Poker is Skill vs. Luck

[stooks99]

Besides all the normal luck vs. skill discussions that usually come up, I think its interesting to examine a view that rationally shows that maybe, just maybe luck is not only a factor, but necessary for even the best players.

 

Let’s assume that we can rank a poker player on a skill level from 1 to 100, with 100 being the best.  First of all, I suppose we can assume that no one is 1 and probably no one is 100.

 

In a contest of high-end players vs. low or even medium skilled players, it’s obviously a favorable position for the high enders.   For example, in an 8 handed mixed game, if there are three players that would rank above 85, and three that rank between 40 and 60, and two that rank from 15 to 40, the 85+ obviously have an edge.  On a side note, it’s important to note that the edge the mid-players have over the poor players here is nearly irrelevant, as the high enders are going to win it all anyway.  I suppose the 60s edge over the 35 will allow him to stay un-broke longer, but the 60 will never be able to overcome the 85s skill level.

 

Now, let’s take a game that is mostly high ended players.  Let’s assume that in the $50k HORSE event that most of the players are 75+.  I would say a large chunk of those players would even qualify as 85+….even if they don’t realistically, lets assume they do for this discussion.

 

The $50k HORSE is always promoted as having the most skill necessary to win, but is that really true?  Assuming that the bulk of the players have practically the same skill level, what can be the deciding factor?  It must be luck.  Now, we have to understand that most of these players don’t make their living playing against the best in the world all the time, as they usually have a “live one” or someone taking a shot in their game to have most of their profit.

 

So, in a spot where virtually everyone has a very high level of skill, doesn’t it make sense that the winner will more than likely be the person who ran the best?  Of course, there are many factors that come into play, especially short handed, but I think that if you have a table of the top 20 players on Earth playing their best game, then luck is the only factor that you can say will bring someone out on top.

 

Thoughts?

[Martini]

While luck may determine *which* of the very skilled players wins. The HORSE event will more likely ferret out poor players from getting extremely deep into the tourney especially compared to the Main Event.

[TwoToGo-Grave]

The $50k HORSE is always promoted as having the most skill necessary to win, but is that really true?  Assuming that the bulk of the players have practically the same skill level, what can be the deciding factor?  It must be luck.  Now, we have to understand that most of these players don’t make their living playing against the best in the world all the time, as they usually have a “live one” or someone taking a shot in their game to have most of their profit.

 

So, in a spot where virtually everyone has a very high level of skill, doesn’t it make sense that the winner will more than likely be the person who ran the best?  Of course, there are many factors that come into play, especially short handed, but I think that if you have a table of the top 20 players on Earth playing their best game, then luck is the only factor that you can say will bring someone out on top.

 

Thoughts?

Well, you're talking about one tourney, and in any one tourney, luck will largely decide who wins.  If not, then the same guy would win the 50K Horse each year, and that obviously doesn't happen.  That said, poker is 100% skill in the long term.  You ARE your results in poker, given enough hands/tourneys, and luck won't be the determining factor in how anybody does at the game if they play enough.

[austin5string]

If I may try to condense all of that..

If I'm understanding correctly, stooks is just saying if you took X number of equally skilled players, and they all played perfectly to their skill level, the only determining factor that would determine a winner is who got the good cards..

[stooks99]

If I may try to condense all of that..

If I'm understanding correctly, stooks is just saying if you took X number of equally skilled players, and they all played perfectly to their skill level, the only determining factor that would determine a winner is who got the good cards..

Essentially, this is what I was getting at.  This settles it, though.  No more posting on HPT from my iphone.  Everytime I try to type something up on my iphone, it just comes out this big blog of incoherent crap.

What I mea is what Austin5string said.  If you have the top 10 players in the world playing in any game, and they are all playing top notch, then the only possibley variable is luck.

[FSL009]

I think that Tourneys are ust well tourneys...i would not take results in them as indicative of skill.  sure having skill means you have a bet chance but you have to get lucky along the way as well in most tourneys  especially MTTS with large fields.

I think the only true judge is cash games. if you win every year for your entire life agaisnt the best players you probably have sufficient skill. 

but to take a short run at it would seem to not indicate much, it also does not conclude you dont have sufficient skill either.

[Martini]

...
What I mea is what Austin5string said.  If you have the top 10 players in the world playing in any game, and they are all playing top notch, then the only possibley variable is luck.

For the sake of argument let's say that your statement is essentially true especially in the case of poker. However, that does not mean that the event that they are playing requires a high degree of skill. If the ten best poker players played an NLHE tournament where the structure with antes so high that everyone is all in on every hand then that is a 100% luck event and any amateur poker player has an equal chance of winning as a seasoned professional. But if the event is something more like the $50K HORSE event then you are going to see seasoned pros go much much further on average than an amateur. If the $50K HORSE event had as wide a range of skill levels as the Main Event then we would see how much better pros do than amateurs. It is not the fault of the event that mainly the highest skilled players participate, in fact, that lends even more credibility that that event does require a great deal of skill.

The fact that an event requires high skill to do well in and the fact that luck plays a large part of who wins are not contradictory.

[Milo]

To which the only reply would be, yes, but then you get into conditioning.  Who amongst the skilled gets fatigued the quickest?  Things of that nature . . .

Like all the books say, luck evens out in the long run (at least, luck in terms of what cards you are dealt), so it comes down to how skilled you are in winning $$$ with your goods cards vs. how adept you are at NOT losing $$$ with your bad ones.










Or something like that.

[Martini]

...
I think the only true judge is cash games. if you win every year for your entire life agaisnt the best players you probably have sufficient skill. 
...

I think a statistically relevant amount of tournaments would be an equally viable proof of skill. Some players do far better at tournaments than cash games, take Hellmuth for example. I would imagine there are plenty of players who are EV- in cash games but EV++ in tourneys so judging their profitability purely on cash game performance would not give an accurate view of their skill in poker.

[luckystraights]

If I may try to condense all of that..

If I'm understanding correctly, stooks is just saying if you took X number of equally skilled players, and they all played perfectly to their skill level, the only determining factor that would determine a winner is who got the good cards..

Essentially, this is what I was getting at.  This settles it, though.  No more posting on HPT from my iphone.  Everytime I try to type something up on my iphone, it just comes out this big blog of incoherent crap.

What I mea is what Austin5string said.  If you have the top 10 players in the world playing in any game, and they are all playing top notch, then the only possibley variable is luck.

how about, tiredness, fatigue, tilt control, bankroll management, stress coping mechanisms, confidence, all these issues can affect a players performance, then one play's his A game and masters these other factors the best will win statistically in the long run.

We all get the same luck [afaik], so how can luck be a determining factor, in one tournament yes, over 5 million or w/e, not at all.

[Blaster]

 I once described the skill/luck thing in NLHE to someone not familiar with the game this way:
" Imagine if, in Football, basketball or Baseball, 3/4ths the way thru every game a big wheel was spun & the winner of the spin received 5 or 6 points.  
 There of course would be many times when the clearly more skilled team lost the game due to the points awarded in the "luck spin" .. but over the course of the season, the best teams would probably still rate on top " .....

[R-Ho]

I once described the skill/luck thing in NLHE to someone not familiar with the game this way:
" Imagine if, in Football, basketball or Baseball, 3/4ths the way thru every game a big wheel was spun & the winner of the spin received 5 or 6 points.  
 There of course would be many times when the clearly more skilled team lost the game due to the points awarded in the "luck spin" .. but over the course of the season, the best teams would probably still rate on top " .....

And it might cause the NBA to not 'phone in' the first three quarters of a game

[Dr. Neau]

I once described the skill/luck thing in NLHE to someone not familiar with the game this way:
" Imagine if, in Football, basketball or Baseball, 3/4ths the way thru every game a big wheel was spun & the winner of the spin received 5 or 6 points.  
 There of course would be many times when the clearly more skilled team lost the game due to the points awarded in the "luck spin" .. but over the course of the season, the best teams would probably still rate on top " .....

Well, it'd be more like spining a wheel after every play.

[Detroitdad]

luck

[Wilson Mill]

Poker is more of a skill than luck. With time and experience one could become a professional poker player.

[Dr. Neau]

Poker is more of a skill than luck. With time and experience one could become a professional poker player.

That doesn't mean it is more skill than luck.

Poker could be 1% skill and 99% luck....but that's enough edge for someone to profit if they can exploit it.

[kimert]

If it wasnt for the luck factor, Phil Helmuth would win every WSOP ME

[Gregg729]

If I may try to condense all of that..

If I'm understanding correctly, stooks is just saying if you took X number of equally skilled players, and they all played perfectly to their skill level, the only determining factor that would determine a winner is who got the good cards..

Essentially, this is what I was getting at.  This settles it, though.  No more posting on HPT from my iphone.  Everytime I try to type something up on my iphone, it just comes out this big blog of incoherent crap.

What I mea is what Austin5string said.  If you have the top 10 players in the world playing in any game, and they are all playing top notch, then the only possibley variable is luck.

I've read this thread several times and this post.....  it's just ugly.  DISCLAIMER: I didn't read past this post on this read-through.

The top 10 players still do not play on equal skill levels.  But it's irrelevant, it's a bad analogy to base the entire poker world on the top 10 players.

[NotFadeAway]

If I may try to condense all of that..

If I'm understanding correctly, stooks is just saying if you took X number of equally skilled players, and they all played perfectly to their skill level, the only determining factor that would determine a winner is who got the good cards..

Essentially, this is what I was getting at.  This settles it, though.  No more posting on HPT from my iphone.  Everytime I try to type something up on my iphone, it just comes out this big blog of incoherent crap.

What I mea is what Austin5string said.  If you have the top 10 players in the world playing in any game, and they are all playing top notch, then the only possibley variable is luck.

I've read this thread several times and this post.....  it's just ugly.  DISCLAIMER: I didn't read past this post on this read-through.

The top 10 players still do not play on equal skill levels.  But it's irrelevant, it's a bad analogy to base the entire poker world on the top 10 players.

If everyone plays optimally, the game will be decided 100% on luck.  I don't see what's 'ugly' about saying that.
It's obvious that poker has most to do with skill overall, but there's no doubt that there can be cases where results are going to be at or close to 100% based on luck, such as in the theoretical example that stooks gave.

[luckystraights]

If I may try to condense all of that..

If I'm understanding correctly, stooks is just saying if you took X number of equally skilled players, and they all played perfectly to their skill level, the only determining factor that would determine a winner is who got the good cards..

Essentially, this is what I was getting at.  This settles it, though.  No more posting on HPT from my iphone.  Everytime I try to type something up on my iphone, it just comes out this big blog of incoherent crap.

What I mea is what Austin5string said.  If you have the top 10 players in the world playing in any game, and they are all playing top notch, then the only possibley variable is luck.

I've read this thread several times and this post.....  it's just ugly.  DISCLAIMER: I didn't read past this post on this read-through.

The top 10 players still do not play on equal skill levels.  But it's irrelevant, it's a bad analogy to base the entire poker world on the top 10 players.

If everyone plays optimally, the game will be decided 100% on luck.  I don't see what's 'ugly' about saying that.
It's obvious that poker has most to do with skill overall, but there's no doubt that there can be cases where results are going to be at or close to 100% based on luck, such as in the theoretical example that stooks gave.

no one can play 100% gto, and apparently to do so is a mistake in itself as you cap your wins. Also no one alive can play 100% gto, those who get very close to it also get tired and get out of gto playing habits due to emotions, which no one also completely controls.

Also using the word "luck" implies the best player in the world can beat is clone who is also the best player in the world, over the short term that may seem to be the case, but it isn't the exact same players (or for this model win rates) without external fluctuations (tilt, tiredness, etc) will perform exactly the same in the long run. What you call luck is nothing but meaningless short term fluctuations (in a theory sense they are meaningless), which will always even out long term to a point where both of these players in the same conditions will win exactly the same amount.

Saying luck is the only factor or even a main factor for top end players is erroneous imo as there is no luck (like the spoon in the matrix), the game just plays with zero or in more realistic terms such minute edges that you as an outsider can't perceive them.

Just consider this, which is sort of the cliff notes for the above. If all players in this top end game have the same luck over the long term (this being a theory discussion, long term can be mathematical longterm not lifetime or w/e), luck will place no impact on that game at all, and if something has no impact how can it be the main factor.

Lets say we clone DN and place them both in seperated labs, where we contron both the real DN's and the clone DN's emotions and every other concieveable distraction so that both only ever play there A game and we let them play MTT's (perhaps the most heavy in variance format), now after a week of playing the results will differ greatly and will look to support your hypothesis of luck being a major factor. However now suppose we place both DN and clone DN in stasis machines (whilst somehow they can still play online poker, yes lol) and instead of checking the results over a week, we wait till the have played a threshold of games that u could call the long term threshold, for sake of randomness we will call this 1 billion MTT's. When comparing results now, its is my furmist believe that the fluctuations between the results of both DN and close DN will be very similar, again where is the luck.

These discussions are tainted, because no one plays in high stakes games, and the majority of members who participate here are live players where it is likely to be impossible to ever reach any meaningful long term so that you results / skill / wr, etc can be realistically compared to that of another player. For even the most basic reference data for assessing the impact of luck you are going to want to examine players with a minimum of several million hands imo, and to my knowledge no one on here as accrued such large samples.

[Detroitdad]

If I may try to condense all of that..

If I'm understanding correctly, stooks is just saying if you took X number of equally skilled players, and they all played perfectly to their skill level, the only determining factor that would determine a winner is who got the good cards..

Essentially, this is what I was getting at.  This settles it, though.  No more posting on HPT from my iphone.  Everytime I try to type something up on my iphone, it just comes out this big blog of incoherent crap.

What I mea is what Austin5string said.  If you have the top 10 players in the world playing in any game, and they are all playing top notch, then the only possibley variable is luck.

I've read this thread several times and this post.....  it's just ugly.  DISCLAIMER: I didn't read past this post on this read-through.

The top 10 players still do not play on equal skill levels.  But it's irrelevant, it's a bad analogy to base the entire poker world on the top 10 players.

If everyone plays optimally, the game will be decided 100% on luck.  I don't see what's 'ugly' about saying that.
It's obvious that poker has most to do with skill overall, but there's no doubt that there can be cases where results are going to be at or close to 100% based on luck, such as in the theoretical example that stooks gave.

no one can play 100% gto, and apparently to do so is a mistake in itself as you cap your wins. Also no one alive can play 100% gto, those who get very close to it also get tired and get out of gto playing habits due to emotions, which no one also completely controls.

Technically if your playing 100%, you wouldn't be capping your wins, you would be winning the max every hand, lol.....

FWIW, I survive at poker with luck............

[Dr. Neau]

It's obvious that poker has most to do with skill overall,

No it isn't.

The cards you get are luck.  The cards that come on the board is luck.

How you play them is skill, yes....but that doesn't mean the game is mostly skill.

[austin5string]

It's obvious that poker has most to do with skill overall,

No it isn't.

The cards you get are luck.  The cards that come on the board is luck.

How you play them is skill, yes....but that doesn't mean the game is mostly skill.

+1

[luckystraights]

It's obvious that poker has most to do with skill overall,

The cards you get and the cards that come on the board are randomly assigned, and thus irrelevant, everyone gets the same cards in the long run.

FYP

[Dr. Neau]

It's obvious that poker has most to do with skill overall,

The cards you get and the cards that come on the board are randomly assigned, and thus irrelevant, everyone gets the same cards in the long run.

FYP

Doesn't change the fact that the game is mostly luck.

If I flip a coin 10 zillion times, it'll be heads 5 zillion times.  Doesn't make it a skill flip.

Look, what's the problem with poker being *mostly* luck.  That doesn't mean it's ALL luck.

Another example from a game I've played since I was 5 and I'm the master of: Cribbage is considered a skill game, but I argue it's about 80% luck.  You have no control over the deal...and the deal dictates whether you get a double run or squat.  The edge in cribbage is how you play your cards.  How you set your opponent up to peg off of him.  How you know what's best to throw in the crib.  But the game is still from the beginning, dictated by what you are dealt.

I don't think we agree on the definition of the word "mostly".

[Martini]

The cards may be completely random but making the decision each time you check your hole cards is where the skill comes in. Decisions are being made after each player action on every street so I wouldn't consider the game to be *mostly* luck. If a bad card comes off for you then you can manage the situation by slowing down or folding to keep from spewing chips. The game is about accumulating chips, not making Flush draws or having your big pairs hold up.

[luckystraights]

It's obvious that poker has most to do with skill overall,

The cards you get and the cards that come on the board are randomly assigned, and thus irrelevant, everyone gets the same cards in the long run.

FYP

Doesn't change the fact that the game is mostly luck.

If I flip a coin 10 zillion times, it'll be heads 5 zillion times.  Doesn't make it a skill flip.

Look, what's the problem with poker being *mostly* luck.  That doesn't mean it's ALL luck.

Another example from a game I've played since I was 5 and I'm the master of: Cribbage is considered a skill game, but I argue it's about 80% luck.  You have no control over the deal...and the deal dictates whether you get a double run or squat.  The edge in cribbage is how you play your cards.  How you set your opponent up to peg off of him.  How you know what's best to throw in the crib.  But the game is still from the beginning, dictated by what you are dealt.

I don't think we agree on the definition of the word "mostly".

I won't have a problem with poker if it was mostly luck or even all luck, I just disagree with your assessment that luck is the dominating factor. To me there is ZERO luck in poker longterm, just a different view on it I guess.

[Gregg729]

I suppose I could have been more vague in my last post, huh?

So, in a spot where virtually everyone has a very high level of skill, doesn’t it make sense that the winner will more than likely be the person who ran the best?  Of course, there are many factors that come into play, especially short handed, but I think that if you have a table of the top 20 players on Earth playing their best game, then luck is the only factor that you can say will bring someone out on top.

I guess to clarify why the comment I quoted didn't sit well with me, I should go back to the OP.  In this paragraph, we're talking about a specific scenario to make the point that it's all about luck.  But this case rests on a scenario where players all have the same SKILL level - so this argument for luck already concedes that skill is a factor.  So to me, the very premise of this argument is telling me that skill is indeed a factor. 

And let's take it a step further.  Say those same top 20 players played a marathon cash game, literally millions of hands together.  But I would venture to say that at the end of the marathon game, some of the players would be almost broke and some would cash out with some hefty winnings.  If it were all luck, then random probabilities would dictate that, in the absence of skill, all the top 20 players MUST end the game with relatively equal chip stacks.

A hand of poker is largely luck - and skill kicks in when you decide to play the hand.  But as luckystraights just pointed out, time cancels out all variance in the long term.  I don't care if you're 3 feet tall, got a pipe in your mouth and wear a green suit, no one can make a living off of being lucky. 

[stooks99]

Ok, so we're saying that hypothetically, if two players of identical skill levels both played at the absolute top of their skill in a heads up match, that luck would not be the deciding factor?

And folks, don't get your panties all wadded up just because I suggest that maybe luck can be a big factor.  I know that a lot of you are serious players and you get a little offended when you think I'm saying that you're skill doesn't matter, even when I'm obviously not saying that. 

I am aware of skill in poker, obviously.  I'm a winning poker player; I have been for years.  I keep records, so I know this.  So, please dont think I'm dilluted in my thoughts here.  I know that good poker players beat bad players, thats the idea.

[Dr. Neau]

I am aware of skill in poker, obviously.  I'm a winning poker player; I have been for years.  I keep records, so I know this.  So, please dont think I'm dilluted in my thoughts here.  I know that good poker players beat bad players, thats the idea.

And that's my point.  Even if poker is 99.99% luck and 0.01% skill, a skilled player will win in the long run.

[stooks99]

I am aware of skill in poker, obviously.  I'm a winning poker player; I have been for years.  I keep records, so I know this.  So, please dont think I'm dilluted in my thoughts here.  I know that good poker players beat bad players, thats the idea.

And that's my point.  Even if poker is 99.99% luck and 0.01% skill, a skilled player will win in the long run.

OH MY GOD are you guys really going to continually ignore the orignial point of the post?  I know that good players beat bad players.  The idea of the thread was that if you hypothetically had players on the exact same level, that luck would be the deciding factor.

[TwoToGo-Grave]

I am aware of skill in poker, obviously.  I'm a winning poker player; I have been for years.  I keep records, so I know this.  So, please dont think I'm dilluted in my thoughts here.  I know that good poker players beat bad players, thats the idea.

And that's my point.  Even if poker is 99.99% luck and 0.01% skill, a skilled player will win in the long run.

OH MY GOD are you guys really going to continually ignore the orignial point of the post?  I know that good players beat bad players.  The idea of the thread was that if you hypothetically had players on the exact same level, that luck would be the deciding factor.

If two players are playing each other HU at the exact same skill level, proving an even match for the other continuously forever (and never adjusting), then yes, of course luck will the the deciding factor.  In any tournament, in any session (or series of sessions, for that matter), luck will be the deciding factor as well, regardless (mostly) of skill.  Obviously poker results are to be measured in the long term, but I really don't think that anybody is disagreeing with you about that original point that equal players facing each other will have the results determined by luck.  If there's no skill advantage for anybody, then of course luck will be what carries the day.

[Nerre]

The cards you get are random, yes.

Poker would be completely luck if every player bet the same amount and then all streets were dealt and the winner decided by showdown.

BUT, in reality many hands finish before the showdown. That has NOTHING to do with luck.

http://www.cigital.com/resources/gaming/poker/

From 103 million hands on PokerStars, 76% were won without showdown.

[Gregg729]

OH MY GOD are you guys really going to continually ignore the orignial point of the post?  I know that good players beat bad players.  The idea of the thread was that if you hypothetically had players on the exact same level, that luck would be the deciding factor.

It's such a complex game with the randomness of the cards and the skill of the players and the timing/mood of the players/reads on the situation that you're basically talking about an impossible scenario.  If your scenario ignores a meager .01% skill factor, then you have entered a fantasy world.  Not trying to be a dick, but come on - let's not deal with hypotheticals that have absolutely no bearing on real life situations.

[Nerre]

It it impossible to make such a scenario because poker is a lot about deception.

I have a co-worker who has a poster in his room saying "He who lies best gets away with it", that's what it's like in poker.

And you can never ever get 10 players who are 100% equal. All have differences and knowing, AND exploiting, those differences is what makes a poker player better than the rest.

But yes, if you, hypothetically, could find ten 100% equal players they would each win 10% of the hands in the long run.


What I think might confuse some people is variance. Variance can make it LOOK LIKE luck plays a bigger role than it really does.

[Dr. Neau]

BUT, in reality many hands finish before the showdown. That has NOTHING to do with luck.

Except the ones where you are dealt a good hand and I'm dealt a bad hand...?

[johnbaker3]

Don't forget the factor of blood alcohol level....

Scotty "all u can eat baby" Nuygen. can attest to that one.....

John B   

[R-Ho]

If poker was primarily a game of luck, then this website would not exist.

[Martini]

If poker was primarily a game of luck, then this website would not exist.

I don't think poker is a game primarily of luck but I don't think that existence of this site is good proof of it. There are a lot of sites, books, etc. about how to "beat" craps, roulette, lotto, and the like.

[Dr. Neau]

If poker was primarily a game of luck, then this website would not exist.

I don't think poker is a game primarily of luck but I don't think that existence of this site is good proof of it. There are a lot of sites, books, etc. about how to "beat" craps, roulette, lotto, and the like.

[R-Ho]

If poker was primarily a game of luck, then this website would not exist.

I don't think poker is a game primarily of luck but I don't think that existence of this site is good proof of it. There are a lot of sites, books, etc. about how to "beat" craps, roulette, lotto, and the like.

I'm giving HPT members more credit than that, but I acknowledge your point.

[Dr. Neau]

[pathand]

I've read it cover to cover and it doesn't work. What a waste.          

[stooks99]

ugh

[Gregg729]

The one review it got on Amazon was 5 stars: "Thanks! I used to be just an average bingo player but after reading your book, now I win every time!"

[stooks99]

The one review it got on Amazon was 5 stars: "Thanks! I used to be just an average bingo player but after reading your book, now I win every time!"

I imagine this is why he started his own publishing company.

[Nerre]

BUT, in reality many hands finish before the showdown. That has NOTHING to do with luck.

Except the ones where you are dealt a good hand and I'm dealt a bad hand...?

The point is, a player can make other players fold even without looking at his cards.

I think several professional poker players have played tournaments without looking at their cards (I know at least Anette Obrestad have done it).

[Dr. Neau]

BUT, in reality many hands finish before the showdown. That has NOTHING to do with luck.

Except the ones where you are dealt a good hand and I'm dealt a bad hand...?

The point is, a player can make other players fold even without looking at his cards.

I think several professional poker players have played tournaments without looking at their cards (I know at least Anette Obrestad have done it).

Bzzt. She peeked once.

[Nerre]

Yes, once, so she was lucky that hand? :-) And skilled the other hands.

[stooks99]

You know, a year and a half later, I now realize the analogy I should have used with this thread.

If the game was played where everyone's cards were always face up, and everyone played optimally according to what they knew, then luck IS the deciding factor.

There.