Chess and Poker

Poker is an intensely skilled game.  Yes, there are random elements.  And there is critical information in poker that is not available to all players.  But over a long enough series of hand, the random element evens out.  Each players gets their share of the good and bad hands.  The skill is knowing when and how much to bet.  Part of this is psychology, part is a knowledge of mathematics and probability.  I can assure you, over time skill wins out.  Compared to chess, yes the outcome of a single event is somewhat more influenced by chance.  Some one might have a lucky hand, even a lucky night, but day after day in professional games skill carries the day in the long run. 

Edit:  Is poker "more" skilled?  No, its not.  It has a different set of skills and knowledge need to play at the highest level.  But I wouldn't go telling a professional poker player that he is less skilled that you.  If you really think that, I am sure he would be willing to empty your wallet for you.

I love both games and I can offer a different perspective as I am a poker player that has only recently started playing chess.

Poker is a game of skill.  Due to the mechanics of the game (most importantly hidden information and randomization), skill is hard to see to the untrained eye.

Much of the skill in poker lies in correctly evaluating the situation.  Being able to calculate odds in poker is a very important skill, albeit an elementary one.  Odds calculation in poker is about equivalent to knowing which pieces can attack each other in chess.  There are many more elements to take into consideration in every poker decision such as: opponent’s range of hands, opponent’s perception of your range of hands, opponent’s tendencies, cards on the board, future cards on the board, and how your actual hand relates to all of that.

Will the better poker player win every hand?  Of course not.  Will the best player win every tournament?  No.  This does not mean that poker is not a game of skill, but rather that poker skill is not necessarily realized in a short number of hands.

As far as one game being more of a ‘skill game’ than the other, that is a ludicrous proposition.  Apples and oranges.

Btw, regarding luck evening out in the long run, the long run has been calculated by computer simulation and its about as many hands as a full-time professional plays in 5 years (several million hands).  So its very possible to go on a 3-year winning streak in poker and its very hard to accurately estimate what someones hourly rate is.

I love poker, and am better than the vast majority of people I play. Poker doesn't just depend on "The luck of the draw" As many people seem to believe. I've noticed that people who play poker, and get lucky, and win are usually deluded into thinking they're good when they were really just lucky. (They usually could have won far more with their lucky hand if they HAD been good.)  But actually, they are long range losers because they lack any real skill. Ninety percent of the people I play against in Vegas fall into this category. To be a truly good  poker player, you not only have to know the odds, you have to be a good psychologist, and be able to pick up on tells. It takes a lot of experience to gain those skills. Poker is at least eighty percent skill, in spite of what most people seem to think. That being said: Your friend should have the common sense to to realize that chess takes a butt load more book study than poker, and is nearly 100% skill.  At least in chess, people can't be deluded into thinking they're good just because they get lucky now, and then.

Tell your co-worker to go play some more poker and maybe some checkers.

I used to play poker but stopped because there is too much luck involved.  I was knocked out of a big tournament after going all in on the turn and having about a 95% chance of winning the hand (the guy who called me had only two outs).  I know that better players will win more in the end, but in any hand the outcome is based on luck (assuming the players are all competent).  Chess on the other hand has NO luck.  The skills involved are very different, but I think that chess is more of a game of skill because there is no element of luck.

Did anyone see the last table of the World Series from last year?  The guy who won should have been knocked out two or three times before finally winning.  He won because he was lucky.  Any poker player will tell you that you have to be lucky to win big tourneys.  You have to "win races" with two overs against a pocket pair or vice versa.  A chess player who wins a tourney did not get lucky at all, he was the best player, no buts about it.

No, it's not.

In chess, two players are trying to manipulate a position in the open, with nothing hidden. The skill is manifested in their manouvering of the pieces in an effort to gain advantage.

In poker, at least Hold 'em" (which it sounds like most people are talking about), the cards aren't even played (i.e., no discards in an effort to draw a better hand). There is no manipulation of the hand. It's all about the bet* -- when to stay (bet), when to fold (not bet, or cut your losses), and how well you can represent your hand to be something to someone who can't see it (either a bluff, legitimately unbeatable, or potentially beatable according to the odds, getting your opponent to choose to bet or not).

Pinochle involves skill in "playing." The same hand can win or lose, depending on the order in which the cards are played. The player has some control of the cards. Not so in poker. Poker requires being a better liar, and the ability to spot the other liars' lies. A skill, perhaps, but not an enviable one.

Chess versus poker IS apples and oranges, to be sure. Skill vs. bovine scatology, chess requiring the skill.

------

*If you don't think it's all about the bet, try playing poker without money, chips, points or other means of wagering. The best hand would always win, and the game at that point would be reduced to pure luck.

Don't give this guy an orange.

I agree with Anthony CG!!!!!!!

When amateurs win big poker tourneys even with top pros competing in them its obvious there is far more luck in poker than in chess. Amateurs in a big chess tournament have no chance of winning the tournament with top pros also playing.

i can't even begin to explain how your comment makes absolutely no sense. so i won't. i obviously disagree with you.

I've noticed in my lifetime of playing poker that people who claim pokeris mostly luck are almost invariably bad poker players. They would rather blame their losing on bad luck instead of admitting they are bad players. As I stated earlier, chess is obviously 100% skill, and poker is about 80% skill. If all of the the poker players in a game are of equal ability, luck will obviously play a bigger part.

AnthonyCG: I was never a great poker player, but I was pretty good.  My point is that you can play a poker hand or tournament flawlessly, make only smart bets and good lay downs, and still lose. It is impossible to argue that this is not true.  However, if you play a flawless game of chess you will never lose because there is absolutely no luck.

I am a semipro Poker player that plays high stakes cash tables.

Both Chess and Poker are games of skill. It seems that good chess players can also be good poker players. For example, one of the past Presidents of the US Chess Federation is an outstanding poker player.

Both require training and discipline to do well continously. People in poker overplay the "luck" aspect. To a non poker player or a poor poker player, it seems a game of luck.

In reality luck is nothing more that statistical variance. Once you understand that, there really is no such thing as luck in poker. Because varaince is a factor in the game of poker, all players will both win and lose. But there are poker players that win more often than lose. Good poker players do not play for a single game or a single table or a single tournament (for tournament players which I am not.) Instead, they play for long term odds.

Both are very good games to play: I am just coming back to chess after a forty year hiatus... it's a tough game, but in fact, it is no tougher than poker!

The comparison is always there but I don't see it.  They're 2 completely different things to me. 

Poker seems to have a much higher luck element to it, like all card games.  Good or bad. That's not to say it doesn't require skill.  You could be unlucky all night playing it though.  I think the skill lies in the ability to read opponents, read the game, knowing when to bet and when not, weighing the odds.  Poker is also more social than Chess.  It makes better TV for some reason.  Probably because the average guy can see and understand what's going on.     

It's just that luck in Chess is usually a result of a good opponent missing something that you saw, you can make your own luck, good or bad.  The game is usually decided in favour of whoever does that best.  If both players read the game well you will find that a lot of the moves played were actually forced.     

In chess all in-game conditions are equalled: same set of pieces, same squares defended, same weaknesses (yes, I'm disconsidering the first-move advantage) . You and your opponent start from the same place and the outcome of the game relies completely on the player's skill imbalances, not on the game's structural imbalances.

In poker, as far as I can tell, starting conditions are not equal and depend on luck (i.e. getting good random card combinations). Once this in-game imbalance is established, players' skill kicks in. A skilled poker player is one who can a) overcome a bad set of cards or b) confirm the win with a good set of cards; an unskilled one can't overcome bad luck or take advantage of good luck.

The gist of it: skill in poker is subordinate to a pre-existent structural imbalance, which is built based on luck, while skill in chess is not hindered by significant structural imbalances. Hence amateurs are less successful against pros in chess then in poker.

omg poker is a stupid game I only saw one round of it (on TV) it was a giant championship and the first turn one of the people went all in and the other person also went all in and one of the people won just like that... what a stupid game.

Convincing your opponent that a planned sacrifice is a blunder could be considered the equivelent of a bluff in poker. You have to sell the idea that you made a mistake without being over dramatic. There is also the luck of your opponent not seeing your entire plan. Perhaps he loses the exchange because he over looked a third piece guarding a square. It's lucky for you and unlucky for him. I would say poker relies more on the intuition of knowing which hand to play and which hand to fold.

 Yes there is a "luck" element in poker, as I've stated. But if you always played poker flawlessly, you couldn't help but win over the long haul. As another poster stated, "luck" is just random variance of the cards. Over the long haul, it favors everybody equally. So there is really no such thing as luck in the sense that one particular player is going to magically be lucky, and always win.  I would think that at least the reasonably high rated players on here would have the common sense to realize that it's the random variance of the cards that makes it necessary to play over a longer period of time than one game like chess to let your skill show!!!!!!! CRIPES!!!!!!!!!

This is related to skill, not to luck.