Texas Hold'em is a Game of Luck - Swiss Court Rules

In Poker, Better to Be Lucky Than Good, Swiss Court Rules

Above is a link to an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal.

Basically, Switzerland's highest court, has decided that Texas Hold'em is more about luck then skill, and banned tournaments of the high-stakes poker game outside of casinos.

"Had the Swiss Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Texas hold 'em was a game of skill, it would have permitted private competitions to continue. But it said simple math, tactics and psychology played smaller roles than luck in determining the winner.

The Texas hold 'em debate has also divided opinion in other countries. A Pennsylvania appeals court ruled 2-1 in March that it was illegal because it met the definition of gambling because the outcome is more dependent upon chance than skill. Many aficionados and self-styled "professionals'' disagree, however.

In Switzerland, games of luck such as roulette and slot machines are restricted to licensed casinos, which pay a hefty 50% tax on profits. Private organizers of poker games weren't paying those taxes, argued Marc Friedrich, head of the Swiss Federation of Casinos.

The Swiss court's decision cannot be appealed."

—Copyright 2010 Associated Press

That's ridiculous. All poker as played between people is a game of skill. Does luck have anything to do with it? Yes. But luck can influence other games, too. In Football, for example, a random bounce of a punt can cause a fumble and your team recovers with great field position. In poker you may get dealt a very high hand. But luck alone won't consistently win either game.

I concede luck is the major factor in games like Video poker, three card poker and such, although good strategy matters.

luck is a huge factor in poker and its ridiculous to think otherwise. your equity can change drastically from one street to the next. you can run good or bad for years regardless of what decisions you make. it takes a few hundred thousand hands to reach any reasonable conclusion. most players are lucky if they even get in 5,000 hands a year. playing live poker fulltime at 35hands/hr, 40hrs a week, 50 weeks a year, you should get in about 60,000 hands. so it takes about 5yrs of playing fulltime to be able to accurately measure your winrate.

Quote: rudeboyoi

luck is a huge factor in poker and its ridiculous to think otherwise.

When I played with my friends each week, I'd often win hands where I had absolutely nothing. Of course I knew them and I learned their style of play and tolerance to risk. But I won mostly through skill rather than luck.

If you win with a royal flush, that's luck. If you win with a nine high, that's skill.

small sample size. doesnt mean anything. youre probably just recalling the times you got away with a bluff and not the times your bluff got called down. he couldve just as easily had called in this situation and youd feel like an idiot. get back to me when you log some more hands.

also knowing when to calldown with no pair is a lot more skillful than knowing when to bluff with no pair.

Two of the most intillegent things I ever heard about poker:

Quote: Nareed

If you win with a royal flush, that's luck. If you win with a nine high, that's skill.

Quote: rudeboyoi

knowing when to calldown with no pair is a lot more skillful than knowing when to bluff with no pair.

But try telling it to the Swiss court that won't accept appeals...

Quote: Nareed

If you win with a nine high, that's skill.

I confess, I haven't played poker regularly in years. But I think that winning with a nine high likely involves a great deal of luck. Perhaps a different form of luck than luck of the deal.

Quote: rudeboyoi

small sample size. doesnt mean anything. youre probably just recalling the times you got away with a bluff and not the times your bluff got called down.

Not at all. I played these three guys once a week for a year and a half. I knew all there was to know about them. I didn't win every hand, but overall I wound up ahead at least 75% of the time. Nor was it only bluffing. Sometimes I had a good hand and wanted them to either bet or raise. That also takes skill.

Quote:

also knowing when to calldown with no pair is a lot more skillful than knowing when to bluff with no pair.

I agree.

Having played poker and been involved in poker tournaments, my two cents is that poker playing, at least ring games, does involve a lot of skill. Namely in bluffing and reading your opponents. However, the end game of tournaments relies a lot on luck.

At the end of a tournament, the blinds and the betting can be such that the players may be in the hand by default, or with such a minimal room to use any skills whatsoever, as to make bluffing virtually impossible. Thus, the end of the tournament could be considered luck.

Of course, GETTING to the end of the tournament could depend a lot on skill. I have seen players look at their first hand in a tournament, and then constantly fold the remainder of the tournament, not even looking at their cards, and still make it to the money. Or at least very close. If that's not lucky, I don't know what is.

The problem with Poker is that it does involve luck and it does involve skill. But as long as something has even a minute inkling of luck involved, the "authorities in the know" will consider it dangerous gambling.

Yes, luck is involved, but a true "luck" game would be a lottery.

Imagine if they ruled the lottery a skill game because it involved marking inside the boxes or cirles!

im not denying that poker involves skill, its just mostly luck. how you make money in poker is by extracting the most bets you can from your opponents when you have the best hand. its luck that decides if you have the best hand. bluffing plays such a small part since you should do it very infrequently but enough to keep your opponents guessing. if your hand has no showdown value and you can reasonably represent something, you might try a bluff. if its successful, you win the pot. if its unsuccessful, you will get more value on your good hands later since your opponents will then be more likely to call you down.

I think the argument whether poker is a game of skill or not is completely missing the point. Ultimately the goal of the regulation of poker is to prevent uncontrolled gambling and addiction. So the question shouldn't be "is poker a game of chance or skill", it should be "do poker players suffer the risk of addiction and financial ruin".

Personally I think poker is a game of skill. I'm also not a big fan of too much regulation. Where I live poker rooms are only allowed in state-run casino's and the availability is pretty minimal, with mostly higher stakes than I and a lot of other people are comfortable with. So we could use a little less regulation.

But if you would want to make an argument for regulation, the risk of addiction should be the focus, not whether it is technically gambling or not. I would argue that poker is at least as addictive as other casino games, probably more so. Partly because players think it is a game of skill. With a game like roulette, most people know it's just a matter of luck. With poker, a lot of people think they are a lot better at it than they actually are. So they delude themselves in to thinking they can win all their losses back, with just some more play and maybe some more studying. While in reality, a few very good players get very rich by playing poker and the majority of players slowly but steadily keep losing.

Quote: Doc

I confess, I haven't played poker regularly in years. But I think that winning with a nine high likely involves a great deal of luck. Perhaps a different form of luck than luck of the deal.

Yeah, and that different form of luck is called skill, in knowing when a hand with no chance to win, will have a chance to win against a particular player and bet of a specific size.

Quote: Lapa

So the question shouldn't be "is poker a game of chance or skill", it should be "do poker players suffer the risk of addiction and financial ruin".

Excellent point, but not the point that the Swiss courts were making.

Quote: gambler

In Poker, Better to Be Lucky Than Good, Swiss Court Rules

Above is a link to an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal.

Basically, Switzerland's highest court, has decided that Texas Hold'em is more about luck then skill, and banned tournaments of the high-stakes poker game outside of casinos.

"Had the Swiss Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Texas hold 'em was a game of skill, it would have permitted private competitions to continue. But it said simple math, tactics and psychology played smaller roles than luck in determining the winner.

Perhaps they should have studied the play of someone besides Jamie gold?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: Lapa

So the question shouldn't be "is poker a game of chance or skill", it should be "do poker players suffer the risk of addiction and financial ruin".

Excellent point, but not the point that the Swiss courts were making.

I know. It's just that the same discussion is taking place in my country, although it hasn't gone to court yet, and it fascinates me that nobody on either side of the argument ever makes the point that they are essentially fighting the wrong argument.

It seems that poker is a game of both luck and skill. If you have a run of bad luck and have very few good hands, it is hard for you to be in position to win pots with bad hands. Those good hands played well are what allows you to win with a bad hand. Luck and skill...when does the good hand come and how do you play it?

It looks to me like this battle was more about who controls poker rooms in the country and not whether or not skill is involved. It looks like the court may have simply decided that since luck plays a role (we can argue all day about how large of one, but it does play a role), these games should be considered "gambling" and subject to regulation and TAXATION as such.

Quote: Lapa

Ultimately the goal of the regulation of poker is to prevent uncontrolled gambling and addiction. So the question shouldn't be "is poker a game of chance or skill", it should be "do poker players suffer the risk of addiction and financial ruin".

Completely irrelevant. Many activities carry a risk of addiction and financial ruin. Granted it's a lot easier to be financially ruined by gambling than by collecting coins, or restoring old cars, or flying small planes, or doing BASE jumps, but so what?

Should consumption of alcohol be allowed only in bars, and not in private homes or restaurants, because alcohol can be addictive?

Sure "luck" is involved in everything, everywhere. I went out to eat tonight and was lucky the waiter didn't forget to put our order in. We were lucky they hadn't ran out of iced tea.

Anyone that thinks luck has anything to do with poker either doesn't play or aren't very good at it.