I know how Poker works and I had to inform you that some forms require a high degree of skill to be proficient at it. Know something before spouting off on it why don't you?

Why don't you find out about Dupe Bridge before you start making declarations about it. It has luck like chess has luck, which is to say either not much or none depending on how one wants to define luck.

I wonder, if Phelps had slipped off the starting line and broken his knee on the poolside, would you be saying he was an unskilled swimmer or just an unlucky swimmer?

There's a reason for the phrase "any given Sunday."

Pure chance enters into every human endeavor.  And so does a person's knowledge, skill, and will.  The difference between chess and poker, in that regard, is just an arbitrary line someone drew.  In chess, someone will always get stuck playing black and the statistical disadvantage that comes with it.

Just for fun - http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/Chessluck.html

 I'm not being silly. I was just correcting you when you wrote that poker and bridge were dominated by luck. Read 'em.

 It's your assertion that Poker is dominated by luck. So provide proof that Texas Hold 'em is dominated by luck.

I think it's important to see the difference between unlikely and impossible. It's not impossible for anyone to beat Anand, it's just extremely unlikely for most of us. Maybe it's more likely that a beginner beats a world-class poker player than a GM, but please think twice before you say that something is impossible.

Kupov,

You are partially correct, and partially incorrect about poker. I haven't played poker at the highest levels (nor chess) but I have played poker for a living. You are correct when you say there's an element of luck in poker. It is not, however, "dominated" by luck as you say. Over the long run, luck equals out and the skill of the professional poker player wins over the inexperience of the beginner. Here, "long run" can be defined as a sufficiently large tournament, such as might be imagined in the Olympics. This experience also shows in the short run because a professional poker player does not need "good cards" to win a hand. They use many other tactics, such as bluffing, traps, and knowledge of their opponent. Chess masters use the same methods to win a game.

Another (small) flaw in your premise is that you are interchanging luck with probability. It is not actually possible to always be dealt "good cards". Since the cards in poker are a closed system (ie, there are a finite number of cards and therefore a finite number of combinations) laws of statistics and probability dictate that each combination occur the same number of times (unless, of course, someone is stacking the deck). 

Poker and chess are, indeed, similar. Poker pros might set up a play many hands in advance by something as little as a head nod, or passing comment. Much like a grand master sets up a combination by the smallest pawn move. Both games are deeply psycological at the highest levels. Both require incredible amounts of study both before and during a game. One big difference is that with chess there is always a "correct" play, with poker there isn't. 

Still, I don't think either game should be an Olympic sport. I don't think Rhythmic Team Gymnastics should be, either.

Maybe if chess players weren't allowed to sit during the games and had to do cardio.  That might be a sport.

I used to think rhythmic gymnastics weren't a sport, but in this last olympics they were my favorite event--mostly because NBC finally showed something that wasn't women's beach volleyball!  But it was a real beautiful display of grace and athleticism and coordination that was more rewarding to watch than pole vaulting or diving or most other olympic crap.  Also, the fencing was fun to watch.   I was angry they didn't show more table tennis seeing as how it's China's national sport and all.   But Chess?  Darts?   That would be hard to watch on TV. 

 OK so you can't demonstrate proof that Texas Hold 'em is dominated by luck. The problem is that you don't know the games you characterized as luck dominated. There's no substitute for knowledge.

well the the chess is wood pushing and the dart is spining

 I don't know how many examples of GMs losing to or drawing a very weak player head-to-head there are. I can think of one instance reported in Chess Life & Review in the early 1970s where a class B (as I recall) did in fact score against the GM in an open swiss. Such stuff has happened. A beginner doing the same? I'd bet it has never happened, barring the GM having a stroke and losing on time. So is it possible for a beginner to score on a GM one-on-one? I'd say if not impossible then the spot right next to it on the probability chart.

Well, I dont really think chess or darts should be in the OG. But, that's obviously that poker should be at all.

I dont know anything at all about bridge, but it seems to me that a card game where the cards are mixed and distribute to the players allways have somo luck influence.

About poker, thats obvious that luck is very present in poker, but you can allways play poker without use "mind games". Howerver, if you are a math genious and you can calculate your winnin %, you will never know your opponents cards, but in chess, your opponents game is in front of you.

And if you play a poker game 1vs1 with a poker professional you do have 50% of win, no matter what cards you have. I'm talking about Poker Hold'em because thats the only I play.

 That's the point, it is the spot next to impossible on the propability chart. The chance might be 1 to 10000000000000000 - I don't know - but it's not impossible. Like a beginner could get only pocket rockets during a whole major texas hold'em tournament, a beginner could do random moves and beat a grandmaster.

Anyone, you're completely wrong in your statistics. Heads up poker is not a 50-50 proposition. Even if you take the situation where all the money is in the pot and who wins and loses is purely based on the probability of the cards falling a certain way, the closest you can come is 53%-47%. You must keep in mind, however, the professional sitting across from you DOES know your cards. That's part of being a professional poker player.

Good, then I'd love to play poker with you some time. 

You you have 2 ases and I have the other 2, I think we have the same winning %, even if the draw % is way bigger. And no, they can't know each other cards, thats simply impossible. They can only guess and maybe be right, nothing more than that ..

To both Kupov and AnyOne,

The answer to both your statements is simple, and it demonstrates the fundamental flaw in your view of poker. At the highest levels, its not about the cards. There is some luck involved. But the game is not dominated by it. 

AnyOne, I'd also like to play poker with you too. Call me up anytime either of you want a game.

Obviously it is possible, if you promisse 20% of your prize money to the dealer, and a fantastic sex night she can give you amazing cards every hand .. Other way I dont think we can think too far away than one bet

You're right. My valid arguments have all been aimed at showing you how much you don't know about the game of poker. My bad. 

Re-read my first post in the thread. Then every post I made after that. 

Come on .. How do you beat 2 ases !? Aw: With luck !!

I'm not saying the most influent factor in poker is luck, but it has a huge role.

And tell me why can you win on me if I get 2 aces every hand and you to. Just if you get 4 card of the same suit of one of your ases. But you have the same probablity og getting them as I have. So, if you get it you're lucky. And I wont fold with 2 ases too many times.