↓ Skip to main content

Is Poker a Game of Skill or Chance? A Quasi-Experimental Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 989)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
8 blogs
twitter
46 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is Poker a Game of Skill or Chance? A Quasi-Experimental Study
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, August 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10899-012-9327-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerhard Meyer, Marc von Meduna, Tim Brosowski, Tobias Hayer

Abstract

Due to intensive marketing and the rapid growth of online gambling, poker currently enjoys great popularity among large sections of the population. Although poker is legally a game of chance in most countries, some (particularly operators of private poker web sites) argue that it should be regarded as a game of skill or sport because the outcome of the game primarily depends on individual aptitude and skill. The available findings indicate that skill plays a meaningful role; however, serious methodological weaknesses and the absence of reliable information regarding the relative importance of chance and skill considerably limit the validity of extant research. Adopting a quasi-experimental approach, the present study examined the extent to which the influence of poker playing skill was more important than card distribution. Three average players and three experts sat down at a six-player table and played 60 computer-based hands of the poker variant "Texas Hold'em" for money. In each hand, one of the average players and one expert received (a) better-than-average cards (winner's box), (b) average cards (neutral box) and (c) worse-than-average cards (loser's box). The standardized manipulation of the card distribution controlled the factor of chance to determine differences in performance between the average and expert groups. Overall, 150 individuals participated in a "fixed-limit" game variant, and 150 individuals participated in a "no-limit" game variant. ANOVA results showed that experts did not outperform average players in terms of final cash balance. Rather, card distribution was the decisive factor for successful poker playing. However, expert players were better able to minimize losses when confronted with disadvantageous conditions (i.e., worse-than-average cards). No significant differences were observed between the game variants. Furthermore, supplementary analyses confirm differential game-related actions dependent on the card distribution, player status, and game variant. In conclusion, the study findings indicate that poker should be regarded as a game of chance, at least under certain basic conditions, and suggest new directions for further research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
France 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 76 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 9%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 87. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
#488,163
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#24
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,410
of 186,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 186,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them