[bjitty]

The most layman explanation of skill in poker I've heard is this.

Everyone agrees chess is a game of skill. If 2 players played 1,000 games of chess where the winner of each match wins $1. In the end the most skilled player would have the most money.

Take that same scenario except after every 10 matches the players flip a coin and the winner of the coin flip gets $10. Over the long stretch the more skilled player will still end up with the most money. However in the short term it's possible for the less skill player to be ahead because of a few lucky coin flips.

Over simplification I know. However I've used it to try to point out the relevance of skill and luck in poker to people who have no concept of it.

[benjaminjackman]

If you read 'Characteristics of Games'[1] or watch some talks[2] by Richard Garfield he elaborates quite a bit on this topic. He uses the example of rando-chess, which is very similar to your example.

Quoting #2 below:

"The toy game example of rando chess is an elegant means of constructing a game with customizable levels of chance. Garfield uses it here to illustrate how skill and chance are not opposites. Rando chess is exactly the same as chess, except that, after play has finished, the winner is reversed with probability 1/6. Rando chess, with any probability (<0.5) of reversal, would universally be agreed upon to involve more chance than chess, but would involve the exact same strategic considerations as regular chess and hence the exact same amount of skill. Every skill and every strategic concept in chess applies equally to rando chess, and, perhaps modulo tilt control, the best chess players in the world will also be the best rando chess players in the world... it just might take a longer period of play to determine this ranking. If, somehow, chess could only be played as rando chess, what would society think of it? What probability of reversal would make rando chess a game where neither skill nor chance predominates over the other?"

1: http://www.amazon.com/Characteristics-Games-George-Skaff-Eli...

2: http://www.quantitativepoker.com/2012/09/20-thoughts-on-skil...

[bjitty]

Awesome thanks for quoting. I haven't seen that book but I'll look into it.

I can't remember where I first heard the analogy. I believe it was a poker pro on a podcast or training video. It was many years ago.

[exelius]

It's hard to use a chess analogy with poker, because poker has a lot more decision points. Winning in poker is about drawing the right money into the pot at the right time through use of deception (and knowing the odds lets you know when the right time is at hand). A game of chess is a discrete unit with a winner and a loser (well, unless it's a draw), but most hands of poker have a single winner and no losers. Folding in poker is more of a strategic withdrawal; if the cards aren't there, the cards aren't there.

[bjitty]

That's true also chess is a game where all variables are known, poker is not. So I agree they don't line up well in comparison. Again this was just an oversimplification that just because luck is a part of a game it doesn't mean that skill doesn't play a factor.