A couple of years ago, I previously authored a piece that drew parallels between poker and chess. After coming across the impressive YouTube channel hosted by the Botez sisters, I felt it was the perfect opportunity to revisit my earlier work. I'll be rectifying some misconceptions and including additional insights that are worthy of discussion.
This time, I won’t simply reiterate what was originally published.
If you want to refresh your memory, you can find it linked there.
Variance in Poker and Chess
I have consistently maintained that luck plays a negligible role in the game. The belief that luck is entirely absent is fundamentally flawed. While luck does indeed have a greater influence in poker, the reality that even the world’s top player, Magnus Carlsen, doesn’t win every tournament highlights that luck must be acknowledged to some degree. chess variance That being said, the sample size necessary to assess chess expected value, or EV, is significantly smaller compared to poker.
The key reason for this difference is how luck manifests in each game:
In chess , luck can stem from factors like the arrangement of your tournament bracket.
- Getting the first move can be a stroke of fortune.
- Your opponent's level of play, whether they bring their best to the game or make a critical mistake, also influences luck.
- In poker , luck is inherently woven into the fabric of the game, resulting in many more scenarios where luck can play a role.
- The most evident manifestation of luck is in the staggering variety of ways cards can be dealt. This distribution of luck is compounded by factors such as:
The number and caliber of players involved in the hand.
- Poker format
- For instance, hitting a flush against two pairs is significantly ‘luckier’ if your opponent is less skilled because they are more likely to overplay their hand and lose more chips.
- Other imperfect information
Similarly, if you're up against stronger aces while holding kings, it’s less devastating to your stack if you're fortunate enough to have a sizable chip lead in a tournament.
In truth, the variance is more pronounced in poker. Why? Luck has additional avenues to influence the game as it affects every single hand dealt.
However, claiming that chess is devoid of luck would be an overstatement.
The varying degrees of luck in both games can be clearly illustrated:
If two equally skilled chess players play their best game, it's likely to end in a draw.
- This outcome would change only if both players received the same hand.
- This scenario is impossible in a poker hand The effects of luck in both games complicate the assessment of skill levels.
Comparing Players
In chess , it’s possible to measure skill quite effectively by: poker player ability .
Analyzing how well rated players perform against others of equal rank.
- By using a points system
- In poker, no similar ranking system exists, as your opponents change with each hand and day. It's a constant rotation of players, making direct skill comparisons quite challenging.
There are too many variables to consider. Therefore, players often gauge their skills based on performance at a particular stake.
If you wanted to filter your results against one specific opponent, the variety of luck involved means you would need a vast number of hands to achieve a reliable indicator.
Additionally, compiling this extensive database can take a long time. A player’s skills or style may change numerous times throughout your sample period. (Consider a player who regularly adapts their strategies.) This makes the results somewhat unreliable.
Conversely, results would indeed be more consistent if focusing on heads-up poker. Yet, as demonstrated in the Polk vs Negreanu challenge, even a sample of 25,000 hands reveals that poker can be quite unpredictable, and the skill gap remains indeterminate. Accumulating 25,000 hands takes significant time, especially in a heads-up setting.
Daniel Negreanu continues to experience an EPIC losing streak. online poker .
The latest video covers various poker news topics, providing a recap of Negreanu's remarkable and financially draining series of heads-up losses that has spanned nearly *8 years*.
— Doug Polk (@DougPolkVids) July 11, 2021
On the other hand, in chess, one can ascertain a player's relative skill with far fewer games.
YouTube: https://t.co/WykMIAhFDr pic.twitter.com/OyWcbeQSLl
This brings us to a hypothetical match between Magnus Carlsen (Skill rating: 2847) and Jana Jackova (Skill rating: 2402) in a best-of-seven format.
Let’s run an Elo simulation With a staggering win probability of 99.995% ,
I can safely say that Phill Ivey’s chances of defeating me in a series of seven heads-up sit-and-go games wouldn’t be as astronomical as 20,000:1.
The likelihood of a player winning decreases as skill levels converge.
Just as in poker, the odds Now, consider when Magnus Carlsen faces the second-ranked player in the world, Alireza Firouzja (Skill rating: 2759):
As evident, Carlsen maintains a significant advantage here. It’s rarer to see the best poker player consistently defeat the second-best player nearly 76% of the time.
| Carlsen | 75.84% |
| Firouzja | 10.24% |
| Draw | 13.90% |
Even with a clear disadvantage, Firouzja holds a 10.24% chance of winning, showcasing that luck, not solely skill, plays a role in chess.
Given that chess is a game governed by perfect information, players need not worry extensively about balancing their strategies,
Differing Strategies
Thus, the concept of Game Theory Optimal (GTO) is far more effective in chess than in poker, where GTO might not be the most profitable in the short run. (Playing exploitatively can yield better results but also makes you susceptible to being countered. GTO avoids this pitfall.).
In chess, a single move might open up numerous potential follow-up actions without necessitating a change or balance in strategy. Sure, your opponent can observe your actions. They just need to analyze the board. However, this factor is inconsequential.
Even if there are several possible GTO moves, a player can consistently choose the same move under the same circumstances and remain impervious to exploitation.
The only counter for their opponent would be to adopt a similar strategy. This is the essence of how GTO operates.
A perfectly executed move in chess loses its effectiveness in poker if you don’t vary your tactics.
Poker strategies require a blend of different plays that need to be applied collectively and in specific frequencies. GTO poker strategy Imagine your opponent doesn’t react appropriately to your bet sizes.
- One simple modification could be to place larger bets for value while keeping smaller ones as bluffs.
- This adjustment allows you to maximize profits when holding a strong hand while minimizing risks when you're bluffing. Although brilliant for exploitation, this method contradicts GTO principles - It’s profoundly unbalanced.
If you were to stick to these bet sizes every time against someone employing GTO guidelines, it would lead to significant losses!
Your bet size discrepancies would crumble against your opponent's well-rounded calling ranges in the long run.
Now, let's say you continue using the same bet sizes, and the player you initially exploited adapts. They could easily turn the tables on you faster than someone playing the correct GTO strategy.
How? By calling your smaller bets while folding to your larger ones until you make necessary adjustments, of course.
Consequently, a GTO move in poker might not always be the optimal choice available. This is not the case in chess.
In chess, employing a GTO approach will always constitute a perfect move .
Both poker and chess are captivating games. While it's often said luck influences all facets of life, it plays a much more significant role in poker than in chess.
Although we may already know this, it serves as a valuable reminder to hone our chess abilities.
Dan O’Callaghan is a professional poker player who began his journey in the online poker scene as danshreddies. To date, he has amassed an impressive $290K in online winnings.
Good luck at the tables and boards!