How much luck is in pool?
- Thread starter Slh
- Start date
I say luck plays a very small part in pool or as about as much as any other game/sport ther is the lucky shot in pool like in basketball or the lucky punch in combat sports but it mostly comes down error of the player.
People talk about how little luck there is in poker in the long run. But how much luck there is in pool in the long run? For example a 9 ball match race to 125. Do you think Efren beat Strickland on the color of money because he was luckier than Earl? Or for example a one pocket match race to 15, how much luck is a factor in this type of race?
People seems to compare luck in poker in the long run with pool in a single match. If luck is so big in pool, why SVB is winning a lot of tournaments? Efren got lucky for years and Souquet too.
People seems to compare luck in poker in the long run with pool in a single match. If luck is so big in pool, why SVB is winning a lot of tournaments? Efren got lucky for years and Souquet too.
9BallPaul
Banned
That's a fascinating answer. Please explain what you mean by "modeled." Thanks.
rare to get that long of a contest
It is rare to get that long of a contest in pool. A smart poker player looks at all the poker he has ever played as a single session. If you do that luck is insignificant. If you look at pool the same way, luck is insignificant. The better you are the less luck plays a factor in either game. I have also defined luck as most people seem to regard it in pool to reach my conclusions, a shot has an unexpected result. Most people consider rolls, good and bad, to be luck. The only time I agree is on the break unless a person has a break really working great and on an occasional other shot. However if we just assume that we don't control the break playing pool then we have introduced a far bigger factor than two percent in most pool games. A break and run in nine ball often relies on a little luck to have a shot on the one ball and be able to run. Say it's 50-50 skill and luck. That puts the luck factor in nine ball as over five percent, two or three times the luck factor in poker.
While Jay is right that luck is a factor in poker it is far far less than 50% even short term. I played a forty man tournament on the computer last night and the night before. Won both of them. If luck played a 50-50 chance in winning what would the odds be of one person winning two 40 person tournaments back to back? Good stack management early, some risks, then I could afford losses other people couldn't later. That meant that when I lost a hand I survived to fight another battle and the other player(s) in a hand either had to fold to my pressure or risk their tournament life every time I wanted them to. The vast majority of the time I controlled the amount of money in the pot. When I couldn't I decided if I probably had the winning hand or needed to get out myself. The math of stack management is far more important in a tournament than the outs and odds math that a low level player makes. I am still a very low level player on a comparative basis but I'm a level or two above the bottom players. That gives me a pretty significant edge against the bottom players just like a "B" pool player slaughters most bar room bangers and over the long term takes zero risk gambling in bars.
With very rare exceptions I never gambled large playing pool so once I was ten thousand or so ahead I was never taking any risk gambling. I saw my gambling in the long term so one night's play rarely put any additional pressure on me because of the amount played for. With the right mindset and assuming a winning record overall neither wagering on pool or poker involves risk of a monetary loss. That concept is huge.
Hu
It is rare to get that long of a contest in pool. A smart poker player looks at all the poker he has ever played as a single session. If you do that luck is insignificant. If you look at pool the same way, luck is insignificant. The better you are the less luck plays a factor in either game. I have also defined luck as most people seem to regard it in pool to reach my conclusions, a shot has an unexpected result. Most people consider rolls, good and bad, to be luck. The only time I agree is on the break unless a person has a break really working great and on an occasional other shot. However if we just assume that we don't control the break playing pool then we have introduced a far bigger factor than two percent in most pool games. A break and run in nine ball often relies on a little luck to have a shot on the one ball and be able to run. Say it's 50-50 skill and luck. That puts the luck factor in nine ball as over five percent, two or three times the luck factor in poker.
While Jay is right that luck is a factor in poker it is far far less than 50% even short term. I played a forty man tournament on the computer last night and the night before. Won both of them. If luck played a 50-50 chance in winning what would the odds be of one person winning two 40 person tournaments back to back? Good stack management early, some risks, then I could afford losses other people couldn't later. That meant that when I lost a hand I survived to fight another battle and the other player(s) in a hand either had to fold to my pressure or risk their tournament life every time I wanted them to. The vast majority of the time I controlled the amount of money in the pot. When I couldn't I decided if I probably had the winning hand or needed to get out myself. The math of stack management is far more important in a tournament than the outs and odds math that a low level player makes. I am still a very low level player on a comparative basis but I'm a level or two above the bottom players. That gives me a pretty significant edge against the bottom players just like a "B" pool player slaughters most bar room bangers and over the long term takes zero risk gambling in bars.
With very rare exceptions I never gambled large playing pool so once I was ten thousand or so ahead I was never taking any risk gambling. I saw my gambling in the long term so one night's play rarely put any additional pressure on me because of the amount played for. With the right mindset and assuming a winning record overall neither wagering on pool or poker involves risk of a monetary loss. That concept is huge.
Hu
For those that have stated poker has to be luckier because an amateur can learn the game very fast and win a high level tourny....
Even if that were true. You can't compare the 2. There is a physical component to billiards which makes the learning curve much larger. Bascially all the poker player needs to learn is strategies(and then how to apply them). The pool player needs to learn all the strategies and then execute them physically.
Even if that were true. You can't compare the 2. There is a physical component to billiards which makes the learning curve much larger. Bascially all the poker player needs to learn is strategies(and then how to apply them). The pool player needs to learn all the strategies and then execute them physically.
No luck in pool?
I almost agree with you! I think there's very little luck in pool. If you get to the table and execute with perfection, you win. But what if you don't get to the table? If I lose a match without chalking my cue, it's hard not to consider that bad luck. For years I thought it was my bad luck to draw Nicky Varner for my first match in the 1981 8-ball National Championships, but if I wouldn't have drawn him first and played my best, I'd likely have had to play him anyway.
I do consider it bad luck to have a gunshot ring out as you're striking the cue ball, or to have the roof spring a leak over your table as you're shooting, or have the juke box kick in with earth-shaking volume as you deliver your business stroke.
I believe there's much luck on the break, as even with a Magic Rack, you can't get a truly perfect rack every time (particularly when the object balls have lots of miles on them).
Luck is something you have no control over. The idea that the better you play the more "luck" you have is an illusion. When you get a "bad roll", it is nearly always an error of some kind on your part. When you slow roll a ball into a pocket and it stops on the lip and rolls back an inch, you're "unlucky" to be playing on a table with problems, but if you'd struck the shot with adequate speed, it would have gone in. When you get a sour roll because of nipping another ball on the way to position, it's your fault, ultimately.
By learning how a table rolls before a match, checking the rack, checking object balls for dirt and nicks, using your own chalk, etc., you can also eliminate what many folks call luck before the match even starts.
I gave up my dream of becoming a pro bowler in 1970 and moved to pool, because it seemed there was more luck in bowling (partly because there's no defense on the lanes). This might make a good new thread...
Donny L
PBIA/ACS Instructor
I almost agree with you! I think there's very little luck in pool. If you get to the table and execute with perfection, you win. But what if you don't get to the table? If I lose a match without chalking my cue, it's hard not to consider that bad luck. For years I thought it was my bad luck to draw Nicky Varner for my first match in the 1981 8-ball National Championships, but if I wouldn't have drawn him first and played my best, I'd likely have had to play him anyway.
I do consider it bad luck to have a gunshot ring out as you're striking the cue ball, or to have the roof spring a leak over your table as you're shooting, or have the juke box kick in with earth-shaking volume as you deliver your business stroke.
I believe there's much luck on the break, as even with a Magic Rack, you can't get a truly perfect rack every time (particularly when the object balls have lots of miles on them).
Luck is something you have no control over. The idea that the better you play the more "luck" you have is an illusion. When you get a "bad roll", it is nearly always an error of some kind on your part. When you slow roll a ball into a pocket and it stops on the lip and rolls back an inch, you're "unlucky" to be playing on a table with problems, but if you'd struck the shot with adequate speed, it would have gone in. When you get a sour roll because of nipping another ball on the way to position, it's your fault, ultimately.
By learning how a table rolls before a match, checking the rack, checking object balls for dirt and nicks, using your own chalk, etc., you can also eliminate what many folks call luck before the match even starts.
I gave up my dream of becoming a pro bowler in 1970 and moved to pool, because it seemed there was more luck in bowling (partly because there's no defense on the lanes). This might make a good new thread...
Donny L
PBIA/ACS Instructor
Spot on! :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet that probably skews out perception of luck in pool is the fact that most pool matches as subject to some handicapping system. Compared to the number of handicapped tournaments, league matches, and gambling with one player giving up weight, there are very few non-handicapped open events or players gambling without a spot.
Even though most handicap systems are intended to still give the more skilled player an advantage, they still give the lesser player a reasonable chance at winning. Combine that with a short race and a lucky roll here and there can make all the difference.
Even the pros take a calculated risk every now and then. Weaker players with very little control take a risk on virtually every shot. In either case, the outcome of those shots can be the difference between winning and losing a match.
In the long run, of course skill will overcome luck, but with proper handicapping and short races like we have in most tournaments, a lucky player can knock out the best player any day of the week.
Even though most handicap systems are intended to still give the more skilled player an advantage, they still give the lesser player a reasonable chance at winning. Combine that with a short race and a lucky roll here and there can make all the difference.
Even the pros take a calculated risk every now and then. Weaker players with very little control take a risk on virtually every shot. In either case, the outcome of those shots can be the difference between winning and losing a match.
In the long run, of course skill will overcome luck, but with proper handicapping and short races like we have in most tournaments, a lucky player can knock out the best player any day of the week.
computer modeling
Computer modeling is actually playing out as many hands as a person can play in a lifetime and getting the results. Not the same software but check out the free poker software called PokerStove. It plays out millions of hands a minute using the the hand information you give it. It doesn't account for various factors as well as more sophisticated software but it isn't calculating odds or potential, it is playing the hands over and over and giving the results of that play. Because it is actual modeling the results are very slightly different when running the same simulation over and over even after millions of hands.
That is many many more times effective modeling than anything we can do for pool. If I want to see how my pocket cards play against up to nine other sets of pocket cards I can find out my chances of winning at showdown if the hand is played out a million times, fifty million times, as long as I want to let it run. I just tried a pair of jacks against ace-king of another suite. In 10.583 seconds the software simulated playing the hand almost 23 million times. The Jacks held up 53.883% of the time. I can add the flop, the turn, and the river comparing the odds after each card. Obviously the odds become 100% and 0 after the river unless a tie is possible but We have real numbers modeled the same way many things are modeled in the scientific community. Nothing like that for pool.
Concerning your comment about not calling with a winning hand, that is possibly poor play. However good players don't put another player on a hand, they put them on a range of hands. When the odds on the money and the range of hands you beat are right you call. When they aren't right you fold. Doesn't really matter if you win or lose one hand, Over time when you make the right play you win money. The human factor is largely knowledge and a cool head. Just as an example, suppose over many many hands I have $1500 expectation for making a $1000 bet. It doesn't matter if I lose that thousand dollars five times in a row I keep sticking it in. I may lose a thousand on some hands, I may win four or five thousand some hands, but the math says I am making the right play.
I said much the same thing every poster in this thread has said that doesn't understand poker math for a lot of years. I knew some skill was involved but I never had a clue how much skill could be involved. I did know enough to stay away from the people that played as many hours a week of poker as I played pool. I had no more chance of beating them on a poker table than they had of beating me on a pool table, maybe less.
Hu
Computer modeling is actually playing out as many hands as a person can play in a lifetime and getting the results. Not the same software but check out the free poker software called PokerStove. It plays out millions of hands a minute using the the hand information you give it. It doesn't account for various factors as well as more sophisticated software but it isn't calculating odds or potential, it is playing the hands over and over and giving the results of that play. Because it is actual modeling the results are very slightly different when running the same simulation over and over even after millions of hands.
That is many many more times effective modeling than anything we can do for pool. If I want to see how my pocket cards play against up to nine other sets of pocket cards I can find out my chances of winning at showdown if the hand is played out a million times, fifty million times, as long as I want to let it run. I just tried a pair of jacks against ace-king of another suite. In 10.583 seconds the software simulated playing the hand almost 23 million times. The Jacks held up 53.883% of the time. I can add the flop, the turn, and the river comparing the odds after each card. Obviously the odds become 100% and 0 after the river unless a tie is possible but We have real numbers modeled the same way many things are modeled in the scientific community. Nothing like that for pool.
Concerning your comment about not calling with a winning hand, that is possibly poor play. However good players don't put another player on a hand, they put them on a range of hands. When the odds on the money and the range of hands you beat are right you call. When they aren't right you fold. Doesn't really matter if you win or lose one hand, Over time when you make the right play you win money. The human factor is largely knowledge and a cool head. Just as an example, suppose over many many hands I have $1500 expectation for making a $1000 bet. It doesn't matter if I lose that thousand dollars five times in a row I keep sticking it in. I may lose a thousand on some hands, I may win four or five thousand some hands, but the math says I am making the right play.
I said much the same thing every poster in this thread has said that doesn't understand poker math for a lot of years. I knew some skill was involved but I never had a clue how much skill could be involved. I did know enough to stay away from the people that played as many hours a week of poker as I played pool. I had no more chance of beating them on a poker table than they had of beating me on a pool table, maybe less.
Hu
I agree; the luck factor in pool is small; poker there is more luck...however both games require mental toughness-skill notwithstanding.
These stars on TV today are not playiing with their own money...put them up against the hustlers of the 50's and see how they do when half the pot money is their own. You win or lose-in today's tourneys you only win...you dont lose anything...there is no gamble, when
the money to be won is not your opponent's but some corporate sponsors...
One of the central premises in a thread like this, and you'll see a derivation of this thread in almost any competitive subject, is a false dichotomy between luck and skill. They're not mutually exclusive, and these particular games are great examples.
There is a skill in understanding and applying probabilities. In pool that is represented in pattern and position play. Our primary goal in pool is to shoot one high percentage shot and then move to another high percentage shot. There are plenty of players who can make a long thin cut shot, but stringing those together one after another is not going to lead to as many long runs as attempting to string together many easy shots.
Similiarly, one could bluff a 7-2 offsuit and win some hands, but realizing one shouldn't be playing a 7-2 offsuit will lead to a lot more money at the end of the session. One could get fortunate and be dealt a hand like a pair of Aces multiple times more than probability suggests but if one is only playing those types of monster hands they may not get paid off when that hand does hit.
There is a skill in understanding and applying probabilities. In pool that is represented in pattern and position play. Our primary goal in pool is to shoot one high percentage shot and then move to another high percentage shot. There are plenty of players who can make a long thin cut shot, but stringing those together one after another is not going to lead to as many long runs as attempting to string together many easy shots.
Similiarly, one could bluff a 7-2 offsuit and win some hands, but realizing one shouldn't be playing a 7-2 offsuit will lead to a lot more money at the end of the session. One could get fortunate and be dealt a hand like a pair of Aces multiple times more than probability suggests but if one is only playing those types of monster hands they may not get paid off when that hand does hit.
a little known fact:
the cushions on either side of american pool table pockets are cut at a precise (and flat) angle, rather than being rounded like snooker cushions, to eliminate, as much as possible, any element of "luck".
the theory being: with a predictable angle comes predictable shots
you can "get lucky" and make a seemingly impossible shot on accident. but at the same time, to win games repeatedly requires far more than luck.
the cushions on either side of american pool table pockets are cut at a precise (and flat) angle, rather than being rounded like snooker cushions, to eliminate, as much as possible, any element of "luck".
the theory being: with a predictable angle comes predictable shots
you can "get lucky" and make a seemingly impossible shot on accident. but at the same time, to win games repeatedly requires far more than luck.
"luck" is a scapegoat. Example "i was unlucky because i scratched on the 8" So instead of taking responsibility for hitting the ball bad and scratching, i blamed the scratch on "bad luck".
Lots of parameters to consider pool luck v. poker luck
I'll use Texas Hold'em as "poker".
Over the short term (one night), "luck" usually (almost always) has more influence in hold'em than in any pocket billiards session of the same length of time.
There is a huge difference in being a very good limit player v. a very good no-limit player in hold'em. Different skills involved, and on any given night, the money flow is very different. Luck probably plays a bigger role in no-limit over the short term.
Similarly, luck, over the short term, can play a larger role in 9-ball than in some other pocket billiards games - "slop counts".
On the other hand, long-term play removes "luck" as a factor from both activities. By "long term", I mean literally hundreds of thousands of hands or games.
If you play one million hands of hold'em, the best player will be on top of the money winnings. I use one million deliberately. There are some cases for some hands, rakes, table positions, playing styles, etc. that 100,000 hands are not enough to determine best play. You can see this yourself regarding hold'em using Wilson Software's simulation programs.
A million games is probably not needed in pool. If two people play 100,000 games of any pocket billiards game, the best player will be ahead. No luck is relevant. 10,000 games probably enough to determine the best player almost all the time. I doubt 1,000 games is enough, between two very even players, to be sure who is best.
Unlike some posters here, I don't think a single game or even a single shot in pool is completely deterministic, at the level a player can control. For example, besides the break, I don't know how one can always avoid CB-OB contact at the point where there's a chalk dot on the CB. Sometimes in pool you have to cut things fine - that's part of the skill required- and many such events can make the difference - a burned-slick strip on the wool, a 1" section of cushion that has come unglued, a sudden sharp sound or flash of light at the wrong time...
I'll use Texas Hold'em as "poker".
Over the short term (one night), "luck" usually (almost always) has more influence in hold'em than in any pocket billiards session of the same length of time.
There is a huge difference in being a very good limit player v. a very good no-limit player in hold'em. Different skills involved, and on any given night, the money flow is very different. Luck probably plays a bigger role in no-limit over the short term.
Similarly, luck, over the short term, can play a larger role in 9-ball than in some other pocket billiards games - "slop counts".
On the other hand, long-term play removes "luck" as a factor from both activities. By "long term", I mean literally hundreds of thousands of hands or games.
If you play one million hands of hold'em, the best player will be on top of the money winnings. I use one million deliberately. There are some cases for some hands, rakes, table positions, playing styles, etc. that 100,000 hands are not enough to determine best play. You can see this yourself regarding hold'em using Wilson Software's simulation programs.
A million games is probably not needed in pool. If two people play 100,000 games of any pocket billiards game, the best player will be ahead. No luck is relevant. 10,000 games probably enough to determine the best player almost all the time. I doubt 1,000 games is enough, between two very even players, to be sure who is best.
Unlike some posters here, I don't think a single game or even a single shot in pool is completely deterministic, at the level a player can control. For example, besides the break, I don't know how one can always avoid CB-OB contact at the point where there's a chalk dot on the CB. Sometimes in pool you have to cut things fine - that's part of the skill required- and many such events can make the difference - a burned-slick strip on the wool, a 1" section of cushion that has come unglued, a sudden sharp sound or flash of light at the wrong time...
The better you play, the less luck is in the game-that s a fact.
Sure there can be a good roll from time to time, but imo ppl are talking too much about *luck*.
That s why i don t really liked 9ball at all. (in lower leagues).
Except 9b i like each game. I just watch 9ball, if good players are playing. Otherwise it s often just banging balls around.
It s a goal for me, to reduce the amount of luck, to try to perfectionize the game, so that luck wil never get a chance.
call shots ftw ^^
Sure there can be a good roll from time to time, but imo ppl are talking too much about *luck*.
That s why i don t really liked 9ball at all. (in lower leagues).
Except 9b i like each game. I just watch 9ball, if good players are playing. Otherwise it s often just banging balls around.
It s a goal for me, to reduce the amount of luck, to try to perfectionize the game, so that luck wil never get a chance.
call shots ftw ^^
AimWithYourMind
Banned
What if you aim incorrectly, say, too far left. But you also put unintentional right english on the cueball. So you end up pocketing the ball anyway.
Should I call this luck?
For pool to disallow luck, we must not just call pockets, we must also assign cut angles and amounts of english.
Should I call this luck?
For pool to disallow luck, we must not just call pockets, we must also assign cut angles and amounts of english.
AimWithYourMind
Banned
Not only this, but you should have to call your pocket for each ball in the game prior to shooting your first ball. Do you want to eliminate luck or not?
See the second line of my post...
