[Closed] heads up = most skill required ?

Originally posted by sirilidion

still imo sh>fr skill-wise but anyway, we're here to make money/have fun/whatever, poker is a lot about luck so it's not like we can discuss skill - if it was about skill, no fish would ever win a tourney - in games where skill counts, you can play 1,000 games and a lesser skilled player will always lose,

for the sake of example I will name StarCraft here - opposed to poker where I can go play Ivey heads-up and take more than a few games from him because it's luck and if it weren't for luck, there wouldnt be so many bad players out there since they'd all go broke in a day.

You are wrong there is skill at poker. Because take the Ivey the heads-up against Ivey if it was just luck you would have as much chance as winning as losing against him. But it is not just luck and through that Ivey obvious has some edge over you he would take you're money if you played long enough against him.

The reason there are so many fish is that there is quite some luck in the game but the chances of them winning shortterm are quite a bit lower then an experienced player and the chances of them winning longterm are almost non existing.

and thats exactly what he has said ...

Originally posted by PocketAcesJohn

Originally posted by Dendra

Originally posted by PocketAcesJohn

Originally posted by Dendra
and in FR you cant play so much "poker" as you can with less players at the table.

This is not true. For micros and low limits it is. When you get to Medium and High limits you can actually really open your game up in certain spots. Manipulating your "hand ranges" will become a bigger part of the game when your playing with really tough players.

still imo sh>fr skill-wise but anyway, we're here to make money/have fun/whatever, poker is a lot about luck so it's not like we can discuss skill - if it was about skill, no fish would ever win a tourney - in games where skill counts, you can play 1,000 games and a lesser skilled player will always lose,

for the sake of example I will name StarCraft here - opposed to poker where I can go play Ivey heads-up and take more than a few games from him because it's luck and if it weren't for luck, there wouldnt be so many bad players out there since they'd all go broke in a day.

I agree with this I was just pointing something out that had been overlooked.

Replacing my statement (Read the first line as we where talking about FR v SH).

To the rest of it i say this:

Poker is a combination of both skill and luck. In the short term the luck decides who wins and loses. Whilst in the long term the skillfull players skills will shine. The luckfactor is what allows fish to think there good at the game. Id be tempted to rate poke a 50% game of skill and 50% game of luck but these figures dont seem right so id suggest its more like 75% skill 25% luck.

If poker about luck and NO SKILL AT ALL, everyone can make from $0 to $10,000, like Chris Ferguson did. So far i dont see a lot of people making 0 - 10k in short period.

However, in tournament i believe LUCK more important than Skill.

For example, LUCK important than skill/hand

I shove AA preflop in last 8 players tour $1 tourney.
SB call with J2o

and you know what happen after that.

forgot now who said it and for what games, aka cash games or tournaments - but anyway, the person came up with 60% - 40% ratio between skill and luck in poker, imo in cash games skill has higher percentage and in tournaments dunno

- I mean luck changes everything, Ivey would've never made it to the WSOP final table had he not sucked out himself more than a few times and you only see people talk about his great moves...

on the other hand, if there was no luck involved, Ivey would make it to the final table every time