Short answer is both; I will explain why both arguments are mutually inclusive. Let’s take 2 players, player A, and player B.
Player A understands and follows risk/reward management, he risks what he knows he can afford to lose, follows the basic 10 percent spread rule, and puts in long hours, whether live or online. Player A understands that poker is a variant game, and that the skill factor shows forth in the extreme long term, therefore bad beats over the course of the shorterm does not TILT Player A. Player A studies his opponents, live and online, using Huds or just his own memory to evaluate his opponents tendencies. Player A follows a regiment of hours per day and/or week playing. Player A looks at poker as a job and is a true professional poker player.
Player B might understand risk management as well, but enjoys the action more than taking pride in managing risk/reward. Player B does not manage his bankroll like he should. Rather again, player B is an action junky, and will take huge risks in order to get his daily/weekly “rush”. Player B might understand what variance is, but does not set long term goals. Rather, Player B reacts to bad beats with an over emotional response, which in turn, can and will affect this player in the short term to cause huge swings both on the win and loss side. Losses piss the fecal matter out of player B, and player B chases the losses and again, does not consider the long term results. Player B will risk more than he can afford to lose, will not spread his bankroll, but rather might risk it all in one game/session.
Player B somewhat studies his opponents, but again, is more concerned with “the action.” Player B is a good technical player, but emotion tilts player B. Player B is frequently equity poor, has to be constantly staked. Player B is not a professional poker player.
Conclusion, Player A uses a time tried skill set to pump out long term profit, hence Player A relies on these skills for the long term gain. Player A is a truly skilled player. Player B relies more on the short term factor, loves the action, will go on tilt more easily than player A, does not consider long term goals. Variance in the short term can make player B profitiable in the short term but the short term relies on the luck factor, and in the long term, player B will be a loser. hence to player B, poker is truly a game of luck, while for player A, poker is truly a game of skill..
Final thoughts; For player A, poker is a game of skill. For player B, poker is a game of luck. Therefore, both arguments are correct, and this is why there are winners and losers in poker over the long term.
Scott
Like my blogs? The retweet them using the tweetme button! Wish to show support for my site here? Then please check out
15 percent off any pair of Royal Eyewear Poker Sunglasses + free shipping! USE CODE “matusow” (remove quotes) at checkout to receive the 15 percent off!
100% 90 day money back satisfation guarantee
Great glasses, will give you an edge playing live poker! Also, if you wish to donate, use the paypal donate button found thru out this site, thanks!
Just because player B is less skilled at the many aspects of the game is no argument that poker is any less a game of skill. Many players that don’t play enough to get to the “long term” are in a sense gambling no matter how big their edge. This happens a lot to live players, especially tournaments. But if they are better than their opponents they have an edge, end of story. When you sit down to play one or two or even 20 games luck plays a huge role. However, if you can step back and take in the whole picture player A has an X% edge every time he sits down with player B. Making poker 100% a game of skill.