As someone who plays both video poker and live poker, I would agree with all of the explanation below. I like the concept of there being a continuum or spectrum of the element of chance vs. the element of skill in various games, and it would be interesting if there were a way to measure that, so you could place games on that continuum in a quantified manner. Right now, all we can do is say that one game is more or less dependent on chance than another, and be fairly certain of our statement, but we can't put a real number on it (except, I guess, to use expected return calculations, which can be calculated on the less complex games, but not on the most complex ones).
Video poker requires skill, but it is skill based on a fairly fixed strategy, that is dependent on known variables (on an "honest" or "fair" game), such as the type of game and makeup of the deck (does it have wild cards, jokers, etc) and the paytable. It is much like playing blackjack, where the strategy depends on the type of game (as determined by number of decks, what "plays" are permitted - e.g. double down after splitting a pair, doubling down on soft hands, re-splitting aces, and so on) - and where the strategy can be further refined if one counts cards, providing additional information as to the overall makeup of the remaining cards.
Sometimes the strategy is varied in VP, e.g., for advanced players, based on penalty cards. Sometimes the strategy in blackjack is varied, e.g., for card counters, the amount of the bet, and some play variations, based on the count. Likewise, there are "simplified" strategies for both games that are fairly quick and easy to return, but which are not optimal for minimizing the house edge.
In live poker, there is strategy, but it is NOT a fixed strategy; there are some mathematical principles that can be applied, but they require that one make assumptions about the hand held by one's opponent(s), as well as how they might play it, and those assumptions almost always have a degree of uncertainty as to their correctness. The ability to make correct assumptions based on incomplete information is what makes the skill in live poker very complex to master.
The variables that must be dealt with are NOT "known"; e.g., range of hands that the opponent might currently hold, whether he/she will bet or not, and/or how he/she will respond to a bet. And the historical responses of an opponent in given circumstances may not be predictive of future respones, since opponents can vary their play from hand to hand and hour to hour. In fact, poker is all about making good decisions based on incomplete information, while in VP and blackjack, the decisions are based on complete information EXCEPT for information as to what cards are actually coming on this particular occasion.
Finally, live poker has a psychological component; opponents can sometimes be manipulated by various means into taking actions that, at least in the long run, lower their expectation of winning, and likewise they may manipulate you; no such psychological component exists in VP, except perhaps as a need to have fun might drive a player to play a less optimal machine, or to vary from correct strategy "on a hunch" for some "reason".
The real difference in the games can be best understood by considering this: if you are playing blackjack at a table, and the other players at the table are all better players than you (they know more detailed strategy and/or play it more perfectly), you can still have a positive expectation from the game that is not dependent on chance alone, since you are not competing with those players (who would, however, have a higher positive expectation than you do).
Likewise, if you are playing VP at a bank of the same machines, and the other players at that bank are all better players than you (they know more detailed strategy and/or play it more perfectly), you again can still have a positive expectation from the game that is not dependent on chance alone, since, again, you are not competing with those players (who, again, would have a higher positive expectation than you do).
BUT, if you are playing live poker at a table and the other players at that table are all better players than you, even if you are ordinarily a very skilled player who ordinarily has a positive expectation, at this particular table, you have a negative expectation, and only elements of chance (getting lucky) can save you. Worse yet, you may not recognize the situation as one in which you are out-skilled for a while (and perhaps not at all if your skill level at such recognition is low).
In this way, while all three games have strategy as a key component, unlike most reel slots, the strategy for live poker is dependent on so many variables and so much incomplete information as compared to blackjack and video poker, that one can never "master" the game and play it perfectly at all times. Like chess, the factor of human opponents of varying skill levels makes the game of live poker far more complex.
I do agree that Lederer was in error in grouping video poker with roulette and lotteries. Roulette "strategy" is essentially to minimize losses by using minimum bets and avoiding the one or two bets with a higher house edge than the rest, and lottery "strategy" is essentially not playing at all until the jackpot is large enough to justify the enormous odds against hitting it (and factoring in the unknown variable of how many tickets will be sold, which can affect the probability of needing to split the jackpot even if you hit it). Nothing that you do beyond this can alter the probability of a win on a particular bet, once placed.
But to say that VP is not a game of strategy is simply not correct -- as I tell friends, if you think strategy is not important to VP, try any one of these approaches: always hold either nothing, or always hold either the first one, or first two, or first three, or first four cards dealt, or all five cards (or any other predetermined selection decided before you know what you will get) - no matter what they are and what the remaining cards are -- and you'll soon see that it's a game where strategy matters.
Likewise, for blackjack, use one of two extreme strategies: always hit every hand repeatedly until the dealer won't give you any more cards (expected return on a $1 bet is then zero with that strategy) or always stand on every hand no matter what it is and no matter what the delaer holds - again, you'll soon see that it's a game where strategy matters. Even playing blackjack hands by the same rules that the dealer must follow will give the house roughly an 8% edge, when just a little skillful play can reduce that to half or less, and highly skillful play, even without card counting, can reduce it to 1% or less.
So, it's a matter of personal judgment of where a game is on the spectrum -- a game of chance with an element of skill, or a game of skill with an element of chance.
--BG
···
===============
1m. Re: Two disturbing articles on casino gambling
Posted by: "fivespot" fivespot55@gmail.com fivespot838
Date: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:39 pm ((PDT))On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:57 AM, uny1604 wrote:
> What do others in the group think of this statement?
>
> "A poker player -- unlike someone playing roulette, a lottery or "video poker"
(which Lederer says is a misnomer; it is a game of chance governed by a machine)
-- is trying to apply skill, acquired by experience, to increase the probability
of winning each hand.""video poker" is indeed a misnomer.
poker is a family of card games of the vying type, in which multiple
players bet in turn over who has the best hand, each player being
required to match the current bet or fold, and the accumulated bets
being awarded to the holder of the best hand who has not folded at the
end."video poker" is a type of slot machine, a single-player game with a
single fixed bet and varying payouts. it uses the hand rankings that
are also used in many forms of poker, and many variations use the draw
mechanism that is used in a few forms of poker, but otherwise has
nothing in common with poker. calling it "poker" is wildly inaccurate.skill vs chance is a continuum. there is chance in chess, there is
skill in roulette, just not very much of it in either case. lederer
would argue that poker is closer to the chess end of this continuum,
whereas video poker is closer to the roulette end. i'd agree with him.however, whether or not you agree with his characterization of vp, it
seems uncontroversial that any discussion of the legality of poker
should first ensure that the audience knows what game it is you're
talking about. there are an awful lot of people out there who don't
understand that poker and VP are entirely different games...cheers,
five