[brettbender]

> If it’s true that poker is a skill game, then only the true greats should be able to play perfectly.

No, even in a skill game, it is possible for someone who does not understand the rules to make the perfect play. It is just extremely unlikely, and it is extremely likely that a more skilled player will beat a less skilled player on average. The greater the skill disparity between two players, the more one-sided the competition should become.

I'm sure Josh realizes this, and I like the blog post as a whole, that quote just struck me as wrong enough I had to post something.

[ILIKEPONIES]

Disagree with your first point, unless you are suggesting they fall into it (aka just luck out). Like the infinite monkey theorem.

I agree with everything else. Obviously a more skilled player will beat a less skilled player if the game they are playing requires skill (which poker obviously does).

[brettbender]

>> No, even in a skill game, it is possible for someone who does not understand the rules to make the perfect play.

> Disagree with your first point

You may, but it is possible for a much better player to lose (even in a "skill game") to a player with very little or no knowledge of the game. You may consider this "lucking out" but even the most skill-based games have an element of luck, and in edge cases new / worse players will beat better / experienced players - this is simply how these things work (and part of what we as humans generally find exciting about contests of skill).

This is why many competitive games limit the element of randomness among professionals by various means. In poker, all players have the opportunity to play very many hands - no single hand decides the outcome (unless they decide to go all-in, for example). Similarly, in 9-ball and tennis (among other sports), professionals at the highest levels play sets of games - because the outcome of a single game is not indicative of the involved players' respective skill levels. On any given day, given enough games, I would beat Jeannette Lee at a game of 9-ball, even though her skill at the game is leaps and bounds above mine. At no time (ever, haha) would I realistically be able to beat her in a best-of-nine game format. That is why she is world ranked and I am commenting on a website.

Saying that "only poker greats will play a perfect hand" is erroneous, many people play perfect hands. The difference is a professional will probably know (or suspect) that they are about to make the perfect play. They also will attempt to do so regularly, and know the difference between perfect, good, and bad plays, whereas bad/new players will not (or will much less frequently).

[ILIKEPONIES]

Totally agree that a worse player can beat a better player in a skill game (when there is some luck involved).

Trust me - that's how I used to make my living and no matter how much better you play than your opponent, sometimes you lose in the short run.

I think we are arguing the same thing now.

[ILIKEPONIES]

now if only i could get more upvotes, that would be perfect :)

[ILIKEPONIES]

btw, because nl has the nuance that bet sizing is almost always variable, i'd contend that almost always, someone is not playing absolutely perfectly. that's what i think phil is really saying - it's about striving to be perfect. not being perfect.