Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Science Daily reports on a study out of Case Western Reserve University that shows that poker truly is a game of skill rather than being entirely based on luck. Every poker player already knew that, of course, but it's nice to have data to back it up. The study took students with no experience playing poker and split them into two groups. One group was given a chart showing the odds of each two-card starting hand winning, while the other group was given only information about the history of poker. The first group, unsurprisingly, did significantly better.
The study has a fairly small sample size, only about 1000 hands played total. But the results would no doubt be the same over a larger sample. In fact, it would be easy to simulate this using a computer program and run millions of hands with it quickly. You could set up an experiment where you had a player who only played hands above a certain threshold of probability before the flop and another player who decided which hand to play entirely randomly. The more hands that were played that way, the more the first player would undoubtedly have the advantage.
And this only tests one skill in poker, and one of the more simple skills at that. Every decent poker player has starting hand odds all but memorized. They also have post-flop odds memorized (for instance, they know that if they have 4 cards to a flush after the flop, the odds of hitting your flush with the next two cards is around 30-40% depending on how many are in other people's hands) and can easily calculate the odds of hitting the card they need to win the pot at any point in the hand.
There are many other skills in poker that such experiments can't really account for, like the ability to read people and put them on a certain hand. That's largely based on the ability to remember and evaluate an opponent's betting patterns and subtle changes in behavior. A player who typically is very deliberate in his play suddenly moves all-in very quickly after you raise him. Is that a sign that he's got a great hand, or a sign that he's bluffing and wants you to think he has a great hand? More experienced and more skilled players will be right in their evaluation of what that and many other situations mean far more often than other players. It's one of the most important skills in poker.
There are many other skill factors as well. The ability to stay patient over long periods of time (especially important in tournament play). The ability to keep your emotions in check after a bad beat. The ability to manage your bankroll and choose which games to play wisely. One could go on and on with the skill set of a winning poker player. Those things are difficult to evaluate scientifically, but every poker player knows how important they are.
Comments
I'm not a poker player myself, but I always thought the saying was "you're not playing your hand, your playing the other players?".
In any event this whole, fairly artifical, distinction between games of luck and skill could be averted if the governments of the world gave up on the Victorian BS and stopped trying to regulate the games people play.
Of course I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
Posted by: James K | March 29, 2008 5:27 PM
Like James K I'm not a poker plaayer myself, but I'd say this study is drawing the wrong conclusion. Since the hands are radomised (ie the card are shuffled) then a least SOME luck must be involved.
Ever heard of Duplicate Bridge? Each set of four players are given a series of identical hands. The winner is the player who does best with the given cards. Because there is no shuffling, the random variations are removed, thus leaving the skill of the parnters as the only variable. This would be a better test for the level of skill required in poker.
BTW - Does anyone know if Nash ever managed to analyse poker using Game Theory? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 30, 2008 12:50 AM
DingoJack,
There is some luck involved in poker, this is true. Although in the long run, everyone's luck tends to balance out. Therefore, you are left only with skill.
Poker is too hard to do a complete game theory analysis of, but The Mathamatics of Poker is a good book to start with.
Posted by: Andrew | March 31, 2008 11:18 AM
There can be luck in duplicate bridge as well. Consider a hand where it appears that you have an excellent chance to make a slam, but due to unlucky trump distribution it's actually impossible. If you bid "correctly" and get to the slam contract, you'll lose to those who didn't. Of course in the long run the luck will balance out and skill will dominate, just like poker.
Posted by: Brian | March 31, 2008 12:13 PM
I agree, Ed, my first thought when reading over the experiment is that it measures the simplest, least interesting skill in poker.
Anyone who plays for real knows many or most of the percentages. There's still a huge difference in skill between your typical player of this sort vs. a Daniel Negreanu or Chris Ferguson.
And Dingo, just because there's some luck doesn't mean it's not a game of skill. There's luck in basketball, too, but if you go up against Kevin Garnett, my money is on him.
Posted by: itchy | March 31, 2008 12:33 PM
Yes but using identiacl hands reduces the number of repetitions needed to get a meaningful result since the randomisation of shuffling is taken out. And yes, awkward trump distribution can lead to trouble, but skillful players would avoid the pitfall.
Also could be used as a form of quantifiable handicapping for poker tournaments. Since if all the players are of the same skill level the games are more exicting (all players stay in till near the end rather than having one or two players totally outclassed) - experimentally DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 1, 2008 1:29 AM
I think any game that combines luck and skill, like poker, bridge, backgammon, etc., the luck will flatten out over time and the skill will rise to the top as the overriding factor. Of poker, it's been said that its a game of money, not a game of cards. So that element enters into the skill factor too. Personally I prefer pure games of skill, like chess, but I can see the attraction.
Posted by: Dave S. | April 1, 2008 6:18 AM