David Matthews has been quoted as saying that EBJ is about 70% luck. I agree that luck plays a huge factor in one’s success at this game, but how does David arrive at 70%? As I see it, luck takes the form of: position the skill level of the other players at the table the cards dealt to all the players the cards dealt to the dealer With all else being equal, does the 70% mean that a skillful player has a 30% advantage over a newbie? What if the skillful player has to bet before the newbie? What does the percentage drop to? And between two equally skilled players, what is the luck factor/percentage as far as position? Or does the 70% only take into account the cards dealt?
I'm 95% sure that the 70% was not meant to be a precise figure. Luck vs skill (and this very quote from DM) has been discussed at some length on this forum (welcome aboard, by the way ). My own take on this is that luck and skill are not opposing factors that must add up to 100% - Luck equates to the mathematical concept of variance; it represents the likelihood that, despite employing more skill than your opponents, the random elements of the game will cause you to lose in the short term. Skill, on the other hand, equates to mathematical expectation. It is the near-certainty that, if you play enough games, the luck factor will even out and the players with the greater skills will win more than their share. The more skillful the player, the more they expect to win in the long term. It seems to me conceivable that a particular rule change could increase both the role of luck and the role of skill. That is, it could cause a strong player to have longer losing streaks (and also winning streaks) against poorer players, while at the same time increasing their long-term winnings. I've speculated that the face-down DD card and secret bet might be such rules.
Welcome Hey Ted, Glad to see you finally found you way over here - then again with all the EBJ you play maybe I DON'T want you learning any more! :laugh: The 70% luck quote that DM made has been discussed before. I just wish that DM would pop in, do a post to clarify his point on the subject. I agree with London that luck and skill don't have to add up to 100%. I've read the interview with DM in ALL IN - very well done article BTW and I highly recommend subscribing to them. In fact the TOC UBT was on WGN last night so I had a 3rd chance to watch it. There was I believe three (3) times that DM had to go "all in" during that match with Adriana Jade, KS, HD, RRD and Tyrone. Now no one likes to go all in at the final table unless it's the only way and DM did it on hand 7, pulling it out and going wild. Where's the luck part? getting the right cards? Making the decision to go all in on hand 7 versus 8 versus 6? I don't know. To say it's more luck than skill is, in my opinion, a dis-service to DM's playing ability. Hopefully one day DM will do a post here and clear it up. Or maybe he can write an article about it for ALL IN
Fred, I actually found my way over here a few months ago and have devoted some time since then -- in chunks -- to catch up on some of the threads. I've really enjoyed your analysis, questions, and humor. I finally have some time on my hands (when I'm not playing on bet21.com) to make some contributions of my own here. When CBS began airing the UBT shows, I was shut out of them in Southwest Florida. CBS always chose to air additional sports matches. Finally, in late December, I got to see three matches, including the TOC. While I enjoyed seeing what a televised tournament looked like, and watching the players as well, I really didn't learn much from the broadcasts. There wasn't the continuity I get when I'm in an actual SNG or tourney; and one hand with an all-in bet doesn't necessarily show what got the player into that situation. And don't worry about me learning any more. I'm sure you've got me "profiled" in your little black book, having played against me on probably 25 occasions. Hey, why don't you tell me "exactly" how many times we've played against each other...and our outcomes.
