Beginning poker players and advanced poker players
rarely concern themselves with the same questions, but there is one question
that virtually all poker players, regardless of skill, ask themselves on a
regular basis: how much luck is there in poker?
Rank beginners tend to treat poker much like they would
treat craps, roulette, or other pure chance games. They think they'll win if
they catch good cards and lose if they don't.
As players start to learn a little, they recognize how much more they now
know than they did before, usually overrating their newfound abilities, and they
pass through a stage where they feel there is very little luck in poker.
When players become truly advanced, their view on luck is a bit tougher to
pin down. Most great players have big poker egos, and that kind of ego does not
allow them to view their game as one where luck plays much of a role. Yet these
great players do not always win, even when they are playing against clearly
inferior opposition.
That leaves us with one of two possible conclusions. Either there is luck in
poker, even at the highest levels, or the great players don't always play
well. I think both statements are true.
When players of vastly different skill levels meet one another, there is not
much luck in poker. Although even a rank beginner can get lucky against good
players for a brief period, if there really is a big difference in skill, the
beginner might as well be trying to hit a lottery ticket, over the long run.
When players of equal skill level meet, luck plays a very important role. The
trick, of course, is that it is very unusual for players who are truly equal in
skill level to meet. There are so many different kinds of skills possible in
poker—the number might be 50 or 500, depending on how narrowly you want to
define "skill"—that even if two players possess the same number of skills (let's
say 28 of the 50), they aren't going to be the same 28 skills.
Further, unless you're playing a heads-up match, in a typical game there will
be a mix of players at different skill levels. The thought of nine exactly equal
players sitting down is almost impossible to imagine. Usually the better players
take down the money, but it's very clear that the worst player at the table
sometimes walks away with the cash, and there's no way to explain that other
than luck—short term luck, to be sure, but luck just the same.
Most advanced players are willing to concede the existence of short-term
luck, but most of them believe, quite rightly, that in the long term, the better
players will get the money. How can we reconcile this correct statement with the
equally correct observation that top players frequently go broke, or go on very
extended losing streaks?
In most cases, I think these streaks of "running bad" are not the result of
several months or years of phenomenally bad luck. Usually, they happen because
the hugely talented player makes one or more the following mistakes:
1) Plays for too high an amount, relative to his
bankroll. Generally, a player plays his best poker when the amount
of money at stake matters, but isn't life changing. Great players tend to seek
high stakes games. If the amount at risk is too high, some players can't play
optimally. They have to pull in their horns, and not make good percentage plays
that add to fluctuations. This makes it harder to win. If the player loses a lot
in one of these games, he may be forced into playing games that are so small
that he either does not respect his opponents or his chips, and either of those
mistakes can lead to more losing.
2) Goes on emotional tilt and as a result does not play up to his
or her abilities. A nearly universal problem. Some players are far
more susceptible to it than others. If a player truly has been the recipient of
bad luck for a while, usually it becomes easier for that player to go on tilt. A
small amount of bad luck thus brings on bad play, which leads to more losing and
more tilting. A "good" player who never goes on tilt will almost certainly win
more money, long run, than a "great" player who is vulnerable to tilting. A very
interesting question, for me, is whether we should still define the "great"
player as great, if he has this weakness, and if we should define the "good"
player as merely good, if he doesn't have it.
3) Always or almost always plays with players who are even better
than he is. If you are the 10th best hold'em player in the world,
and only play in games with the top nine, you're going to lose. If you're the
5,000th best, and only play in games with players "ranked" below 10,000, you're
going to kick butt. This is another instance of a player's ego getting in the
way of his results.
4) Drug or alcohol use. Another classic Achilles
heel. Professional poker players often choose the poker path, rather than floor
trading on a stock exchange or working for a big company, because they like the
independent lifestyle. They like being able to get up when they want and go
wherever they want. This sort of freedom also makes it easier for someone to
indulge in bad habits. The late Stu Ungar was almost certainly the greatest
player who ever lived, when he was clean and on his game. But he went through
long periods of being broke, because his bad habits got the better of him.
5) Becomes so overconfident that he starts making sub-par plays,
or playing too many hands, figuring he can outplay people
later. Another classic ego mistake: "I'm so good, I don't have to
play perfectly." Once again, I have to debate whether a player who makes this
kind of mistake is really that great.
So, if a hugely talented player makes one or more of these mistakes, is it
right to call that player hugely talented? Probably. Is that player "better"
than someone with less ability or experience but who always plays his
best? That's tougher to answer, but I think you can tell my view is that what
seems like bad luck is very often the result of bad play. There's absolutely no
question that bad luck happens. How much you let it affect you separates the
winners from the losers.
There's a marvelous, terrific, outstanding line in the poker novel
Shut Up and Deal. It's so good that I really wish I
had invented it. Paraphrased in a form that fits this article, it is: "The
skill is not what is hard about poker. The skill is easy. The luck is hard. A
lot of people can learn to be skilled. Very few people can handle the bad
luck."
Finally, I think luck is very situation specific. What's more unlucky, an
opponent who in a 10-20 game catches two consecutive perfect cards on the turn
and river to make four of a kind and beat your full house (at odds of more than
1,000-1 against), or an opponent who has nine outs to make his flush on the last
card and beat you at the end of the final hand of the World Series of Poker, and
he catches the card at odds about 4-1 against? Timing can be everything.
This complex set of variables starts to explain why I can't simply say
something like "Poker is 60% skill and 40% luck." The amount of luck found in
poker is a very complex question. I do know this much: if forced to choose, my
ego would choose that I be good. My wallet would prefer that I be lucky, every
time.
This article is written by Andrew N.S. Glazer, the Poker Pundit.
