In a debate, need Help

[StillDeadMoney]

This is how you solve the debate.

In the short run, poker has a strong element of luck: whoever has the better cards has a better chance of winning, all other things being equal.

In the long run, everyone gets the same "limiting distribution" of hands (i.e. everyone gets the same cards and hands to play with). Because each card has an unconditional probability of 1/52 to be dealt, the cards in poker form a uniform distribution, so the law of large numbers applies in a reasonable time frame. Because of this, you cannot blame luck for any kind of protracted length of success.

Professional poker players that play online for a living play tens of thousands of hands per month. For all intents and purposes, luck has nothing to do with it at that point, because the chances of getting good cards for that period of time is close to the chance to winning the powerball lottery... a few times in a row.

[supa]

Professional poker players that play online for a living play tens of thousands of hands per month. For all intents and purposes, luck has nothing to do with it at that point, because the chances of getting good cards for that period of time is close to the chance to winning the powerball lottery... a few times in a row.

wat.

[boost]

This is how you solve the debate.

In the short run, poker has a strong element of luck: whoever has the better cards has a better chance of winning, all other things being equal.

In the long run, everyone gets the same "limiting distribution" of hands (i.e. everyone gets the same cards and hands to play with). Because each card has an unconditional probability of 1/52 to be dealt, the cards in poker form a uniform distribution, so the law of large numbers applies in a reasonable time frame. Because of this, you cannot blame luck for any kind of protracted length of success.

Professional poker players that play online for a living play tens of thousands of hands per month. For all intents and purposes, luck has nothing to do with it at that point, because the chances of getting good cards for that period of time is close to the chance to winning the powerball lottery... a few times in a row.

10's of thousands? Lazy.

And you can most certainly deviat from your winrate quite a bit over relatively large samples. But then again, I think that this doesn't really show that poker is more luck based, but that everything in life is more luck based than people think.