Poker's lucky 9 chosen
July 16, 2008 | 11:15
am
The nine finalists have been selected in the World Series of Poker at Rio. Now comes an extended break. The event's conclusion doesn't happen until November and will be broadcast on ESPN. In fact, the change in the game from a relatively straight marathon to this suspenseful bridge was created for ESPN, according to the Review-Journal, "so ESPN can televise the results in a two-hour prime time special on a same-day taped coverage basis." In other words, a gambling tradition was changed because of the obscure demands of cable television. That is fine; the tradition was designed to promote gambling, and ESPN is helping the cause. What is interesting to me is that ESPN is a sports network usually and all the endorsement deals players make for poker give a feel of these professional poker-playing folks having elite skills. According to the R-J: '"The nine players will be promoted extensively over coming months by Harrah's Entertainment. ... ESPN is also planning to air a one-hour special on the nine final table participants." But are these elite players like in chess competitions or martial arts or are these just people who got the basics of a simple game and then sat in a chair dealt good cards and therefore were just lucky?
The Review-Journal describes this year's finalists who the paper speculates could earn "six figures" in endorsements as "mostly unknown amateur poker players and little-known professionals." Can anyone imagine this being the case in any game of actual skill where bringing the world's elite together for a competition could result in nine-for-nine unknowns as finalists? Last year I asked on this blog if poker was a game of luck or skill, and that generated quite a debate. This year's finalists provide further evidence that poker, like all gambling, comes down to luck.
Perhaps the reason that none of the best-known poker players made the final nine this year is that they were not lucky. And therefore the reason that one poker player has never dominated the game like Tiger Woods or Roger Federer do their actual games of skill is because while there are people who are uniquely good, no one can be that repeatedly lucky. (Photo by Sarah Gerke)
Poker is absolutely skill based. The issue with tournaments, especially the new structured WSOP where the blinds get higher quicker, is that luck becomes a larger factor.
In a cash game, if you can get all your money in with the best hand and it is a 60% chance to win. You'll lose 40% of the time, but you try and repeat that scenario as often as possible because overall you will come out ahead. In tournaments it is much harder to pick and choose your spots so you have to gamble ("get lucky") much more. Since the WSOP is very long luck is a greater factor but if you could run the same field over and over you would see the professionals getting much further than the amateurs because of the skill factor. If it was luck it would be random as to made it further.
Posted by: Cal | July 16, 2008 at 03:53 PM
Poker is a game of skill -- but one tournament is largely luck. When you look at the best players in the world, they are consistent winners because they are the best. But in any one tournament, luck can get the better of them. In that sense poker is not like chess.
But, over a lifespan of playing, luck evens out, and you profit based on how much you got your money in good compared to how much you bet with the worst of it. It's the same as in scientific studies, you need a big enough sample size to make reasonable conclusions.
So, yes, it's luck these guys are here. But that doesn't maker poker a game of luck.
Posted by: Pokerskill | July 17, 2008 at 08:04 AM
Golf, tennis and poker are all a combination of skill and luck. There is a reason the US Open champion isn't crowned after just one hole. The Wimbledon winner isn't decided after a single game. In just one hole or game, any strong player might win, while the strongest might lose.
It's the same in poker. The only difference is that in golf and tennis the championships are long enough that skill usually is a decisive factor. But in poker, even a 10-day tournament is not enough. It takes hundreds of such tournaments, and that's what the pros do every year. And every year the same pros are at the top of the annual tournament rankings, just like in tennis and golf.
-pyg
Posted by: Pyg | July 17, 2008 at 11:36 AM
There is no precise analogy between a poker tournament and a golf or tennis match. If in a tennis match, once you lost serve you were eliminated without the chance to break your opponenet's serve, that would be similar to the structure of a poker tournament. In golf, if you bogeyed a hole and were immediately elimintaed without the chance to birdie the next one, that would be the same as a poker tournament. The reason luck is a greater factor in poker tournaments -- especially ones that span seven days -- is because of the elimination factor. One bad card and you're out. Your opponent can have just one card to beat you on the river, a 3% chance, but could catch that card. Now, you may have trapped them through a great slow play or a by mixing up your game earlier so they didn't realize you were strong -- you played perfectly, but the miracle card to kill you fell. That doesn't make you less of a "pro," it's just an aspect of the game everyone accepts. And over the long haul, pros do better than amateurs (way more pros won WSOP events this year than amateurs). And as for the November 9, they may not be the big names, but many have other tournament successes and have good poker resumes going into the final table. Go ahead, think it's all luck if it makes you feel better when you lose -- but you're only fooling yourself.
Posted by: awsw | July 17, 2008 at 02:07 PM
I would like to thank you and appreciate you for the efforts you have made in writing this blog.
Posted by: communication skills | January 06, 2009 at 05:50 AM
there is nothing better than the world series of poker. I watch this tournament every year. I just love to watch the pros.
PokerStars Marketing bonus Code
Posted by: jim | March 01, 2009 at 02:23 PM