WSJ and Online Poker

The Wall Street Journal ran a fascinating Page One article recently on academic efforts to illustrate poker as a game of skill rather than a game of luck. The issue has roots even in the name of the game, which allegedly derives from the Old French poquer, which translates, “to bet.”

Anyone who knows anything about the game realizes there is a certain element involving “luck of the draw.” But there is, of course, much more to playing the game successfully than just pulling a good hand. Obviously, if a player draws a high hand then lets on to other players, the player’s probability of winning a large pot will decline. Likewise, if a player has only a so-so hand but is able to bluff through the betting process, their probability of winning the pot increases.

Another element lending credence to the argument for poker being considered a game of skill is the need for understanding the odds of drawing a winning hand. Poker has seen streaks of popularity in the US before, most recently in the 1950s and 60s when home poker tournaments were all the rage. During that time, a variety of books were published with the goal of training readers in understanding the odds involved, especially after discarding in the first round of 5 card draw.

For instance, when drawing four cards in hopes of gaining a pair of aces, players should know there are three more aces and they have four shots at getting another. But, when drawing for one card to complete a royal flush, players have one shot in 52 to get the card they need. This is simplified, of course, since the needed card might have been drawn by one of the other players, and the number of players affects the odds. Other examples exist, such as drawing one card to complete a straight being less likely than drawing one card to complete a flush, and so forth.

Therefore, knowledgeable players will bet accordingly based on knowledge of the odds. If they have a better chance at successfully drawing for a high hand, they will bet more. If they have a lower chance of getting the high hand, they will bet less. However, novice players often bet on emotion. They may think, “I have a shot at a royal flush!” and bet with abandon, never minding that the odds of getting that one card are slim.

There are several other aspects of the game the old books delved into, many of them human factors. I recall reading one suggestion to always serve alcohol while imbibing little oneself. This way, as other players become increasingly inebriated, the reader’s chances of winning increase by remaining sober. Other suggestions included watching for accidentally flashed cards, using cheap decks that become increasingly scuffed over time (memorizing what cards are scuffed constitutes a legitimate form of reading “marked” cards; marking cards yourself, say by bending the aces slightly at the corner, remains unethical), and noting suit colors through the reflections off other players’ glasses.

Finally, attention to player habits helps gain an upper edge. If a cautious player always folds after failing to draw the one card needed to complete a straight or flush then later starts betting, perhaps they finally managed to complete their hand. A famous scene in the TV show M.A.S.H. showed a successful player whistling when he had a high hand. Other tics or foibles may be noticed by observant players over the long run.

When we start dealing with numbers, statisticians come out of the woodwork. Nothing intrigues statisticians more than the practical application of their art, whether in sports or politics or popular games. The WSJ article noted three academics with current research in the field of poker. The article highlights a conference presided over by Charles Nesson at Harvard Law. The issue has legal ramifications, because if the US Congress considers poker a game of skill, it can be played online. If poker is considered a game of chance, it remains gambling and cannot be played online (for real money, anyway) under current law. “It’s about time poker became a subject of academic inquiry,” the article quotes Nesson as saying.

The article lists two other academic endeavors to analyze the statistical components of games. First, Jay Kadane over at Carnegie Mellon attended the conference seeking support for research looking at teems of data from video poker games. Steven Levitt, over at Chicago, who co-authored Freakonomics which helped popularize economic theory to the general public, is coordinating a project called Pokernomics. Levitt’s project signs up volunteers to load their playing data online. Volunteers are expected to participate in at least 10,000 hands to help secure the statistics.

Online video games take a different tack when money is involved. Folks who do just fine using simulated money often play differently when their own money is involved. Gambling, with its possibilities of high reward for little apparent effort, mixes in another statistically intriguing element to game play, as opposed to investing or some other online manipulation of finances. Considerably more academic interest in the years ahead is a safe bet.

References

King, N., Jr. (2007, May 3). Harvard ponders just what it takes to excel at poker. The Wall Street Journal, p.A1.