

Beyond Chance? The Persistence of Performance in Online Poker - thret
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0115479

======
swanson
It will be interesting to see how online poker dovetails with the big up-and-
coming daily fantasy sports (DFS) industry. DFS is essentially online gambling
on fantasy sports, but it has been classified as a "game of skill" and is
exempt from the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).
Disney (owner of ESPN) just this month invested $250M in one of the two
industry leaders (DraftKings) so I don't think DFS is going away.

If online poker could get enough groundswell (and, lets be honest, political
backing) to receive a similar exemption, that opens to doors for a return of
legalized online poker in the US.

~~~
exelius
I've had my own questions about "DFS". I really don't understand how it's a
game of skill, or how it's significantly different than Vegas-style sports
book betting. I've been in too many office fantasy football pools only to end
up in second place behind the 19 year old intern who drafted her players based
on how attractive they were and didn't touch her roster all season. Every week
is a toss-up.

Furthermore, I'm equally doubtful that the NFL and the NFLPA are ok with
companies making billions in profit off of the NFL's games and individual
players' performances. I think that if anything kills DFS, it will be this.
Sports leagues can't be associated with gambling in any way, but the teams and
players involved also have to protect their brands.

~~~
swanson
It's a game of skill much in the same way as poker. Experienced players will
beat inexperienced players over the long-run. There are certain elements of
randomness/luck (as with poker, sometimes you just get bad cards) - but DFS
proponents would argue that identifying under-valued players and predicting
performance to be a skill.

Surprisingly, the NBA and MLB have an official DFS partnership - as do
individual teams in both the NFL and NHL. Some individual players also have
"endorsed" certain sites.

Full list of DFS partnerships: [http://www.legalsportsreport.com/dfs-
sponsorship-tracker/](http://www.legalsportsreport.com/dfs-sponsorship-
tracker/)

------
bjitty
The most layman explanation of skill in poker I've heard is this.

Everyone agrees chess is a game of skill. If 2 players played 1,000 games of
chess where the winner of each match wins $1. In the end the most skilled
player would have the most money.

Take that same scenario except after every 10 matches the players flip a coin
and the winner of the coin flip gets $10. Over the long stretch the more
skilled player will still end up with the most money. However in the short
term it's possible for the less skill player to be ahead because of a few
lucky coin flips.

Over simplification I know. However I've used it to try to point out the
relevance of skill and luck in poker to people who have no concept of it.

~~~
benjaminjackman
If you read 'Characteristics of Games'[1] or watch some talks[2] by Richard
Garfield he elaborates quite a bit on this topic. He uses the example of
rando-chess, which is very similar to your example.

Quoting #2 below:

"The toy game example of rando chess is an elegant means of constructing a
game with customizable levels of chance. Garfield uses it here to illustrate
how skill and chance are not opposites. Rando chess is exactly the same as
chess, except that, after play has finished, the winner is reversed with
probability 1/6\. Rando chess, with any probability (<0.5) of reversal, would
universally be agreed upon to involve more chance than chess, but would
involve the exact same strategic considerations as regular chess and hence the
exact same amount of skill. Every skill and every strategic concept in chess
applies equally to rando chess, and, perhaps modulo tilt control, the best
chess players in the world will also be the best rando chess players in the
world... it just might take a longer period of play to determine this ranking.
If, somehow, chess could only be played as rando chess, what would society
think of it? What probability of reversal would make rando chess a game where
neither skill nor chance predominates over the other?"

1: [http://www.amazon.com/Characteristics-Games-George-Skaff-
Eli...](http://www.amazon.com/Characteristics-Games-George-Skaff-
Elias/dp/026201713X)

2: [http://www.quantitativepoker.com/2012/09/20-thoughts-on-
skil...](http://www.quantitativepoker.com/2012/09/20-thoughts-on-skill-vs-
chance-part-2.html)

~~~
bjitty
Awesome thanks for quoting. I haven't seen that book but I'll look into it.

I can't remember where I first heard the analogy. I believe it was a poker pro
on a podcast or training video. It was many years ago.

------
qmalxp
From Rounders: "Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table
of the World Series of Poker EVERY YEAR? What, are they the luckiest guys in
Las Vegas?"

------
slg
Isn't the easiest way to identify a game of chance versus a game of skill is
whether a player can intentionally lose? If you can prove a player can be bad,
it should be self evident that a player can be good.

~~~
Terr_
A nice approach, but it still depends on some value-judgments about what
constitutes "intentionally losing".

For example, imagine any game of pure chance, with zero decision-making needed
from the player. Then add just one kind of decision: The ability to concede or
forfeit a round.

On a practical level, we can see it's still a game of pure chance, but at the
same time a player can play to lose... it's not a very _interesting_ kind of
loss.

------
therealdrag0
Are there things you can be a professional at that don't involve skill?

~~~
Mikeb85
Probably not. But poker, and many other forma of gambling require skill and/or
knowledge of statistics and probability.

