Skill, Luck, and the Game of Poker

Lately, I've been playing with the $3.30 9 handed turbos on Pokerstars, with fairly decent success...assuming I don't get pissed off at the luck factor, and tilt my chips away, I have been cashing in them on a regular basis. My results have been pretty telling...either early exits, or 3rd or 1st finish. To me, this says that I am playing with the right amount of aggression, and am playing to win, not to make money (when playing in SnGs, it's more important to make the step from 2nd to 1st, than 3rd to 2nd...if someone needs an explanation why I can create a thread). Anyways, it's because of this that I figured I would try a $6.50 SnG tonight. My reasoning was that I know I have some skill, and these SnGs shouldn't have that much better skill. I was essentially expecting bigger risk, but essentially the same results, which in turn means better profits here.

I don't believe I could have been more wrong.

If anyone would care to check out the chat box archive from when I was playing, you would notice that no one went out until 26 minutes into the turbo. 26 minutes in, 9 handed. That means at one point, BEFORE WE EVEN APPROACHED SHORTHANDED PLAY, the average stack only had 7.5 blinds. I believe the big stack only had 2100 or so, while the short stack still had a solid 1000 chips. For the sake of comparison, I'll bring up the statistics of a $3.30 turbo, at the same time frame: 7 players left, with stacks of 1345, 1585, 945, 2515, 3220, 2900, and 2490. I think it's clear that the chip leaders are starting to assert themselves by this point, whereas, in my SnG...there was no assertion, everyone had equal skill.

Which brings me to the point of this thread...

Generally, we here (and really, any other forum or pro) give two key points of advice to players regarding the level at which they play: Use proper B/R management, and never play above your skill level. While some might make the argument that a $6.50 SnG is too expensive for a $100 bankroll, that's not the point of this thread. Rather, it focuses on the second point: "Never play above your skill level." In hindsight, I can't believe it took a $6.50 SnG to show me how wrong this statement is. There are two reasons for the fallacy of this statement:

a) Playing above your skill level, while not a good exercise in bankroll management, will (generally) improve your skill. This doesn't apply to just poker, but games of all sorts, assuming whoever you are playing (in whatever game you are involved in) is not so good you can not learn anything from it. For example: I play tennis recreationally, and coach it at times as well. I consider myself a decent player. If I wanted to get better through experience (and NOT lessons), I'd play someone better than me, but not to the point where I couldn't hit with them. So...if I played against someone such as Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer...nothing good would come from the match, as I have no chance of competing with players of this caliber. It would be much better if I were to play someone that was a single level above my playing level. To bring this back to poker, I'll use myself again. If I were to play Daniel Negreanu, nothing good would come from it - I'd lose money, and most likely wouldn't pick anything up from playing against Daniel (remember, we are talking playing AGAINST them, not getting a lesson). It would be much wiser for me to play against members here of THF, who, while they may be better than me, I can still play against them. I believe the best scenario similar to this is Cali's recent experiment with $50 SnGs. She has said herself that she has learned a whole lot by playing with the so-called "better" players. It's because of this that I must say, playing above your skill level, on an OCCASIONAL basis, is a good thing. Which brings me to the second thing wrong with this statement:

b) You're told you can't play above your skill level, but you can play on your own skill level. I think the example of what happened to me earlier tonight is a key example of why you shouldn't play at your own skill level - the luck factor becomes more and more necessary. You are no longer requiring your 70/30s and 80/20s to hold up, but rather you are hoping for your preflop all in with AQo to hold against villain's KTs, or looking to be the faster runner when your KQ goes up against 99. As it happened for me, I was running slow in my races, and went out in 7th place in my turbo. Next time, I might run a little better, and come up with a 1st or 2nd. Still, I can't see myself playing these anymore, as for every 1st or 2nd I achieve, I will get an 8th or 9th. On average, I will get back $6 in each of these games. I will end up losing 50c on average every single time. I’m seeing the same types of plays that I would pull off, so I can’t see myself learning anything from these games, either. Long story short, it makes no sense to play at your own skill level. Now, I’m sure some of you may argue that my case doesn’t apply, as we’re dealing with turbos. My response: What difference does it make? The only thing different between a turbo and regular SnG, with the same skill level, is that the luck will become more and more apparent earlier on. You’ll have 8 or 9 players with 8 blinds each 25 minutes in, instead of 1 hour. Now, I’m not sure about you guys, but if I’m playing a game of luck…I’d rather it be over soon. Think of it as scratching off a lottery ticket. Would you rather the results be there right away, or have to wait a day to see that you’ve wasted a dollar?

Okay, that’s my spiel on the issue. From now on, if anyone asks me about it, I will clearly tell them: “Never play AT your skill level - only above (to learn) or below (to earn).” Otherwise, you might as well be gambling.

__________________
1st place, March/April 2008 Sunday League

Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame.

Completely agree with you you are never going to get better if you play against people of your skill level it won't do any good for you, you have to play against people who are a little better then you and keep getting better and versing better and better players until it is difficult find anyone that you cannot do better then a majority of the time you are in a tournement with them because you cannot get lucky all the time so you have to rely heavely on your skill and instincts if you ever want to become one of the best..

mars hehehehe
First of all I would like to say what a perfect well written post you have made here. I believe it has covered alot of things that I really think about...and somethings that I know nothing about. So thank you! I would like to print this post that you have made..its absolutly perfect in my eyes.

Going 26 min with no one going out is a long time. Ive played at tables like his before and have won when I became aggressive and tossed out a bet, people would fold. Usually before 10 min or less you can tell what kind of table your at. These tables are easy for me to win. Ive played a few (and even in a 50$) where 3 people are knocked out within 5 min!

I believe playing above your skill level will defiantly improve your game. I am not what you would call a great poker player (I would like to be someday) but I dont feel like I am, I feel above average. I believe playing in the 50$ SnG's has taught me alot and that they are hardly any different (players sometimes play a lil tighter but not all the time) than the 3$ games. Ive got alot of notes on who is loose and who is tight, but people generally play the same and will do stupid things...I believe that was rule #1..people are stupid. This a very realistic rule.

I dont really know a whole lot about Bankroll Managment, because if and when I ever run out of money I just get more. Maybe I should start a journal and keep track. I do know that I do cash out alot on all sites when it gets up there because I do like receiving checks in the mail, its like a payday to me. I have been depositing them into my savings account and not spending it. Its gives me a good feeling. I know there is a post on Bankroll Managment and I should really look into it. But for right now I am just happy.

I have been pretty happy with the way I play my game and have been told that I really dont need to change my game. I have stood by this for a while and did well..When I started playing the 50$ games I feel like I started changing a lil. I started to play hands I normally wouldnt have played. Taking chances..I dont want to just cash..I want to win. I understand completly now what Jones had tried to tell me a long time ago ( i had been folding hands that I shouldnt have getting close to cashing). I just dont know if his advice back then was meant for MTT play or SnG..or doesnt it matter?

You can be the most skillful player out there and cash but without the luck you wont win first place.

Getting back to your post..I love it! Play the 3$ one table to earn..play the 1 ones to get rid of your bad luck..and play the higher ones to learn.
Cali

__________________

CalifNaughti - PokerStars

As for the table play: There really were no opportunities for me to steal blinds here and there. While play was tight, it was by no means scared. There was rarely a pot where there were no raises preflop.

As for being the most skilled player and still relying on luck: I agree with you completely. However, the higher your skill (compared to your opponents), the less and less you have to rely on the luck factor. Why do you think Doyle has said that he could play against a table of novices, and win despite never looking at his cards (provided his opponents don't know he isn't looking)? Conversely, the lesser and lesser your skill (compared to your opponents), the more and more you will have to rely on luck in order to win regularly.

__________________
1st place, March/April 2008 Sunday League

Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame.

Good post mars but I'm too tired to respond. Will do that soon.

While it was a well written post and has a few valid points, I think you are blowing what happened in a single sng WAY out of proportion... what you experienced is far from "normal" at those stakes... I would guess that you just happened to join a table that was full of tighter players who were getting bad cards. In general, what you see in your $3 sngs is exactly what you will see at the $6 level. I've played a $25 that was down to 6 players on the first hand and hit heads-up 18 minutes in... there is a $300 running right now that is down to 3 players 22 minutes in and a $555 that was OVER at the 28 minute mark.

Oh, I am sure it was one of those never-happen-again types of things. Doesn't change my views on the two main points of that phrase, tho.

__________________
1st place, March/April 2008 Sunday League

Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame.

Fair enough

I do believe that the differences between quality at different BR levels owes more to perception than to reality. In any poker game at any level you want to get reads on your opponents and find ways to exploit them. I went through a period of successfully exploiting 2 table 60$ turbos and holding my own in 1 table 60$ turbos and often the differences in terms of quality between ultra low limits was not too significant. Style wise it was quite different. I played in a style that is actually easier to win with than any that you could use at lower levels. Dont get me wrong there were significant differences in terms of styles that people played and at the lower levels there was a greater chance of being up against ultra loose, ultra inexperienced players but in any game at the higher levels you would always get 1-4 crazy players at a 1 table tourney. At low levels it is easy to sit back and exploit the stupid people and at higher levels there may be fewer of them so you need to exploit every oppertunity you get. This includes ones where you have only a marginal advantage. I actually get a better EV % on 60$ games than 3$ games (1 table).

I do think though that your level should be best viewed as a level at which you are comfortable with whatever swings can happen bankroll wise factoring in varience and periods of variable form. At the same time this level should be a level at which you are comfortably one of the best players in the tournament that you are entered into and unlikely to be outclassed by opponents at final table. This is often as much a factor of time and type of tourney that you play than actual cash buy ins. This does not mean that you have to be the best player in a given tourney but you have to expect to hold your own with almost everyone in a tourney and be clearly better or able to comfortably beat the majority of your opponents.

The other thing I would add is in apparent contradiction to what I have said which is that you should not view tourneys as combatitive. It is not a case of best man wins but he who survives longest. You do not need to be "better" than your opponents but you do need to play in a way that at whatever level you play at you money and money well a significant percentage of the time. This means that when there are only a few left you have to be able to get good finishes more than your opponents do and you must get to these positions a good percentage of the time.

There are definately differences in styles and types of players and the way that they play at different tourney types and buy in levels. It is true that there are more poor players, inexperienced players and unfocussed players at lower buy ins but I do not believe that the difference in terms of "quality" is as big as is sometimes perceived. Rather than looking at buy in levels you can Ghost some highly rated players and sit in the games that they are playing and play against them. Often you will win your chips of the donkeys but you can learn off what they are doing. This is mainly only viable in SNGs when the tourneys are not filling up ultra quick though.

Probably in the game you are talking people were sitting back and waiting for each other to do something stupid without actively chasing chips. This does not to me denote skill level but playing style. The table may well have been ripe for someone to change gears and either bully or trap other players into handing over chips to a cany player.

Anyway interesting and well thought post kmars