going to wait until their skill tells them how to play at this particular table. Decent players know that results only become significant with thousands of hands, not 60. They’re apt to play conservatively, losing less with poor hands and winning less with good hands, until they figure out their opposition and how to play them. You want to compare chess players but end their games after three moves each and then look at the statistics? And why not evaluate players who have of millions of hands of poker stored in their databases showing that they are winning and covering the rake, and then tell them that in poker “the workings of randomness far outweigh the importance of talent or hard work”?

I do see two caveats with my comments about this article. One is that there are at least two individuals involved here, the professor and the author, and it’s possible that the author has slanted this article for entertainment purposes. Even if that’s the case I’m not sure I can buy the direct quotes from the researcher.

The other caveat is that both the author and the researcher refer to “we” and “poker players” as not understanding the degree to which randomness affects results, and it’s possible that by those references they mean Joe Average recreational player. If that’s the case, then they should have specified. Again though, based on the direct quotes I don’t think that the researcher has a clue how good poker players understand and deal with the randomness.

I hope no funding body paid a lot of money for this research to take place. Even the anti-gambling anti-poker factions would have wasted their money here.

Then he postulates why these types of intelligent, savvy people might be having difficulty with poker. He theorizes 1) lack of mastery of understanding the psychological aspect of the game and he uses bet sizing and bet frequency as examples, 2) bad feedback, which I interpret as variance combined with more variance as well as mixed with some psychology, and 3) emotional decision-making, where Ed gives as an example playing poker using a style that is most comfortable for you rather than mixing up styles or using the style that will win you the most money in a given situation.

If my summaries don’t make sense or if you want to read more, I encourage you to go to Ed’s article.

The article itself is interesting, but a couple of comments to the article triggered responses in me as well. First, a comment from a rated chess expert:

When I played a series of games against friends who were around 1100 strength, I had trouble at first. I was making defensive moves but what I was defending against were threats that these 1100 players didn’t have any chance of seeing.

After a while I learned which threats I needed to pay attention to, and which ones I could ignore (as in “he’ll never see that”). Then I started winning faster and more easily.

I suppose this makes sense. It’s the equivalent of out-leveling yourself in poker, or FPS; Fancy Place Syndrome, where you make plays or worry about your opponents doing things or being able to read your plays, when in fact your opponent hasn’t got a clue as to what you’re thinking. But somehow this seems much simpler in a chess context than in a poker context. Somehow it seems much easier to say, oh, he’ll never see that opening that I left him and then ignore it, or, he won’t see the fake move that I want to do to draw his attention over there so there’s no point trying to make that feint. Because each hand (or battle) is short compared with an entire chess game, and because there’s so much randomness in the cards, and because it’s so difficult keep track and to manipulate players within a session (I don’t want to use the word “meta-game” because I don’t think the term applies in a single session) on top of the randomness, I think that it’s much more difficult to manage these kinds of adjustments in poker. And even if you do make these adjustments variance may not choose to reward you, and you may not receive the positive reinforcement that the chess player will receive with much more regularly.

On another comment Ed himself replies:

I agree that having gamble certainly seems to help… at least it seems to help get you to the highest levels of poker.

This comment resonated with me. I really don’t have much gamble in me, and more and more I think that not having gamble in me becomes more and more of a reason why I’ve never continued to move up in stakes no matter how many buyins I accumulate in my bankroll. I think it remains an issue when I started playing this level with 6 buyins but am now playing with 120+ buyins and am still hesitant to move up. I never had any interest in playing the “highest levels of poker”, and it shows.

The expectation is that there will be a significant overlay. The buy in is $215 with $15 going to the rake, $200 going to the prize pool. Start time as I write this is thirteen hours away and there are 15,759 registered, meaning $3,15,800 has been collected going towards the prizes, so as of right now PokerStars is some $6,800,000 short .

Looking at it the other way, PokerStars needs $10 million divided by $200 or 50,000 runners in order to not have to put their own money into the prize pool. Even if we get to 25,000 by start time, that means that for the $200 buy in there is a chance at $400 worth of prizes. That’s why so many have been trying to satellite in, scrape up backing, or simply take a shot at playing.

First prize is guaranteed at $2 million.

I don’t expect or even hope to win. I don’t play a lot of tournaments and I’ve played very few were the starting stack size is 250 big blinds. What I do hope to do is cash and get something back for my stakers.

I think that there are many factors. Some factors overlap and often more than one will be in play for a specific person at any given time.

1. Fun of playing the game
2. Social interaction – particularly live home games with friends
3. Intellectual challenge – more challenging than playing cribbage with friends
4. Emotional triggers – highs and lows of the game may be more exciting than watching sports or movies for the emotional releases that they provide. Players who seek these triggers may play above their bankroll and skill level because the low stakes games aren’t exciting enough.
5. Competition triggers – people who love competitive sports may find the competitive aspect of poker attractive
6. Aggression release – connected to competition triggers. Poker allows plenty of opportunities to express aggression by shoving all-in or by continually betting to pressure players to fold (submit to their aggression).
7. Lack of understanding of odds combined with selective memory – leads players to think that they are better than they actually are and to undervalue the skill component of the game
8. Love to gamble / addicted to gambling – odds are not as important as the chance to win big or to hit your hand. For some people the cost of chasing the inside straight eleven times in order to hit once is worth it even if they only win a small pot with the win. The satisfaction of winning and even the excitement of chasing seems to outweigh the costs as the monetary losses pile up.
9. Trying to win back previous losses
10. Dreams of big wins – some players who play large field poker tournaments also love to buy lottery tickets for the same reason
11. Propensity toward gambling combined with stressors in their current life – we all need something to lean on when things are not going well; a drinker will tend to drink more, a gambler will tend to gamble more
12. Still learning poker – fun plus intellectual challenge, but the beginner may lose for a while
13. Still adjusting to a higher play level than they were previously at
14. Trying to earn rewards from other sources – bonuses, rakeback, free rooms/meals at gambling hotels

Some of these reasons apply to winning players as well, like competition triggers, fun of playing, or adjusting to higher play levels. Others, like lack of understanding odds, trying to win back previous losses, or addiction to gambling are detrimental to the makeup of a winning player. I once tried to hang out in a discussion forum for gambling addicts but left because I felt badly. I could ignore the probes that tried to prove to me that since I was there I must have a gambling problem, but everyone else had a real problem which I didn’t have, at least not in the same way. Even though I was honestly there to learn and perhaps gain insights that I might be able to pass along through this blog and other mediums I felt awkward trying to hang out .

There is a much darker tone to some of the reasons than to others. For example, fun and learning sound like good, positive factors. Playing poker because of stress, or because you are seeking aggression release, or because you are trying to win back previous losses have a much darker tone. I know that I’ve tried to “dig myself out of a hole” during a session that starts down, or started a poker session and later noticed that I’m trying to take pots away from players by betting/raising far too often. And I know that sometimes I’ll start playing poker as an escape from an uncomfortable situation or recurring unpleasant thoughts. Usually I’m able to restrict those sessions to playing the cheapest tournaments in order to avoid too much damage to my bankroll. Not every poker player is able to divert themselves out of danger like that though. I’m aware that it still costs me a few dollars in bankroll and some emotional stress in these situations so I can see how someone with less patience or a more tumultuous living situation could be caught in the undertow.

I postulate that the key difference is discipline. Not knowledge, not understanding odds, not experience, not personality; discipline. Some knowledge and experience are mandatory to be sure but the one key difference between a winning player and a losing player is discipline.

I’m not talking about what turns a Tom Dwan into the poker player durrr. I’m talking about what makes a small percentage of winning players come out ahead in the long run over their opponents. I’m talking about how one player can play 30,000 hands of poker and be making money while most of his opponents have lost money and many of them have redeposited in order to continue playing.

Discipline manifests itself in many ways. Discipline means:

• Folding, when you know that your pocket cards are garbage
• Folding, when you are confident that your opponent has a better hand
• Checking, when you don’t think a bluff will work and your hand isn’t strong enough to call a raise
• Betting, when you think that you have the best hand

Those are just a few simple hand by hand versions of discipline. The list could go on and on, but essentially, always think to the best of your abilities, and then have the discipline to stick to your decision.

Over a longer term discipline also means:

• Proving your ability at the lowest levels before moving up
• Playing within your bankroll restrictions
• Reviewing your past play to look for weaknesses in your game, both old leaks as well as new ones that may be developing
• Maintaining your emotional balance and cognitive abilities while you play, and being able to stop when you feel that you’re not at your best
• Maintaining your hand by hand discipline as in the earlier list

Discipline reinforces patience. Without discipline our patience disintegrates. Without patience we degenerate into gamblers. It’s far too easy to call just because your opponent is an idiot, but do that too often and you’d better have a huge bankroll to cover you. It’s also easy to tell yourself that you’re better than the rest of your table, but if you can’t beat 0.01/0.02 you are simply going to lose money faster at 0.05/0.10 tables. We’ve all had AA all in preflop and lost to KK or 97, but that’s why we have a bankroll with at least 20 (cash game) or 30 (sit and go) buyins so that there is no risk of ruin when we get sucked out on once or twice or even ten times in a row. The element of chance in poker means that we are supposed to lose hands to weaker players and that we will continue to lose to hands that we have dominated 20 – 30% of the time. That’s what the odds tell us. And those odds are what keep the bad players coming back; that combined with selective memory. Discipline is necessary to stay the course until variance starts to swing back our way again.

You’ve got to have patience, bankroll, and skill, but most of all you have to have discipline to be one of those players who cash out more than they deposit.

First off why identify poker, and then throw in “other types of gambling”? The first bill in the article refers specifically to online poker, and, though the other effort to repeal the UIGEA would affect all forms of gambling, the article refers to the fact that it specifically “bars U.S. banks from handling transfers from poker websites”. As the first writer points out, though only very briefly, poker is not the same as other casino games because you don’t play against the house, you play against other players and therefore it is possible to come out ahead. There is an element of chance involved but a skilled player can actually win rather than just lose more slowly if you have skill at the other casino games. Maybe the second writer asked for the extension from poker to gambling in general.

From what’s written I’m not sure that Ben Boychuk knows poker. It sounds as if  he has asked some friends or has done some internet research. But that’s better than Pia Lopez who has chosen to ignore the difference between poker and other games (perhaps intentionally since the difference weakens her argument). She doesn’t even use the word “poker” on her side. Instead she refers only to “online gambling” and likens it to “state-sanctioned prostitution, heroin sales, child porn sites – any number of human vices”.

Let’s face it; those degenerates that play online poker are the same undesirables that buy prostitutes and sell drugs and child porn. We’ve all known that all along; why don’t we just come out and admit it? They probably buy state-run lottery tickets, for that matter. And play in office sports pools. Maybe even some bingo.

• winning a big pot,
• making a big bluff,
• calling a big bluff with your reads,
• encouraging a maniac to give you his entire stack.

I ran across a player in the 2+2 forum who claimed that he liked making the big fold. I don’t know about most people, but making a big fold is painful to me. There’s always a chance that I’m being bet off my hand and that possibility makes folding painful. The statement came from a player who apparently can’t beat $10nl which I think is an expected result of his weak play style.

But I’m always interested in what other poker players think and feel about the game. Here’s a quote from a player who used to deposit regularly and play with half his bankroll at low stakes because the mini-micro stakes didn’t seem exciting to him. He says:

“I loved the gamble of winning an all-in being a massive under dog … it was exciting as playing roulette”

It’s a nice feeling, I guess, hitting your two or three outer and winning a hand. My usual emotional reaction when it happens to me is either vindication, when the player holds a hand that he shouldn’t have been playing to begin with like K2 on a K62 flop and I raised pre with AK and the board later pairs counterfeiting his two pair, or embarrassment, if I respect the other player or made a really bad play to get there. Example: I raised under the gun and had four callers (two of whom were loose fish) before the big blind 3 bet, I thought he might be just trying to take the dead money and I shoved my JJ, called by the two fish with garbage but running into his KK, and sucked out by hitting a set. I don’t think my interpretation was awful but I apologized anyway and explained my thinking.

I don’t play roulette. I don’t buy lottery tickets. That, plus the fact that I understand a lot more poker than the player that I quoted might explain why I don’t think or react the way the player I quoted describes his reaction to winning as an underdog.

When a sports team works a strategy and puts in a super effort to beat a top team I can applaud the thinking and effort. But when it’s just luck, it’s just, well … luck. There isn’t nearly as much reason to cheer. I guess that’s why I don’t play roulette.