i stumbled across an article that referenced a report that had a statistical analysis of poker players, with the amount of hands played, and the winrate, as a measure of whether poker is a game or skill or chance.
i thought it was very interesting. i tried to find the original paper, but i couldn't unless i paid for it, but i did find this presentation. for those that dont have a mathematical background it might be a little heavy going, but i thought it was interesting in general at how the confidence interval for the win rate changed with the amount of hands played.
if i am reading the paper right, is says that 99.7% of players lose all of their bankroll before they play 1658 hands.
slide 15 is the most interesting, especially where is says that a CRF of 100k is not unlikely.
this is the grey area in the eyes of many people. not IF poker is a game of skill, but when does it become a game of skill, and whether the average player can be expected to put in that many hands. i.e for the grinders, and a lot of us that play regularly, poker IS a game of skill, but for the person that might only ever put $100 online, put it all on 1 table, and see what happens, it is most definitely a game of chance. and thats where the legal uncertainty comes in.
Skill in Poker - Empirical Evidence
- bennymacca
- Moderator
- Posts: 16623
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:30 am
- State: SA
- 888PL Name: bennyjams
- Location: In your poker Nightmares
- Contact:
Skill in Poker - Empirical Evidence
Check out The Rail, the only podcast dedicated to Australian Pub Poker! http://www.therail.com.au.
Once you have done that, follow the Rail Podcast on Twitter, Facebook!, and iTunes!
Follow Me on Twitter
Once you have done that, follow the Rail Podcast on Twitter, Facebook!, and iTunes!
Follow Me on Twitter
- Origami
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:12 am
- State: SA
- 888PL Name: .AAABK.
- Location: NURIOOTPA in the BAROSSA VALLEY
- Contact:
Re: Skill in Poker - Empirical Evidence
Likes this ---->
Empirical Evidence for Poker: Results
• Median of the absolute winrate decreases rapidly the more
hands a group played
• Skill of top 100 group is highest, but absolute amount of skill is
lower
• Top 100 has a high homogeinity
• High absolute winrates only with negative winrates
• Absence of losing players in top 100
Low skill establishes itself much faster than high skill
benny the cunt does this explain why I like playing in fields of less than 100..??
Empirical Evidence for Poker: Results
• Median of the absolute winrate decreases rapidly the more
hands a group played
• Skill of top 100 group is highest, but absolute amount of skill is
lower
• Top 100 has a high homogeinity
• High absolute winrates only with negative winrates
• Absence of losing players in top 100
Low skill establishes itself much faster than high skill
benny the cunt does this explain why I like playing in fields of less than 100..??
..
..

..
- bennymacca
- Moderator
- Posts: 16623
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:30 am
- State: SA
- 888PL Name: bennyjams
- Location: In your poker Nightmares
- Contact:
Re: Skill in Poker - Empirical Evidence
bruceklm wrote:benny the cunt does this explain why I like playing in fields of less than 100..??
lol bruce.
Check out The Rail, the only podcast dedicated to Australian Pub Poker! http://www.therail.com.au.
Once you have done that, follow the Rail Podcast on Twitter, Facebook!, and iTunes!
Follow Me on Twitter
Once you have done that, follow the Rail Podcast on Twitter, Facebook!, and iTunes!
Follow Me on Twitter
-
Adrian
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:46 pm
- State: SA
- Contact:
Re: Skill in Poker - Empirical Evidence
The empirical evidence that there is no skill is that run OK sometimes and even managed to win a few times this season.
All the rest of the modelling can be ignored.
All the rest of the modelling can be ignored.
Return to “General Poker Chat”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
