I think the better question is how much of each? 50/50 is a lot different than 70/30, but I wonder if there's any good way to measure it?
After all, like so many games, the random variation can mask the effects of skill and you can only measure your skill relative to that of your opponents (so a good player against newbies might destroy them, while a superb player against good ones might only get a little ahead).
There isn't a simple, definite answer to this question because the skill of the players affect how much luck determines the outcome. Unskilled players are much more likely to bluff, call bluffs with weak hands, and over or underestimate their hands. In a low stakes, beginners game, there's enough variability that one player with a little more skill won't have much of an advantage. In a professional tournament, the best players show up in the top spots time and again.
Exactly...the new internet based players are, generally speaking, very loose players, and have really change the game in the non internet world. And I'd reckon that a very large percentage of entrants into physical tournaments now are internet trained players, and if you have a large enough % of these people starting, and all (hyperbole) of them "swinging for the fences", a lot of them are going to get through just on luck, but different ones each time.
Whereas, you will generally see at least one or two of the top 20-30 "old school" people at the final table of any major tournament.
Perhaps! But at least it's something we can attempt to discuss. As opposed to whether or not "luck" is a component in something, which is just a message-board dork argument.
You seemed to be the one who made the grand statement about it being a game of skills.
How is me saying that it's both skills and luck a message-board dork argument? Pray tell.
The point is that there are games that are not luck. Such as chess or go then there are games that are pure luck such as drinking games with highest card drink.
Hey, message board geek? (And, I'm calling you that because it takes one to know one.)
We know there are things that have little to no luck involved in them, and things that have a lot of luck in them. Yes: there is more "skill" (let's not have the message board geek argument about what that word means) in chess.
After all, like so many games, the random variation can mask the effects of skill and you can only measure your skill relative to that of your opponents (so a good player against newbies might destroy them, while a superb player against good ones might only get a little ahead).