A Proper Balance of Luck and Skill

A Proper Balance of Luck and Skill

I thought I would post this here to see if there's anyone interested and possible discussion. I consider this the most important idea in my book Cardrooms: Everything Bad and How to Make Them Better; An Analysis of Those Areas Where Poker Rooms Need Improvement.

Mason

.......................A Proper Balance of Luck and Skill

This is not a statistics text book and to read and understand it you’re not expected to have a background in statistics. But there is an idea that comes straight out of the world of statistics and statistical theory that deserves its own introductory chapter and has already been mentioned. And that idea is what I call “the proper balance of luck and skill.” So, without getting into any heavy statistical theory, here’s an explanation of the proper balance of luck and skill in (I hope) easy to understand language.

It turns out that in games like poker which are grounded in statistical theory (that includes probability theory) there are two parameters that drive the success of the games: The success (or lack of it) of the best players, and much of the enjoyment of the recreational players who, while losers in the long run, will still come back to play again and again. These parameters are luck and skill. And both are required in the right proportions for poker games to be successful in the long run.

First, let’s address skill. You’ll often hear that poker is a “skill game.” But this isn’t exactly true. A better statement is that poker is a form of gambling that has a strong skill element. And this skill element allows the expert players to win money in the long run. And since they win, they’ll come back to play again and again including helping to start games and to keep games going.

Now this idea is very important. Without winning players who act as game starters and help to keep games going, it’s doubtful that poker would be a successful casino game. But there’s also more to it.

In addition, there’s also a problem. If skill was the only parameter, these expert players would never have losing sessions, which means that the non-experts would never win, and if this was the case, there would probably be no poker games.

So, this means that there needs to be a fair amount of short-term luck in poker for the games to exist. And what this short-term luck does is that it’ll allow the recreational players to also have some winning sessions, and on those nights where they end up loser, they’ll be able to think about when they were ahead, and this short-term luck is the hook that keeps these people playing. However, it’ll also mean that the experts will have some losing nights, and many recreational players love beating the experts.

To be specific, David Sklansky and I feel that the proper balance of luck and skill will allow a strong player to win two out of three four-hour sessions, and the moderately weak player to win one out of three four-hour sessions. So, that’s a rough guideline when this book talks about a proper balance of luck and skill. And for a poker room to be successful, this idea of a proper balance of luck and skill can’t be stressed enough.

But there’s another important point that statistical theory tells us. It’s the fact that over time the short-term luck factor will dissipate and the expectation (win rate for the experts and loss rate for the recreational players) will dominate, and this is exactly the way it’s supposed to be.

But when saying “supposed to be,” I’m also referring to those games in which the expectation of the experts and the luck factor is in sort of a balance. That is, to say it again, the experts will be sure of doing well after a reasonable amount of playing time, and the recreational players will have their winning sessions to remember. And when this is the case, you can expect the games to thrive in a well-run poker room. Furthermore, games like this are the type of games that the poker room management should strive for. It’s also the type of games that the experts should want to play in to maximize their long-term success, even if it means that their expected win in their current session might be lower.

In this book, this idea of a proper balance of luck and skill will frequently come up. So, keep this chapter in mind, and if needed, please read it again to make sure that what is written is understood. Also, if you’re a cardroom manager, this idea should guide many of your decisions. To see why, please keep reading.

08 March 2024 at 04:05 PM
Reply...

34 Replies

5
w


by uberpron k

i disagree. the value of running it multiple times is as an escape hatch for worse players. long term, both good and bad players will realize their equity. in the short term, luck as antithesis of skill is going to disproportionately favor bad players, who are either going to be chopping or getting quartered where they would have flat out lost, or winning in unlikely run outs. it's only a positive for the game

Ideas based on probability theory can be very counter-intuitive at times. What is happening when the "escape hatch" occurs is that in a sense the hand wasn't played but is instead eliminated from the game. This won't change a player's expectation (positive or negative) but it does reduce the standard deviation. And when the standard deviation is reduced the balance of luck and skill is affected.

In this example, the losing recreational player who will occasionally win the pot, will often have his win thrown out. And when this happens, his probability of having a winning session has gone down, and from the view of the poker game itself (as well as the expert players) he needs to have these occasional wins to encourage him to come back. And running it more than once works against this.

Mason


RIT is a hot topic for sure and probably has a few Threads already on this site .. but not a bad place for it here either.

I have no real statistical data to fall back on .. but I tend to 'not' RIT unless the pot is well above averaged size for the current table.

I want to eliminate luck .. I want folds. I don't want the gamblers stuffing it in all the time looking to chop up the dead chips. I realize this is counter to pretty much every conversation about long term poker. But I do know one thing .. there's no variance when your opponents fold.

I was checking on a Player's status for the last seat in a game and they texted back that they weren't going to show up unless I agreed to RIT every hand, not just the big pots. I didn't respond and they showed up anyway! GL

PS .. and IMO RIT is awesome for the rake/house .. often extending sessions as Players continually push smaller amounts of chips around the table instead of busting.


by answer20 k

PS .. and IMO RIT is awesome for the rake/house .. often extending sessions as Players continually push smaller amounts of chips around the table instead of busting.

Is it really? If it helps insure that the recreational player doesn't have that occasional large win which encourages him to keep playing, I suspect that in the long run the house gets less rake.

Mason


It could be looked at in different ways .. depending on the market and Player Pool characteristics

1) A Rec comes to the casino with X in funds .. if they lose those funds, they leave. If they keep chopping up pots they end up staying longer, thus game runs longer, thus more rake. Specifically for PLO in our area where games/lists are typically short you need Players to remain at the table to continue rake collection.

2) IMO a Rec has X in funds each week/month no matter what, so the large win doesn't necessarily impact their overall poker budget .. just how much comes out of the left pocket into the right pocket for the next poker session. As long as there's funds in the right pocket then they will be playing. Yes, for some Recs a large win will 'create' additional sessions and/or longer sessions.

3) IMO a chop 'is' considered a win for some Recs even though they only increase their stack by 5-15%

4) This 'effect' is 2x-3x in the Home Games since the Player Pool is typically much smaller .. and games will break exactly 3 min after the Whale's car exits the property. GL


by Mason Malmuth k

I suspect that in the long run the house gets less rake.

Mason

Where I play, running it twice means the house collects double the rake. The rooms are thrilled to run it twice.


by venice10 k

Where I play, running it twice means the house collects double the rake. The rooms are thrilled to run it twice.

If it was like that in my room, I would never RIT.


by venice10 k

Where I play, running it twice means the house collects double the rake. The rooms are thrilled to run it twice.

No poker room should be allowed to get away with this.

Mason


They should probably take triple the rake to discourage idiots from wasting time.


There's one room in our area that takes 2x rake .. another an extra $2. I've been telling room management to take $1 extra ever since this started, some say no way others say yes.

It's time consuming and should be taxed in the normal non-linear rake structure v the fixed rake of Time Pay rake. (We have a room that charges $22/hour time .. the list is always long!) GL


by Didace k

They should probably take triple the rake to discourage idiots from wasting time.

It is time consuming, and if you're a winning player it shouldn't change your EV except that being able to play less hands will change your EV.

Mason

Reply...