NC, USA determines poker = chance

[ekdikeo]

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/1370975/

"Raleigh — The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that poker is a game of chance, not skill.

Howard Fierman wanted to open a poker parlor at a house in Durham. Under North Carolina law, betting on games of chance is illegal, but Fierman argued poker is a game of skill.

A Durham County judge disagreed and rejected the club.

The state Appeals Court ruled that while skill can enhance a player’s chance of winning, the luck of the draw means poker is ultimately a game of chance."

[Our House]

LOL luck of the draw.

[Dire]

I'd agree, and poker is my primary source of income. The skill argument is terrible. The game is hugely dominated by chance, by variance in the short run -- and even in what most reasonable people would consider the long run. This is a game where 10,000 hand samples mean very little. That's not a huge concern to those of us playing thousands of hands per week - but the average player doesn't play thousands of hands per week.

When a player decides to go to a casino or poker parlor on the weekend, his results are going to be drastically influenced by chance and modestly weighted by skill. He's not going to reach the 'longrun' that weekend, and he probably never will in fact. And that is what this ruling says: that poker is ultimately a game of chance for the average player.

[PokerAmateur4]

So what constitutes a game of skill which you can bet on?

Whatever it is, right as your about to play you could have a heartattack, or whatever else could happen due to chance making you lose.

Where do you draw the line then?

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd agree, and poker is my primary source of income. The skill argument is terrible. The game is hugely dominated by chance, by variance in the short run -- and even in what most reasonable people would consider the long run. This is a game where 10,000 hand samples mean very little. That's not a huge concern to those of us playing thousands of hands per week - but the average player doesn't play thousands of hands per week.

When a player decides to go to a casino or poker parlor on the weekend, his results are going to be drastically influenced by chance and modestly weighted by skill. He's not going to reach the 'longrun' that weekend, and he probably never will in fact. And that is what this ruling says: that poker is ultimately a game of chance for the average player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Take a game like craps with "optimal" strategy (pass/don't pass line bets) and 100x times. 10000 rolls of the dice mean very little. The outcome is largely determined by chance.

Now, tell these judges and juries to think about it from the casino's side of the table. When a bettor steps up and proceeds to use this strategy, is the casino running a business or are they engaging in a game of chance?

The problem is getting them to understand EV

If they were able to explain WHY the casino wins, they would also understand why winning players win. It's pretty simple. You just need a judge who's a math geek.

[Elijah Bailey]

I have this discussion on a regular basis. From my perspective, poker involves less risk than investing in the stock market. A key principle from a legal perspective is the view of the "common man". From the "common man" perspective, gambling is gambling and there is little distinction between poker and roulette.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
Take a game like craps with "optimal" strategy (pass/don't pass line bets) and 100x times.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oops...that should read "100x odds."

[jschaud]

i don't know how to say it in a legalese manner, but take $10k. Give it to a judge. Tell him he if can turn it into $50k he can keep it. Offer him a seat at a table of partypoker .25NL regulars or the lineup at highstakes poker where everyone has $10k in front of them. The table of .25NL may be a game of chance, but his chances of beating a table of negreanu, aba, brunson, et al is negligible.

[OutRaced]

The argument I like to take is this:

If poker is a game of chance, then how can I win $$ from betting my opponents out of the pot? Where does CHANCE come into that equation. I read my opponent as weak, push all in, he folds. I WIN $$ from my action, nothing to do with the random draw of the cards. I can make that action with anything in my hand and on the board.

Which game of CHANCE can your action win you $$?? sure don't work in craps or blackjack. You can not bet the dealer of his hand.

[Skallagrim]

I will wait to formally comment until I can read the actual opinion.

At this point I will say 2 things:

1) There is still one more level of appeal.

2) Judges are often motivated by things other than the facts in front of them (despite what they say).

I will also say that if this ruling stands players in North Carolina, even internet players, even "home game with the buddies no rake" players, are now criminals (misdemeanor offense). And that is why the whole skill v. chance argument is so important. If we players lose that argument, the DOJ and/or state authorities will come after us, one way or another. SO STOP SAYING "LUCK IN THE SHORT RUN, SKILL IN THE LONG RUN." YOU ARE ONLY GIVING OUR ENEMIES AMUNITION.

Poker is mostly skill, period. Even in one hand, the cards will dictate the outcome less than 1/2 the time. Its what you do with your cards that decides who wins and looses most of the time. Chance only determines the outcome when there is a showdown and the worst hand gets lucky and wins. And that happens less than 1/2 the time.

Skallagrim

PS - Right on, Outraced, you, unlike the judges and the "this argument sucks" crowd get it.

[SNGplayer24]

I think the main argument is that short run variance. Obviously deviation from the mean will decrease as time goes on, but to the average guy playing poker maybe once a week, there is still a lot of luck involved. If poker is mostly skill, why do MTT players need 50-100 buy ins? Wouldn't 5-10 make more sense by that argument?

I consider poker investing just like real estate, the stock market, etc. Both real estate and the stock market are based are economic circumstances or "luck". If interest rates rise and houses are not selling, builders are going to have a tough time making money, and it relates directly to downswings in poker. The correlation between is two is amazing.

[xorpheous]

If poker were just a game of dealing out the cards and seeing who gets the best hand, then yes, poker would be a game of chance. Since, however, the most important aspect of poker is the betting action, or inaction, by the players, it is a game of skill. As OutRaced and Skallagrim have mentioned, a player's success is directly related to their skill at reading their opponents and making skillful actions, whether that be betting, checking, or folding. Its the ability of the players to make WILLFUL actions that make poker a game of skill.

[soulvamp]

Those of us who are serious poker players and are students of the game understand this argument and agree with it.

But people who are not poker players and even most people who are casual or recreational players don't. And therein lies the problem. Assuming you're not going to find a judge who understands what poker is really all about or a majority of legislators who do, how are you going to separate poker from any other forms of gambling/games of chance in their perception?

I don't think it's possible, which is why I think this whole effort to get a poker carveout for the UIGEA is akin to pissing in the wind.

You can make this argument until you're blue in the face, but until the day comes that our government figures out a way to make money off online poker, the environment isn't going to get any better.

[gurgeh]

Good call by the judge. Some people just seem to be luckier than others in poker as in school. You ever notice that some people consistently got good grades? Very lucky. I think they may have increased their luck in this regard by studying a lot, consulting with their peers, and practicing. Now if I could just do that with poker, I might get lucky enough every year to live off my winnings like all the other lucky people I know.

[Dunkman]

As a resident of NC, let me say that I'm disappointed in this decision, but not at all surprised. NC is a conservative state that has always been very much against gambling, to the point that we just got a state lottery last year, and that only passed by one vote after being defeated just about every session for the past 15 years. The only reason is did pass was that our education system is in shambles and no one could come up with another way to raise funds.

Another couple aspects of this decision...I question the quality of the crack legal team that Howard Fierman had on his side, although to be fair I have no idea who his attorneys are. If he's lacking in that area, sure would be nice to see the PPA throw some crack lawyers his way as a NC Supreme Court reversal would be huge for us, although it seems unlikely.

All in all, I wouldn't read too much into this decision, as like I said before, NC is much less open to gambling than the majority of other states. It's obviously not good news, but I don't think losing this decision in NC means we can't win it elsewhere.

[Benjamin]

Here's (http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/569827.html) a better story on the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
Calabria, with fellow appellate judges Martha Geer and Barbara Jackson in agreement, harkened back to a 1953 state Supreme Court ruling on whether a certain variety of pool was a game of chance where the high court wrote: "The test of character of any kind of game ... is not whether it contains an element of chance or an element of skill, but which of these is the dominating element that determines the result of the game."
...
Because the appellate court ruling was unanimous, Fierman does not have an automatic right of appeal to the state Supreme Court but can ask for one.

Fierman said he would meet with his attorneys and advisers next week but declined to say whether they would discuss an appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bluesbassman]

Check out the comments posted in response to the article. This one is gold, Jerry, pure gold:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't understand. What skill is there in Poker? You sit there with cards in hand and pray the right cards you need are dealt to you. The only skills in Poker are to know what beats what and how to hold a Poker Face when you Bluffing. Don't get me wrong - I do like to gamble. I'm not a heavy duty gambler but we do like to go to the Casino's once a year to have some fund. There is no more skill in Poker as there is in Slot Machines.


[/ QUOTE ]

[SwimStrong]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out the comments posted in response to the article. This one is gold, Jerry, pure gold:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't understand. What skill is there in Poker? You sit there with cards in hand and pray the right cards you need are dealt to you. The only skills in Poker are to know what beats what and how to hold a Poker Face when you Bluffing. Don't get me wrong - I do like to gamble. I'm not a heavy duty gambler but we do like to go to the Casino's once a year to have some fund. There is no more skill in Poker as there is in Slot Machines.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good news and bad news. Hopefully no one that matters in determining law thinks like this, but hopefully everyone else does /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[niss]

One of the problems seems to be the courts focusing on poker as a single hand. If I was the attorney, I would be arguing that to properly consider the issue of skill/luck you need to consider sessions, not hands. While luck may play more of a role than skill in a single hand, nobody sits down at a table, plays one hand, and leaves.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the problems seems to be the courts focusing on poker as a single hand. If I was the attorney, I would be arguing that to properly consider the issue of skill/luck you need to consider sessions, not hands. While luck may play more of a role than skill in a single hand, nobody sits down at a table, plays one hand, and leaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is really not a good idea to go down this path, like I mentioned earlier. Let's say somebody sits down and plays for 5 hours each weekend. Let's also say they're getting 30 hands per hour. That's 150 hands per weekend. We'll say they do this every single weekend for a year. That's 52*150 = 7800 hands in a year of playing every single weekend. That's not even a remotely relevant sample size and luck will still be the overriding factor in that sample size. They'd have to play 5 hours a weekend, every single weekend for YEARS to start approaching their actual expectation. That's rediculous. Chance is the overriding factor for the vast majority of poker players.

I wouldn't assume these judges are just idiots who think poker is no different than slots. They do understand that poker can be beaten with skill in the long run - but which has a larger influence on results FOR THE AVERAGE PLAYER (somebody who is not going to be playing thousands of hands per week): luck or skill? It is obviously luck.

Cliff Notes: The judges are not saying poker is 100% luck. They are saying that luck just has more influence on an average player's results than skill does. This does not preclude the possibility of beating the game in the long run. It just makes such a possibility irrelevant.

[niss]

Your argument does not seem to make sense. It's a game of luck because luck is more relevant to the "average" player? The "average" player being the player who does not take the time to learn the skill necessary to succeed at the game? Name any other game where it is agreed that skill is more involved than luck -- does that game transform itself into a game of luck because players choose not to acquire the skill necessary to play it successfully?

And why do we need to limit the analysis to live poker when the internet is out there, allowing us to play so many more hands per hour?

You have two ways to look at poker. Courts seem to be looking at poker by looking at a single hand. That's a terrible way to look at it. While looking at sessions, the skill factor becomes much more prevalent, overcoming luck. Until someone comes up with a better way to look at it, I'd much rather ask a court to consider the long run than the short run.

[BradleyT]

You get dealt AA and I get dealt KK. What determines the winner - chance or skill?

[BluffTHIS!]

I disagree with those who say looking at poker in the context of a single hand is the wrong way, and in fact using that viewpoint helps our cause. In -EV forms of gambling, take craps for example, a "more skillfull" player can less but not entirely negate his negative expectation and figure to lose less than "non-skillfull" craps players. But he can NEVER have a postive expectation on any individual decision. In Mike Caro's words: his decisions don't matter. But in a single poker hand, whether preflop or on later streets, we can of course with simulators like twodimes, prove the expectation of various competing hands on a certain street, and that you can have a POSITVE EXPECTATION IN THAT SINGLE HAND, and thus that YOUR DECISIONS MATTER.

Expectation on decisions (whether to play on in some way or fold) is the factor that determines skill vs. luck.

[UATrewqaz]

A court ruling does not equal truth.

Some judge whose probably never played poker or studied math/statistics interpretting very outdated laws... sigh.

Poker is as much a game of skill as chess.

In chess the board is the same, pieces are the same, possible actions are the same, and the player's decisions make the outcome.

In poker the "board" is just more nebulous than chess. The "board" in poker is all possible starting hands, all possible situations, all possible flops, all possible turns, all possible rivers, etc.

Each player is on an equal footing, each player will receive the exact same distribution of cards in the exact same situations (long term). THAT is the chess board in poker.

Your decisions determine everything.

[Skallagrim]

I deleted my last post (for those of you who read it) because I now have the NC Appeals Court opinion and will now make the same points in the context of analyzing that opinion.

THE MAIN POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT ALL OF YOU WHO ACCEPT THE OPINION "LUCK IN THE SHORT RUN, SKILL IN THE LONG RUN" ARE DOOMING POKER TO ILLEGALITY.

The NC Court noted: "All witnesses appeared to agree that in a single hand, chance may predominate over skill, but that over a long game, the most skilled players would likely amass the most chips."

This did not stop them from finding that chance predominates because "...in poker, a skilled player may give himself a statistical advantage but is always subject to defeat at the turn of a card, an instrumentality beyond his control. We think that is the critical difference."

WE GIVE UP WAY TOO MUCH IF WE ACCEPT THAT WE ARE "ALWAYS SUBJECT TO DEFEAT AT THE TURN OF A CARD." THE KEY WORD IS ALWAYS.

IF I GOT THE NUTS I AINT SUBJECT TO DEFEAT AT THE TURN OF A CARD. IF I GET THE OTHER PLAYER(S) TO FOLD, THE TURN OF THE NEXT CARD WONT MATTER. SAME IF I FOLD AND THE NEXT CARD WOULD HAVE MADE ME THE NUTS.

The court even admits that all games have an inherent element of chance, but distinguishes chess, and golf, and others by saying "The incidents mentioned, whereby the
more [skillful] may yet be the loser, are not inherent in the nature of the games." Whereas the chance of an improbable card is inherent in poker.

While this is true overall, the chance of an improbable card IS NOT INHERENT IN EVERY HAND OF POKER. IT IS ONLY INHERENT IN A HAND THAT IS PLAYED TO THE FINAL CARD.

This is why short run/long run is a bad way to argue the question. It concedes that chance could win EVERY HAND. It cannot by itself. It requires a player always playing every hand to the final card and requires that that player continues to call with a hand capable of overtaking the other hands (which is true in hold-em preflop, but not after the flop where some hands become "drawing dead").

In a single hand of poker, skill (i.e. the choice of a player to fold, bet, call or raise) is going to determine most outcomes because only a fool would continue to play his 2-7os against multiple raises. Chance may help him 1 out ofwhat, 100 times? The amount of winning and losing is totally ignored in this opinion. That is an inherent part of poker and cannot be overlooked because we all know that the player who plays every hand to the end goes broke awful fast. AND THAT IS WHY MOST HANDS IN MODERN FORMS OF POKER NEVER SEE A SHOWDOWN TO THE FINAL CARD.

The problem here is you guys who play good poker take calculated risks where you know long term taking that risk pays off. When on a specific hand you get the bad end of that risk you say, oh well, that was luck. THAT WAS NOT LUCK, THAT WAS YOUR CHOICE. CHOICES ARE NOT LUCK. CHOICES ARE SKILL.

On a positive note for the appeal, the Court also said something that should have won the day for us had they understood the game: "Chief Justice Ruffin's analysis clarifies the logic underpinning North Carolina's interpretation of the predominate-factor test. It makes clear that while all games have elements of chance, games which can be determined by superior skill are not games of chance."

"CAN BE DETERMINED"????? OF COURSE POKER CAN BE DETERMINED BY SUPERIOR SKILL. ITS CALLED BLUFFING AT THE RIGHT TIME. ITS CALLED MOVING YOUR OPPONENT OFF THE BETTER HAND. AND IT HAPPENS, I WOULD GUESS, AT LEAST AS OFTEN AS SUCKOUTS.

There are 2 real problems here, IMHO, both of which we can overcome. First, judges or juries really have to be exposed to actual game play (not used in this case) so they will realize that you can only be beat by chance IF THE OTHER GUY CALLS ALL THE WAY TO THE END and that that happens far less than 1/2 the time and when it does the other guy is almost always making a stupid play, a play that if he continues to use he will go broke fast.

In other words, we have to get them to realize that poker is an interactive game, meaning the actions/choices of the other players influence your choices AND VICE/VERSA. Betting is not merely a way of increasing win or loss, it is also a way of controlling whether you win or lose.

SECONd AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, we have to get everyone TO AGREE THAT POKER OUTCOMES ARE DETERMINED BY CHOICES MOST OF THE TIME, NOT CARDS. Even a single hand of poker, or a "short run."

What really bugs me about this opinion is that it turns predominance on its head: the Court appears to rule that any game which has an inherent luck element must be game of chance without analyzing how often that luck element actually comes into play. This means any game with a random element is a game of chance. Lets see, dungeons and dragons uses dice = game of chance. Bridge uses cards = game of chance. Lets come up with some others so that we can get back to arguing about HOW OFTEN that chance element actually determines the outcome.

Then, to defeat this Court's argument, we have to be able to show that the turn of the card does not determine most outcomes. How do we do that? By showing that PLAYER CHOICES are what determines most outcomes (an argument not specifically made in this appeal).

Get with me or get used to being an outlaw.

Skallagrim

PS - you can read the opinion yourself here:

http://groups.google.com/group/tpjournal/msg/964956076345fb18

[BradleyT]

Take away all betting in poker and what determines the winner? Chance.

[BluffTHIS!]

An added question for the attorneys out there is how these state courts can see their way to making such a determination that is contrary to the findings of federal courts which made the IRS treat poker as a game of skill (Billy Baxter's case). Of course this is a state matter and not subject to federal jurisdiction, but it would seem to me that without compelling evidence that rebuts federal determinations, that they wouldn't go against same. Indeed this would seem to lead to a divergent way of treating state and federal taxation for the same poker playing resident of such a state.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt AA and I get dealt KK. What determines the winner - chance or skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

I play 30,000 hands of Omaha hi/low and win 4 big bets per 100 hands. What played more of a role - chance or skill? Do most poker players play one hand and leave the table?

[niss]

I don't disagree with you ... but I suspect most courts do and therefore feel that continuing to try that argument is futile. The better chance of suceedding seems to be convincing a court that determining whether poker is skill or luck is best analyzed over the long run than the short term.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
Take away all betting in poker and what determines the winner? Chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious. If I'm being leveled, you got me.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
An added question for the attorneys out there is how these state courts can see their way to making such a determination that is contrary to the findings of federal courts which made the IRS treat poker as a game of skill (Billy Baxter's case). Of course this is a state matter and not subject to federal jurisdiction, but it would seem to me that without compelling evidence that rebuts federal determinations, that they wouldn't go against same. Indeed this would seem to lead to a divergent way of treating state and federal taxation for the same poker playing resident of such a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can answer that - "game of skill" for the IRS is not the same as "game of skill" for whether poker is gambling or not (unfortunately). For Billy Baxter and the IRS any significant amount of skill was sufficent. For most legal definitions of gambling, it has to be MOSTLY skill.

[soulvamp]

You're preaching to the choir here with the skill vs. luck argument. Unfortunately, judges and most legislators are not part of the choir.

Yes, poker is a game of skill. But that's not a point that will ever have any legs in a courtroom or a legislative chamber.

It is legal to go online and handicap horses, a game of skill. It is legal to go online and play the lottery, not a game of skill. But what those two things have in common is that they are of economic benefit to state and federal governments.

The only reason poker has ever been legalized in any jurisdiction in this country is because it provides revenue for the government. That is the only reason it will ever be legalized, either B&M or online. It will never have anything to do with whether or not it can be proven that it's a game of skill.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[Skallagrim]

Poker has never been "legalized" anywhere. What you do in America is legal unless there is a law agaisnt it.

It has been made ILLEGAL in some places.

Why some places and not others? Government revenue is one factor. Skill v. Luck is another.

If Skill v. Luck is completely unimportant I had better stop my mom from playing her weekly bridge game for a penny a point - government gets no revenue from that either.

I have posted a lot about this and am still surprised at the flak I get from poker players. You naysayers need to use your intelligence for something other than poker. If my "preaching to the choir" is useless to anyone not in the choir already, then we might as well give up because we have just as much chance of getting legal online poker as we do for getting legal online slots.

I believe most people can be educated about poker and come to see things our way. If I am wrong about that, well then yeah, until the Government can find a way to make sure that only it is profitting from the game, and that it will profit enough to offset the cries of the moralists, online poker will never be "legal."

PS - 2 courts have stated that poker is not a lottery and that lotteries are anything where results are due to mostly chance: California and Missouri. So I guess some judges can get it.

[JPFisher55]

My biggest surprise is that some judges that get it were in MO.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest surprise is that some judges that get it were in MO.

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably played poker with Harry Truman. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
I have this discussion on a regular basis. From my perspective, poker involves less risk than investing in the stock market. A key principle from a legal perspective is the view of the "common man". From the "common man" perspective, gambling is gambling and there is little distinction between poker and roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe "We" (the poker community) have been taking the wrong approach the whole time. Rather than trying to prove that poker is skill based as opposed to other casino spread games, why not try to prove that other ventures with high variance (i.e. stock market investments, futures trading, hedge funds) are in fact luck based gambling. When those industries have to defend themselves, poker can piggyback on their arguments.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Take away all betting in poker and what determines the winner? Chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious. If I'm being leveled, you got me.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not being leveled. I don't think you understand his point.

What he's saying is that if you took out all betting, every hand would go to showdown and the winner in a hand of poker would be determined by luck of the cards.

WITH betting, skilled players can manipulate the course of a hand to achieve a desired result.

Also, one point I have rarely read, but Skallagrim touched on very briefly, is that skill also plays into the sizes of pots won and lost.

Skilled players are able to manipulate the luck that is thrown their way to maximize their winning pots and minimize their losing pots. So, yes, while chance plays a role in what cards I am dealt, what cards my opponent is dealt, and what cards hit the board, skill takes over in how I play the hand, but not just in forcing my opponent to fold. Sometimes my opponent is going to say in the hand. If I have the best hand, I can use my skill to draw as many chips out of him as possible. If I have the worst hand, I can use my skill to minimize the damage to my bankroll. This could mean folding, or it could mean doing what I can to keep the pot small if I do go to showdown.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
For most legal definitions of gambling, it has to be MOSTLY skill.

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF does "MOSTLY" mean in poker? A hand? A session? A year? A lifetime? Texas Hold'em? 7-card Stud? Deuces Wild?

This is exactly where the problem lies. The reason for that is because in order for the term "MOSTLY skill" to be defined, it assumes some understanding of short term expected value! Without that understanding, "MOSTLY skill" becomes a worthless, ambiguous phrase.

Is financial success in life mostly skill? Almost everyone successful would claim that it is. The poor and middle class people that worked hard for nothing their entire lives would argue that it's mostly luck. "He was born into it", "She just happened to be in the right place at the right time", and "He caught a lucky break because he knew someone" are common phrases (excuses and alibis) you will hear from a majority of the population.

But the truth of the matter is this...

Just like poker, financial success in life IS mostly skill. Sometimes correct decisions will work out, and sometimes they won't. However, if you constantly make the right decisions, the EV of each decision will be positive.

It's very easy for uneducated people to pick and choose examples that fit their life's experience (or should I say inexperience?). Educated people know the real truth. In the case of poker being mostly skill, should we sit here and look at specific examples, or should we analyze raw statistics to see what is most likely probable? Obviously, the latter is the only logical method. Experienced mathematicians and winning poker players know that to be the case. Unfortunately, most judges and juries are no different than the uneducated general public mentioned above when it comes to EV situations. They have selective hearing...or what we should call "selective litigation" in areas (such as poker) that aren't specifically defined or common knowledge. In that case, they tend to come up with examples from their own fabricated knowledge, and while those examples may be fine, it's usually the knowledge that's lacking.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My biggest surprise is that some judges that get it were in MO.

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably played poker with Harry Truman. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLAO

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check out the comments posted in response to the article. This one is gold, Jerry, pure gold:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't understand. What skill is there in Poker? You sit there with cards in hand and pray the right cards you need are dealt to you. The only skills in Poker are to know what beats what and how to hold a Poker Face when you Bluffing. Don't get me wrong - I do like to gamble. I'm not a heavy duty gambler but we do like to go to the Casino's once a year to have some fund. There is no more skill in Poker as there is in Slot Machines.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good news and bad news. Hopefully no one that matters in determining law thinks like this, but hopefully everyone else does /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on!

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt AA and I get dealt KK. What determines the winner - chance or skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the flop comes QQ3 the answer is skill.

One of the problems in this argument is the different types of poker played and the amount of skill vs. luck for each. For example, Doyle Brunson (I believe) once said that he could win money playing no limit and never looking at his cards as long as the other players didn't know he wasn't looking. I believe that is true. Not just of Doyle, but of other really skilled players. If so, then poker is a game of skill.
Unfortunately, a lot of people have experience playing 1-3 no foldem holdem. In a game like that, yes, luck will appear to have a much larger part... but only as long as every player plays every pot and doesn't fold.

If poker was a game of pure chance then you would see the house taking a side and the players playing against the house. But they don't. The house knows it can't win based purely on the odds of chance, so it devised a different scheme to make money off of poker - the drop. That alone should show that poker is a game of skill.

Moreover, no one ever made a living playing craps. The fact that there are plenty of professional poker players out there should show that it is a game of skill.

We need to point to the millions of decisions that are made in a typical poker session. Check, raise, call, fold, how much to raise, whether to raise, should I fold, should I call, how will calling affect the next street, what if I bet now, what will my opponents think I have, what has my betting pre-flop told my opponents about what that next card could have done for my hand, how are my opponents feeling right now, is that guy on tilt, what do I think he thinks I think he has, the list is endless.
What goes on in the head of person playing a slot machine? I hope I get three sevens, I hope I get three sevens, I hope....
There is a great deal of difference between playing poker and playing cards. Playing poker requires skill, playing cards requires hope and luck. I hope my flush is good, I hope my flush is good.... The unskilled player must rely on and hope for good luck. The skilled pro can make money without luck.

I too disagree that luck is a factor short term. Sit me down at a table with Doyle, give us equal numbers of chips, make the game no limit, and I will be busted in ten minutes.

Of course luck plays a part, but it plays a part the same way it does on a golf course. You can hit a good shot and get a bad lie, that is luck. You can have a bird fly overhead when you hit the ball, luck. You can have a gust of wind come along just as you hit your shot, luck. But you better believe that skill will eventually win out. Sure, you need both. Even Tiger won't win if a bird gets in the way of his ball (poor bird) at a critical moment, but I am still going to bet on him in the next tourney.

[Jeffiner99]

Or how about this argument. A monkey can win money playing a slot machine. A monkey can win money playing roulette (if you teach him to throw his chips at the board). A monkey can win at Craps (again, teaching him to throw checks on the layout).

But a monkey cannot win one hand of poker. Even if he got dealt the nuts he would have to make the decision to call. That takes skill. I have seen plenty of players throw away the nuts in Omaha because they couldn't read their cards. Hell, I have seen plenty of DEALERS push the pot to the wrong player. You don't have to know the rules of Craps to make money at it. A bunch of six year olds have the same odds as anyone else in a slot tournament. Just let them sit down at a game of poker. (ok, play for cookies, I am not trying to corrupt the youngsters, just making a point here).

Poker is about making decisions. Knowing the right decisions to make takes skill. Even a lucky tourist who is getting hit with the deck must have some skill.

Trust me, I don't care how lucky my sister gets she would never win a hand. She thinks the World Series is played with real money and you can cash out anytime you want. She also called me the other day to ask what "check" means.

So you get my point...

[Dunkman]

I think we give a little too much credit to variance sometimes. I know, for me, a substantial amount of my variance is attributed to 1) playing when I'm not focused and 2) tilt. Also, at the highest game I'm rolled for my variance can take big swings, but if I move down a couple limits I can pretty consistently crush every game.

This thread is a great discussion of the issue and a great read. Thanks to everyone who is contributing!

[va1halla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt AA and I get dealt KK. What determines the winner - chance or skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

I play 30,000 hands of Omaha hi/low and win 4 big bets per 100 hands. What played more of a role - chance or skill? Do most poker players play one hand and leave the table?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's skill even with one hand played. If you lose less money on a given hand than another player would on the same hand that's still a win for you correct ?

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt AA and I get dealt KK. What determines the winner - chance or skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

I play 30,000 hands of Omaha hi/low and win 4 big bets per 100 hands. What played more of a role - chance or skill? Do most poker players play one hand and leave the table?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's skill even with one hand played. If you lose less money on a given hand than another player would on the same hand that's still a win for you correct ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you could play the hand optimally (in terms of expected value) and lose more to a bad beat than a less skillful player who folds. For the record, it's clear to me poker is a skill game, but I have no patience for debating idiots (anyone who thinks it is a game of luck) so I have no clue how to argue the case.

[TheMathProf]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is as much a game of skill as chess.

In chess the board is the same, pieces are the same, possible actions are the same, and the player's decisions make the outcome.

In poker the "board" is just more nebulous than chess. The "board" in poker is all possible starting hands, all possible situations, all possible flops, all possible turns, all possible rivers, etc.

Each player is on an equal footing, each player will receive the exact same distribution of cards in the exact same situations (long term). THAT is the chess board in poker.

Your decisions determine everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

To take this analogy further, which I think is a good one:

Poker is often described as having three levels of thinking, which if I recall them correctly are: "What do I have?", "What do I think he has?", and essentially, "What do I think he thinks I have?" Most of your average poker players never advance much beyond Level I, or in some rare cases Level II.

When you play most amateur players in chess, there are also these same three levels of thinking, except they revolve around the planning in the position. "What am I going to do?", "What do I think he's going to do?", and in the third case, "Which is more important: What he's going to do or what I'm going to do? Can I make my response to what he's going to do help what I'm going to do?" Which is why some of the strongest moves in chess are moves that often seem to be merely reactionary moves that are also deceptively attacking moves.

And the truth is that chess, even though it's a game of perfect information, can be a game of bluffing as well. Sometimes, strong moves that are technically unsound from a mathematical expectation perspective (i.e. the move nets me a loss of material against best play) are the best moves in an actual position against actual opponents, because they require that level of precision to survive. It's a "Yes, I know I could fold and cut my losses, but I also don't think you can see that calling me with an underpair is good here."

[Our House]

Another example...

Say you're in a game with 5 other players. You notice that they all fold every single hand unless they have AA. They never adjust or alter their play. Your skilled mind picks up on that and now you know that clearly the best strategy is to raise every single hand preflop to take the blinds and to fold when anyone calls/raises you.

NOW there's no showdown for you. No more "luck of the draw." No more situations where the cards matter. UNLESS, the judges can say the luck element is whether or not your opponents get AA dealt to them. (I seriously hope these judges/juries don't think it's 50/50...either they get dealt AA or they don't /images/graemlins/wink.gif ) Even if they bring up that luck element, very very simple math will show them that they're wrong. Raising every hand in this case is a guaranteed winning strategy.

[Our House]

Oh, the other thing they might say is "nobody plays that way."

Sure, and "nobody" plays weak starting hands preflop. And "nobody" ever doesn't raise the nuts last to act on the river. And "nobody" ever folds the winning hand because they misread the board.

I don't think a judge's expertise qualifies them to make assumptions or statements about the quality of peoples' play when they're trying to determine skill vs. chance.

[JPFisher55]

I think the judges in this case applied a standard that a game has to be almost all skill to not be a game of chance. They used the short term results to determine that under NC law poker is a game of chance. They ruled that in NC, only games in which skill determines every short term result can be games of skill.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
They used the short term results to determine that under NC law poker is a game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
This argument is not valid. "Short term" in undefined.

[ QUOTE ]
They ruled that in NC, only games in which skill determines every short term result can be games of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, define short term and we have a legitimate ruling. Otherwise, it's BS.

[JPFisher55]

Unfortunately, I think the court used one hand as short term; clearly less than 20 hands. I don't agree with the ruling. Missouri ruled the opposite.

[alphatmw]

i'm going to play devil's advocate here.

poker is luck in the short turn and skill in the long term. how many hands do you need to play to see your true winrate? everyone gives answers ranging from 20,000-100,000+. is it really more a game of skill than chance if you need to play a month before you know if you're winning or not?

[Skallagrim]

I dont buy that poker is skill in the long run, luck in the short run. Sometimes poker is decided by luck, sometimes it is decided by skill. The longrun/short run distinction is valuable only as a method of understanding how to factor poker's luck factor into your overall longterm strategy.

The question is (or at least should be) how many of poker outcomes are decided by luck and how many by skill. Elsewhere is my proof that for all modern forms of poker "the luck of the draw" determines only about 1/3 of outcomes.

1/3 is a lot of luck. Its clearly more than is present in baseball or golf or many other games. But it is still less than 1/2. And if it is less than 1/2 then it is not the predominant factor.

Skallagrim

PS: Howard Lederer has now adopted my argument: "Her brother offers another proposal, which he suggests might impress a future judge. The "vast majority" of high-betting poker hands, he says, are decided after all players except the winner have folded. So if no one shows his cards, Mr. Lederer says, "can you legally argue that the outcome was determined by luck?"

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117812153189389684-lMyQjAxMDE3NzA4MzEwMjMxWj.html

[alphatmw]

if everyone folds, it was probably because they had unplayable hands, which was determined by luck.

just find any player's poker graph. if theres a huge downswing, i bet he can say "yeah my kings ran into aces, my set got drawn out by a flush draw, and just kept getting coolered." then check the huge upswing and he'll probably tell you the hands that were the other way around. how often are the downswings mostly bad play and poor decisions whereas the upswings are suddenly great play and good decisions? sure some people may claim that but its easy to make good decisions when the cards do most of the work for you.

the ups and downs of poker are hugely determined by the cards (i'm running really hot, but then the cards stopped falling) and not so much by your skill (i was playing really really well then all of a sudden i started playing poorly but at around hand 11K i started playing really well again!)

[Skallagrim]

You have 2292 posts alphatmw? They must not have been in the strategy forums. Apparently you never fold a good hand because you think you are beat. I want you at my next poker table. My "Kings ran into Aces" is a beginners lament. So much more context is needed to determine whether going to the river or going all in with those kings was a good play. I take it you have never folded kings alpha? And it is nice to know you always fold "bad" hands. People like Gus Hansen dream of your type as opponents. Once a good player picks up on this fact about you, you are done for...unless of course you hit that 2 outer on the river. But how often does that happen? NOT MOST OF THE TIME.

Poker has a lot of luck, but it is not mostly luck. If you are a losing player over any significant stretch it is MOST LIKELY not luck that is your problem.

Skallagrim

[Tarheel]

"Game of chance" is not a valid concept, and in reading the definition of the word "chance", i have no idea how this term made it to popular culture.

If your chances can be defined, then it is a game of probability. If it is a game of probability AND every player cannot accurately assess probability, then it is in fact a game of skill.

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
You have 2292 posts alphatmw? They must not have been in the strategy forums. Apparently you never fold a good hand because you think you are beat. I want you at my next poker table. My "Kings ran into Aces" is a beginners lament. So much more context is needed to determine whether going to the river or going all in with those kings was a good play. I take it you have never folded kings alpha? And it is nice to know you always fold "bad" hands. People like Gus Hansen dream of your type as opponents. Once a good player picks up on this fact about you, you are done for...unless of course you hit that 2 outer on the river. But how often does that happen? NOT MOST OF THE TIME.

Poker has a lot of luck, but it is not mostly luck. If you are a losing player over any significant stretch it is MOST LIKELY not luck that is your problem.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]jesus christ did i hit a nerve for some reason? you nitpick on kings vs. aces and disregard the rest of my post?

but since you asked.. i've never folded kings preflop. and 90% of the time, with good players, KK vs. AA will be over preflop. but why is this relevant? you will lose a lot of money the majority of the time you have kings and run into aces, and the super skillful will probably in the short run lose exactly the same amount as an average player and in the longer run, possibly lose SLIGHTLY less. but again, you nitpick on one sentence and one scenario of my post probably because you didn't know how to answer the rest.

or maybe post your graph for the last 20,000 hands, and tell me if its easier to highlight big hands, bad beats, and coolers or if your variance is really caused by good play mixed sudden downswings of bad play, followed later by upswings of great play.

btw define "significant stretch" for me, in the way you used it.

[Skallagrim]

NEVER folded Kings preflop...? I have. I have folded it many times in tournaments where I didnt want to be facing an ace that could pair up and eliminate or cripple me, I wait for a better opportunity. (BTW - the guy who wins that hand, was it his cards which I never saw, or my skill - or lack therof - that determined that hand?). In cash play I have folded it once preflop, and of course that was against a player who never raised w/o the nuts and I remember it cause the guy made my week by showing the aces. And yes, I have lost with KK to AA a lot more times than once.

I was overly personal in my reply to you, but I did that for a reason. I wanted you to really think about how much thought you put into your play. I bet its a fair amount. I hope its a lot more than "KK is only beat by one hand, always go for it."

Seeing poker for all its factors is my point. When you consider all the factors you see that poker is a lot more than cards. Its that simple. And once you see that you can also see that cards, while certainly a factor, maybe even the single most important factor out of all, are still not responsible for MOST outcomes.

I wont define significant stretch cause its not relevant. THIS IS NOT "LUCK OR SKILL.' I freely admit both are present and I said "most likely not luck." The real question is, on average, "WHICH MATTERS MORE."

You already know how I answer that question.

Skallagrim

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
NEVER folded Kings preflop...? I have. I have folded it many times in tournaments where I didnt want to be facing an ace that could pair up and eliminate or cripple me, I wait for a better opportunity. (BTW - the guy who wins that hand, was it his cards which I never saw, or my skill - or lack therof - that determined that hand?). In cash play I have folded it once preflop, and of course that was against a player who never raised w/o the nuts and I remember it cause the guy made my week by showing the aces. And yes, I have lost with KK to AA a lot more times than once.

I was overly personal in my reply to you, but I did that for a reason. I wanted you to really think about how much thought you put into your play. I bet its a fair amount. I hope its a lot more than "KK is only beat by one hand, always go for it."

Seeing poker for all its factors is my point. When you consider all the factors you see that poker is a lot more than cards. Its that simple. And once you see that you can also see that cards, while certainly a factor, maybe even the single most important factor out of all, are still not responsible for MOST outcomes.

I wont define significant stretch cause its not relevant. THIS IS NOT "LUCK OR SKILL.' I freely admit both are present and I said "most likely not luck." The real question is, on average, "WHICH MATTERS MORE."

You already know how I answer that question.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]1. i'm a cash game player
2. i've probably played ~100K hands in my life
3. i play 50NL and 25NL online (or i used to)
4. do you seriously think many situations come up in these scenarios in which folding KK preflop is correct?

you keep pounding on THIS even though it has no relevance and won't even define SIGNIFICANT STRETCH which YOU USED probably because you know it'll make one of my points.

don't respond to me again unless you actually want to discuss the topic at hand.

[JPFisher55]

I have folded KK pre-flop. Usually when 2 players were raising all in with large stacks or when there were 4 raises preflop. Most of the time I was against AA by some player. Heads up I have only folded it a couple of times when the opponent all in was the fourth raise and I was risking more than 70x BB to call.

[Skallagrim]

? I am the one who made Skill v. Luck the basic topic of this thread in response to the court opinion, dont get snide.

KK is only one example.

Obviously, variance over any stretch can be caused by poor play v. good play AND/OR by good cards v. bad cards. How would you determine which is the BIGGER factor?

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
Or how about this argument. A monkey can win money playing a slot machine. A monkey can win money playing roulette (if you teach him to throw his chips at the board). A monkey can win at Craps (again, teaching him to throw checks on the layout).

But a monkey cannot win one hand of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, some people claim that you can teach a monkey to play razz, so if that's true then a monkey can win at poker. Of course the monkey would have to be able get away from a K3K board, and that would put him a step up on a lot of online players.

[ QUOTE ]
A bunch of six year olds have the same odds as anyone else in a slot tournament. Just let them sit down at a game of poker. (ok, play for cookies, I am not trying to corrupt the youngsters, just making a point here).

[/ QUOTE ]
Second of all, my FIVE year old could felt most of the people I have played against in my lifetime. That may not say much for my skill level, but it sure makes my game selection look good /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Howard Lederer has now adopted my argument: "Her brother offers another proposal, which he suggests might impress a future judge. The "vast majority" of high-betting poker hands, he says, are decided after all players except the winner have folded. So if no one shows his cards, Mr. Lederer says, "can you legally argue that the outcome was determined by luck?"

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117812153189389684-lMyQjAxMDE3NzA4MzEwMjMxWj.html

[/ QUOTE ]

BRILLIANT!

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS: Howard Lederer has now adopted my argument: "Her brother offers another proposal, which he suggests might impress a future judge. The "vast majority" of high-betting poker hands, he says, are decided after all players except the winner have folded. So if no one shows his cards, Mr. Lederer says, "can you legally argue that the outcome was determined by luck?"

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117812153189389684-lMyQjAxMDE3NzA4MzEwMjMxWj.html

[/ QUOTE ]

BRILLIANT!

[/ QUOTE ]again, people fold trash hands and they were dealt trash hands by luck. it's not like the winner used great skill to make everyone fold superior hands every time they never reach a flop.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
You get dealt AA and I get dealt KK. What determines the winner - chance or skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the game is about winning money, not winning cards, taking an example out of context is pointless.

"There are probably better ways to phrase this but here's the jist:

"The majority of the major decisions during a poker hand, (the decision whether to play at all being normally trivial) are not obvious, a matter of skill, and result in large differences in expected value, with the most skillful decisions having the highest value."

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Take away all betting in poker and what do you have? The card game War

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, variance over any stretch can be caused by poor play v. good play AND/OR by good cards v. bad cards. How would you determine which is the BIGGER factor?

[/ QUOTE ]

What percentage of new businesses fail, on average?

[Skallagrim]

"again, people fold trash hands and they were dealt trash hands by luck."

This is so simplistic an understanding of why and when people (with skill) fold hands in poker that I will now take you up on the offer to no longer respond to you.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of new businesses fail, on average?

[/ QUOTE ]

Going into business is a crapshoot. It's all about luck and has nothing to do with skill. Kind of like becoming a judge. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
"again, people fold trash hands and they were dealt trash hands by luck."

This is so simplistic an understanding of why and when people (with skill) fold hands in poker that I will now take you up on the offer to no longer respond to you.

[/ QUOTE ]good. i'm gonna hold you to that.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
people fold trash hands and they were dealt trash hands by luck. it's not like the winner used great skill to make everyone fold superior hands every time they never reach a flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Folding trash hands is a skill covered in the first chapter of most poker books. The most unskilled players have not even learned this most rudimentary poker skill, and they are big losers barring an extraordinary run of luck.

I think this argument Skalligram pushes has merit. Hands that do not go to showdown are determined by skill.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of new businesses fail, on average?

[/ QUOTE ]

Going into business is a crapshoot. It's all about luck and has nothing to do with skill. Kind of like becoming a judge. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And if you read the NC judge's decision, her description of what makes poker a "game of chance" applies perfectly to starting up a business.

[alphatmw]

would you concede that it becomes chance if everyone at the table knows the basic starting hand principles?

in fact, i wonder.. does the composition of the people playing the game change the nature of the game itself? if i jumped into the big game, my results would be heavily dictated by the skill differential. but if 6 players are all perfectly equally skilled, would anyone venture to say that this particular game is a game of chance? given that the player's results will be completely dictated by their cards.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
would you concede that it becomes chance if everyone at the table knows the basic starting hand principles?

[/ QUOTE ]
If everyone at the table knew basic starting hand principles:

1) They would be incredibly exploitable by better players who vary their preflop play.

2) It would be easier for me (and many others) to read and play against them postflop.

Having said that, I'd still prefer to play in, and will continue to look for, games where people didn't know basic starting hand selection.

[ QUOTE ]
if 6 players are all perfectly equally skilled, would anyone venture to say that this particular game is a game of chance?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm, if 6 players were all perfectly equally skilled in ANY game, it would be a game of chance. What's your point?

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]
would you concede that it becomes chance if everyone at the table knows the basic starting hand principles?

in fact, i wonder.. does the composition of the people playing the game change the nature of the game itself? if i jumped into the big game, my results would be heavily dictated by the skill differential. but if 6 players are all perfectly equally skilled, would anyone venture to say that this particular game is a game of chance? given that the player's results will be completely dictated by their cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would venture to say that success in anything attempted by a group of equally skilled people simultaneously is completely governed by chance. Luckily, it is impossible for people to be equally skilled, so we don't have to worry about this.

[RonMexico]

alpha: judging by your previous comments it seems like you don't really understand how poker works. I honestly think you're missing the point here with regards to where an edge/advantage comes from.

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
would you concede that it becomes chance if everyone at the table knows the basic starting hand principles?

in fact, i wonder.. does the composition of the people playing the game change the nature of the game itself? if i jumped into the big game, my results would be heavily dictated by the skill differential. but if 6 players are all perfectly equally skilled, would anyone venture to say that this particular game is a game of chance? given that the player's results will be completely dictated by their cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would venture to say that success in anything attempted by a group of equally skilled people simultaneously is completely governed by chance. Luckily, it is impossible for people to be equally skilled, so we don't have to worry about this.

[/ QUOTE ]so the more equal the skill, the more that chance dominates. in the eyes of the court, is it fair to cast poker as a game of chance if the majority of games are played between relatively equally skilled people?

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
alpha: judging by your previous comments it seems like you don't really understand how poker works. I honestly think you're missing the point here with regards to where an edge/advantage comes from.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. I can't tell you how frustrated I get when people go on that, "online poker is dying because eventually everyone will have the same experience and skills." In theory. But that presumes, for example, people don't get tired, or make mistakes. Every single poker book I've read has a section explaining that you make money at poker mostly from exploiting other player's mistakes, and less at getting good cards. But I'll concede that this line of reasoning can be hard to grasp.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
would you concede that it becomes chance if everyone at the table knows the basic starting hand principles?

in fact, i wonder.. does the composition of the people playing the game change the nature of the game itself? if i jumped into the big game, my results would be heavily dictated by the skill differential. but if 6 players are all perfectly equally skilled, would anyone venture to say that this particular game is a game of chance? given that the player's results will be completely dictated by their cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would venture to say that success in anything attempted by a group of equally skilled people simultaneously is completely governed by chance. Luckily, it is impossible for people to be equally skilled, so we don't have to worry about this.

[/ QUOTE ]so the more equal the skill, the more that chance dominates. in the eyes of the court, is it fair to cast poker as a game of chance if the majority of games are played between relatively equally skilled people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me for saying so, but this is retarded.

Are you implying that the only way any game can be a "game of skill" is if there is at least one competitor (e.g. Tiger Woods for years in golf) that is miles above the rest of the field? And if the field is very close in skill level, it then becomes a game of chance?

It's the game that is up for debate, not the players.

[Our House]

Besides...if you think the skill level among poker players is very close to equal, then you're even worse than the people in this thread have given you credit for. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Hands that do not go to showdown are determined by skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the hands that make it to showdown are determined primarily by luck? What foolish reasoning is this?

Besides, it seems that people should NOT be focusing on which cards beat what cards. The focus SHOULD be on how much money was won or lost on hands, BASED on the various skills involved.

[Our House]

But wait, there's more...

"Relatively equally skilled" is also subjective and not concrete. How could anyone ever quantify a statement so opinionated in a court of law?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]

Second of all, my FIVE year old could felt most of the people I have played against in my lifetime. That may not say much for my skill level, but it sure makes my game selection look good /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm going to take this quote personally.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Its what you do with your chips that decides who wins and loses most of the time. Chance only determines the outcome when there is a showdown and the worst hand gets lucky and wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

EYP- I would suggest that this is a better argument to focus on.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Rather than trying to prove that poker is skill based as opposed to other casino spread games, why not try to prove that other ventures with high variance (i.e. stock market investments, futures trading, hedge funds) are in fact luck based gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, flip it. "Prove" that poker is a game version, or at least a distant cousin, of business, stock trading, etc.

Poker is gambling, but it is NOT the same gambling that casino games or slots are.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather than trying to prove that poker is skill based as opposed to other casino spread games, why not try to prove that other ventures with high variance (i.e. stock market investments, futures trading, hedge funds) are in fact luck based gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, flip it. "Prove" that poker is a game version, or at least a distant cousin, of business, stock trading, etc.

Poker is gambling, but it is NOT the same gambling that casino games or slots are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is the second step in my argument. Once the stock brokers, etc. defend themselves and everyone agrees that their activities are skill based gambling, then you can prove that poker is equally so. Thus if you allow speculative business ventures, you'd have to allow poker as well.

p.s. and you're lucky your games are past my kid's bedtime /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather than trying to prove that poker is skill based as opposed to other casino spread games, why not try to prove that other ventures with high variance (i.e. stock market investments, futures trading, hedge funds) are in fact luck based gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, flip it. "Prove" that poker is a game version, or at least a distant cousin, of business, stock trading, etc.

Poker is gambling, but it is NOT the same gambling that casino games or slots are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is the second step in my argument. Once the stock brokers, etc. defend themselves and everyone agrees that their activities are skill based gambling, then you can prove that poker is equally so. Thus if you allow speculative business ventures, you'd have to allow poker as well.

p.s. and you're lucky your games are past my kid's bedtime /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two major differences between skill based gambling and stock trading or business speculation. The first is the relative dominance of probability, which is much higher in gambling. The other is that many skill based gambling games, including poker, are games of incomplete information. Accounting, insider trading laws etc, are designed to allow for far more complete information.

There is no hope in trying to equate poker with "legitimate" businesses.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]

There are two major differences between skill based gambling and stock trading or business speculation. The first is the relative dominance of probability, which is much higher in gambling. The other is that many skill based gambling games, including poker, are games of incomplete information. Accounting, insider trading laws etc, are designed to allow for far more complete information.

There is no hope in trying to equate poker with "legitimate" businesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're putting me on, right?

If you're buying stocks in an attempt to make a profit you can have perfect information, and therefore it's a sure bet?

Logically then, it would follow that all skilled mutual fund managers would outpace the general stock market indecis. News Flash: They don't. Even Warren Buffett comes up with a loser now and again.

I'm not associated with any stock brokerage or trading company, but I bet you'd have a hard time convincing the DOZENS of high profile, successful poker players (if not hundreds) who have been that the skills which make one successful in poker and in trading are very similar.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not associated with any stock brokerage or trading company, but I bet you'd have a hard time convincing the DOZENS of high profile, successful poker players (if not hundreds) who have been that the skills which make one successful in poker and in trading are NOT very similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. It isn't clear to me whether you're arguing that they aren't similiar or that they are, but you missed a not. If you're truly arguing that successful poker players who are or have also been successful traders don't see a similiarity then you should read the book "The Poker Face of Wall Street." In this book Aaron Brown, among other things, seems to make this claim. BTW, he fits the successful trader/succesful poker player criteria. He's also a 2+2 poster. If you think I'm misinterpreting him you could probably post something in Poker Theory to make sure I haven't misinterpreted.

[BigAlK]

For those that haven't seen it Michael Craig in the blog (http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/poker-blog/) he writes for Full Tilt has a series of 3 articles that discusses the NC decision and the skill vs luck debate.

The 3rd article discusses luck on the PGA tour with a few examples of where luck was predominate in the short term (although presumably not in the long term). There are also a few examples where luck made the difference when two players were pretty much playing with equal skill and luck made the difference.

[jackaaron]

I hope to get flamed for this I guess (I can see fraac coming already), but here's a dumb question:

If poker is a game dominated by chance, then why do we have our hole cards face down? (I’m actually talking hold ‘em style games here, for now.)

I think that since we play with our cards face down, skill is dominating over chance because we are attempting to make people make decisions they wouldn’t make had all the cards been face up.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that since we play with our cards face down, skill is dominating over chance because we are attempting to make people make decisions they wouldn’t make had all the cards been face up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Invoking the fundamental theory of poker to prove skill. I like it. I don't know that this proves that skill predominates, but it is one more item to illustrate where skill exists. BTW, this really applies to any poker variant since some are all of your cards are unknown to your opponent.

In fact somewhere I've heard that what makes hold'em the "most skillful" poker game is hitting the sweet spot in how much information each player has about the other's hand based on the amount of hidden versus known information. Five card draw is less skillful because of not knowing any of your opponent's cards (leaving only betting patterns, tells, and number of cards drawn to guess your opponents hand) as well as having only 2 betting rounds to gain information. Five card stud is less skillful because of having so much information about your opponent's hand.

[aislephive]

This thread is making my head hurt.

Over one hand, poker is a lot of luck. However, there is also a lot of skill. Some hands will be completely luck based, like set over set or AA vs KK or something of the like. But the average hand will feature many different situations where skill was the predominant force, if that makes sense.

Obviously we need to figure out what exactly determines luck and skill. A hand that doesn't go to showdown is largely skill based, but there is also luck involved as well. Sometimes you're betting somebody off the best hand (ie skill), and sometimes you flop a set and check-raise some guy but would have just check-folded if you missed your set (ie luck).

But alas, there is also skill in hands that do go to showdown, as it is your job to maximize wins in minimize losses. A lot of hands you are just going to have to lose money on, period. But if you can lose as little as possible, then that is skill. Same with winning a hand, say you flop a set and slowplay it like a lot of weaker players and win very few chips. You won the hand, sure, but you could have won much more. So there is a lot of skill involved there as well.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd agree, and poker is my primary source of income. The skill argument is terrible. The game is hugely dominated by chance, by variance in the short run -- and even in what most reasonable people would consider the long run. This is a game where 10,000 hand samples mean very little. That's not a huge concern to those of us playing thousands of hands per week - but the average player doesn't play thousands of hands per week.

When a player decides to go to a casino or poker parlor on the weekend, his results are going to be drastically influenced by chance and modestly weighted by skill. He's not going to reach the 'longrun' that weekend, and he probably never will in fact. And that is what this ruling says: that poker is ultimately a game of chance for the average player.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to understand that live and online are completely different in what is considered a relevant sample. Online, a decent sample size is maybe something like 100k hands or more. Live, a good sample size would be about 300-400 hrs, which would be around 10k or so actual hands. Furthermore, in a live game I would imagine a good player can win in the vast majority of their sessions. Online, 10k breakeven is a pretty standard occurance and doesn't mean much of anything. Live, if you breakeven for 10k hands, then you have some serious leaks in your game.

[S550]

aislephive, you have hit the nail on the head. yes, it is true that most hands are somewhat steered in a direction based on the cards dealt, but what alpha is missing out on is the fact that based on a players skill you can extract more value from your big hands and minimize the loss you take on the hands where you are beat or "coolered" as alpha put it. if you actually would look at your downswings and upswings, i think we all would notice that during a downswing, we called down in spots we shouldn't out of frustration or played scared or whatever the case may be. the reverse is true when you look at your upswings, most likely you extracted more value with your good hands, optimized positional advantages and retained more composure and awareness at the table. i am not saying that chance cannot play a huge factor but if you played to more skillfully than an opponent under identical conditions your upswings would be steeper and your downswing less harsh. ultimately, skallagrim is right. . .our approach needs to focus on the % of the time that chance is the sole basis for the outcome. yes, there are instances where you fold someone of the better hand and even more situations where you use position to win a hand that you wouldn't at showdown, but i think our focus should be the fact that a skilled player maximizes positive outcomes and minimizes negative ones. . .

(sorry for the run on sentences. . .hope it is not too redundant)

[S550]

i also want to add when we refer to the outcome of the hand we should look at it in a less black and white sense as "win or lose" we have to keep in mind that a 20 BB loss when you flop two pair vs. a set is ultimately a win. let's remember that a negative result in $$ can be a win and a $$ win can also be a loss if you missed out on expected value

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not associated with any stock brokerage or trading company, but I bet you'd have a hard time convincing the DOZENS of high profile, successful poker players (if not hundreds) who have been that the skills which make one successful in poker and in trading are NOT very similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. It isn't clear to me whether you're arguing that they aren't similiar or that they are, but you missed a not. If you're truly arguing that successful poker players who are or have also been successful traders don't see a similiarity then you should read the book "The Poker Face of Wall Street." In this book Aaron Brown, among other things, seems to make this claim. BTW, he fits the successful trader/succesful poker player criteria. He's also a 2+2 poster. If you think I'm misinterpreting him you could probably post something in Poker Theory to make sure I haven't misinterpreted.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you were right the first time. I missed the "not". I shouldn't try not to never use double and triple negatives...

[DeadWallet]

[ QUOTE ]
i also want to add when we refer to the outcome of the hand we should look at it in a less black and white sense as "win or lose" we have to keep in mind that a 20 BB loss when you flop two pair vs. a set is ultimately a win. let's remember that a negative result in $$ can be a win and a $$ win can also be a loss if you missed out on expected value

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is key to the luck-v-skill argument. When I explain it to freinds/coworkers/family, I use a golf "par" metaphor.

For every combination of hands (my hand, my opopnents hand, the board cards, relative position, stack sizes, everything) there is a "par" or expected result, sometiimes this is positive (i have more money afterwards) sometimes it is negative. Over time these par values will roughly == 0.

When I do better in a hand than this par value I win. when I do worse, I lose.

This definition of wining/losing removes the luck factor from the equation and allows a wining/losing to ocur for a single hand

[Skallagrim]

The "par" example you propose Deadwallet is a great one for determining whether A SINGLE PERSON is playing in a skilled manner or not. I dont really see how it helps determine whether most poker results are due to luck or chance though. Opponents will ask, so what stops you from being dealt all hands with negative expected value.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i also want to add when we refer to the outcome of the hand we should look at it in a less black and white sense as "win or lose" we have to keep in mind that a 20 BB loss when you flop two pair vs. a set is ultimately a win. let's remember that a negative result in $$ can be a win and a $$ win can also be a loss if you missed out on expected value

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is key to the luck-v-skill argument. When I explain it to freinds/coworkers/family, I use a golf "par" metaphor.

For every combination of hands (my hand, my opopnents hand, the board cards, relative position, stack sizes, everything) there is a "par" or expected result, sometiimes this is positive (i have more money afterwards) sometimes it is negative. Over time these par values will roughly == 0.

When I do better in a hand than this par value I win. when I do worse, I lose.

This definition of wining/losing removes the luck factor from the equation and allows a wining/losing to ocur for a single hand

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this golf "par" reference a lot, actually.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
When I explain it to freinds/coworkers/family, I use a golf "par" metaphor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw a post in the books/pubs forum the other day that referenced a guy named Tommy Angelo's website. Having no idea who he was I surfed over there and read a few of his articles. One of these ( link here ) (http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles/reciprocality.htm) talked about what he calls "reciprocality" that is basically this same concept without the golf metaphor. It's actually not just a good argument/metaphor, but a good lens to view your game through.

[cardcounter0]

Although skill of players can enhance a team's chance of winning, the way a football is shaped, and the crazy bounces it takes, makes football ultimately a game of chance.

[S550]

[ QUOTE ]
The "par" example you propose Deadwallet is a great one for determining whether A SINGLE PERSON is playing in a skilled manner or not. I dont really see how it helps determine whether most poker results are due to luck or chance though. Opponents will ask, so what stops you from being dealt all hands with negative expected value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we will never come up with any defense that stops all questioning as there are many people that will simply never get it. The only way I can answer is that it is not about whether or not every hand that you were dealt was negative in value that isolates the skill, but rather the amount of negative value you realized compared to the amount of negative value any of your other opponents would have realized given the same circumstances.

This is a large pill to swallow for most as far as understanding this if you have never played the game, but I do think anyone who has any concept of probability could know that over time it is impossible for one person to be constantly dealt worse cards than another.

[RonMexico]

[ QUOTE ]
Opponents will ask, so what stops you from being dealt all hands with negative expected value.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it's questions like this that remove all credibility from their argument.

[Skallagrim]

As anyone who reads my posts already knows what I think, my comment about the "par" concept was not to trash it (I like it!) but to try and figure out how to use it to answer the question that (most) laws demand answer to: Is the outcome of poker more the result of skill or chance?

As a poker player of, I guess I would say, slightly above average skill (I am an overall winner, but not by a big percentage) I would also agree, to paraphrase Dickens, that if the law asks this then the law is an ass.

But telling someone that they are an ass is, I have learned, not a good way to convince them to agree with you.

So, I am asking someone to come up with a way to use this interesting concept in the luck v. skill legal debate.

I really couldnt see it, but I freely admit I dont know everything...a lot of things, but not everything /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Skallagrim

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I am asking someone to come up with a way to use this interesting concept in the luck v. skill legal debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the concept is one that some people will get immediately and some people won't. But how about if you combine this with the other suggestion of walking through hands with people of different skill levels.

The par analogy introduces the idea that what would be considered a good result will vary from hand to hand (or hole to hole). In a poker hand this might be losing a certain amount or winning at least a certain amount. With golf, in theory, you could score 1 stroke on every hold. In reality making par is generally considered a good result, with a birdie or eagle considered better than good, right? (In my case a double bogey is good - I'm an exception.) Then do the demonstration with the different skill level players to show this in action. If you could set this up with each player playing the same set of hands against the same "opponents" in some way (kind of like duplicate bridge) it would drive the point home even more.

[RonMexico]

From the Michael Craig article:

The North Carolina Court of Appeals was unequivocal in its conclusion that golf is a game where skill predominates. “Although chance inevitably intervenes, it is not inherent in the game and does not overcome skill, and the player maintains the opportunity to defeat chance with superior skill.”
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

Then seemingly by this argument, the most skilled golfer in a tournament golf competition almost surely defeats chance and also his less-skilled opponents. Of course we know this is false. Based on historical data, Tiger Woods has only a 25% chance to win any single tournament he enters.

One interesting difference that comes up in sports is the inherent performance variability. In other words, in golf, how much do the luck of conditions, tee time, bad bounces, and course draw (the sources of luck in Craig's article) contribute to the overall winner compared to natural variation in performance. While variability in poker performance definitely exists, it probably does not occur at the same magnitude as in a game like golf. But this in itself provides an interesting question. If variability in golf performance is inevitable, then does that not add to the overall level of chance in the game? Of course it does.

On any given day, Tiger Woods might show up with his A+ game, A game, B+ game, B game, C+ game, and so on. His play, on average, has a certain expected score given the conditions, course, etc. But his actual play for any given round or tournament is governed by some probability distribution. When pitted against 180 other tour pros, it's more likely that another player or players will be playing better than Woods for the week. After all, he loses 75% of the time. I don't think this concept is much of a stretch--that the best player cannot win every week because sometimes he's not playing well, or some other player is simply on fire. This court, however, seems to not consider such as a considerable source of chance.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, I am asking someone to come up with a way to use this interesting concept in the luck v. skill legal debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the concept is one that some people will get immediately and some people won't. But how about if you combine this with the other suggestion of walking through hands with people of different skill levels.

The par analogy introduces the idea that what would be considered a good result will vary from hand to hand (or hole to hole). In a poker hand this might be losing a certain amount or winning at least a certain amount. With golf, in theory, you could score 1 stroke on every hold. In reality making par is generally considered a good result, with a birdie or eagle considered better than good, right? (In my case a double bogey is good - I'm an exception.) Then do the demonstration with the different skill level players to show this in action. If you could set this up with each player playing the same set of hands against the same "opponents" in some way (kind of like duplicate bridge) it would drive the point home even more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/7897

Actually, you could have received 5 months ago but I don't think this idea made too much of a splash.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hands that do not go to showdown are determined by skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the hands that make it to showdown are determined primarily by luck? What foolish reasoning is this?


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, nobody but you has suggested that hands that make it to showdown are determined primarily by luck. It's just not so clearcut that skill played a dominant role as in the hands that end with no showdown.

Folding is a skill. More than half the hands I play online end with the final act being a fold. Skill determines the outcome of more than half the hands I play, on that argument alone.

[whangarei]

[political rant] 3 out of the 10 Republican candidates for President at the debate last night said they do not believe in evolution. And we expect to get poker legitimized as a game of skill? [/political rant]

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hands that do not go to showdown are determined by skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the hands that make it to showdown are determined primarily by luck? What foolish reasoning is this?


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, nobody but you has suggested that hands that make it to showdown are determined primarily by luck. It's just not so clearcut that skill played a dominant role as in the hands that end with no showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

The one-sided statement alone makes that "suggestion". I'm sure it was separated from context, but the post was all I had to work on.

Yet again, I'm going to try to raise the point that the biggest skill in poker is not winning hands, but chips, over X time.... so focusing on folding vs. getting others to fold winners is shortsighted.

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]
[political rant] 3 out of the 10 Republican candidates for President at the debate last night said they do not believe in evolution. And we expect to get poker legitimized as a game of skill? [/political rant]

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol I missed that...how do you not believe in evolution? Isn't that like saying I don't believe in gravity or something.

[S550]

doesn't flow with the current conversation but just a thought. . .if poker isn't skill based and is based on chance how come it is so popular on television. if it was about chance wouldn't they get more ratings having celebrities or half naked hot chicks flipping coins or playing slot machines. there is a reason that there are no television shows called "high stakes slots or world roulette tour". fact is television producers recognize that there is not only skill involved but it is compelling to watch this unique talent at the highest level

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
From the Michael Craig article:

The North Carolina Court of Appeals was unequivocal in its conclusion that golf is a game where skill predominates. “Although chance inevitably intervenes, it is not inherent in the game and does not overcome skill, and the player maintains the opportunity to defeat chance with superior skill.”
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the judges in this case need a more concrete example of how much of a role skill plays in poker, especially in a tournament setting. Here's my idea:

Howard Lederer and Annie Duke truck on down to NC and along with Andy Bloch they challenge the 3 judges to a 6-max STT with $10k buy in. The rub is the pros only get T8k in chips (a la the pro-am equalizer). If poker is mainly decided by luck, the judges should have the advantage and a +EV of $2000 each.

Think they'd be game?

[Skallagrim]

SGspecial, the judges would sulk first, then turn this offer down, then slink back to their chambers hugely pissed off that you showed them up by challenging them to YOUR game rather than play theirs....then they would screw us as hard as they could. Good logic, bad tactic /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Skallagrim

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
SGspecial, the judges would sulk first, then turn this offer down, then slink back to their chambers hugely pissed off that you showed them up by challenging them to YOUR game rather than play theirs....then they would screw us as hard as they could. Good logic, bad tactic /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. They wouldn't screw me, I don't live in NC. It certainly would make for good headlines either way.

[Lottery Larry]

Roy Cooke article from last year
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/13835

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Some hands will be completely luck based, like set over set or AA vs KK or something of the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

THAT IS NOT LUCK! That is simply probabilities evening out.


If Aces are supposed to win 95% of the time against a particular hand/board, then they will LOSE 5%. Just because someone loses their last 3 pocket rockets in a row DOESN"T MAKE IT LUCK.

Maybe that's what we need to do, as I think I've said somewhere before- redefine what "luck" is.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
p.s. and you're lucky your games are past my kid's bedtime /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Because otherwise you'd have to move in when I took all of her savings?

[Lottery Larry]

I'm not locating this quote directly and I'm getting tired of looking, so:

[ QUOTE ]
When a player decides to go to a casino or poker parlor on the weekend, his results are going to be drastically influenced by chance and modestly weighted by skill. He's not going to reach the 'longrun' that weekend, and he probably never will in fact. And that is what this ruling says: that poker is ultimately a game of chance for the average player

[/ QUOTE ]

If most people can't run a business successfully, long-term, does that make a business primarily "luck" or "chance"?

Just because chance/luck plays a big role in successful investing, does that mean it isn't skillful and any average person can do it year after year?

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not locating this quote directly and I'm getting tired of looking, so:

[ QUOTE ]
When a player decides to go to a casino or poker parlor on the weekend, his results are going to be drastically influenced by chance and modestly weighted by skill. He's not going to reach the 'longrun' that weekend, and he probably never will in fact. And that is what this ruling says: that poker is ultimately a game of chance for the average player

[/ QUOTE ]

If most people can't run a business successfully, long-term, does that make a business primarily "luck" or "chance"?

Just because chance/luck plays a big role in successful investing, does that mean it isn't skillful and any average person can do it year after year?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, LL. If a trendy restaurant loses $ on a tuesday night in Jan., should it be closed down as being a game of chance? (Actually it probably should be as restaurants are about the riskiest business ventures you can make)

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some hands will be completely luck based, like set over set or AA vs KK or something of the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

THAT IS NOT LUCK! That is simply probabilities evening out.


If Aces are supposed to win 95% of the time against a particular hand/board, then they will LOSE 5%. Just because someone loses their last 3 pocket rockets in a row DOESN"T MAKE IT LUCK.

Maybe that's what we need to do, as I think I've said somewhere before- redefine what "luck" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, it's probabilities evening out, but it's still "luck" as far as the people you're presenting this argument to are concerned. On either side of the hand you were particularly lucky or unlucky and there was nothing you could really do about it.

It is "luck" based on the simple fact that those probabilities will not even themselves out in the short term.

[Skallagrim]

A lot of you folks hung up on the short term/long term thing are basically confusing "skill" with "edge." On any given hand, skill OR luck will predominate, and Courts demand we prove that skill predominates more often than luck.

Skill can come in 2 forms, good skill and bad skill. Shooting a golf drive is a skill whether you are Tiger Woods or have never golfed before in your life. Likewise deciding whether to call, fold or raise is a skill whether your think like Phil Ivey or "the drunk tourist who has only played once before.'

Your "edge," however, is indeed something that is only sure to manifest itself over the long term, especially if your edge is a small one. Thus on any given hand, or on any given night, or any given session, it is likely that your edge (your skill ADVANTAGE) is not going to manifest itself, but over the long run it will (or at least should).

Your "Skill." on the other hand, will manifest itself ON EVERY PLAY YOU MAKE, whether good or bad. Sometimes it will make a difference, sometimes it wont. But it is always there, one way or another.

Accept this, and then you get to include "donk plays" as skill in the skill v. chance debate. See that, and beating the predominance test becomes a lot easier doesnt it?

Skallagrim

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some hands will be completely luck based, like set over set or AA vs KK or something of the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

THAT IS NOT LUCK! That is simply probabilities evening out.


If Aces are supposed to win 95% of the time against a particular hand/board, then they will LOSE 5%. Just because someone loses their last 3 pocket rockets in a row DOESN"T MAKE IT LUCK.

Maybe that's what we need to do, as I think I've said somewhere before- redefine what "luck" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, it's probabilities evening out, but it's still "luck" as far as the people you're presenting this argument to are concerned. On either side of the hand you were particularly lucky or unlucky and there was nothing you could really do about it.

It is "luck" based on the simple fact that those probabilities will not even themselves out in the short term.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that, and YOU know that... we have to get the PUBLIC to understand that.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
Skill can come in 2 forms, good skill and bad skill. Shooting a golf drive is a skill whether you are Tiger Woods or have never golfed before in your life. Likewise deciding whether to call, fold or raise is a skill whether your think like Phil Ivey or "the drunk tourist who has only played once before.'

Your "edge," however, is indeed something that is only sure to manifest itself over the long term, especially if your edge is a small one. Thus on any given hand, or on any given night, or any given session, it is likely that your edge (your skill ADVANTAGE) is not going to manifest itself, but over the long run it will (or at least should).

Your "Skill." on the other hand, will manifest itself ON EVERY PLAY YOU MAKE, whether good or bad. Sometimes it will make a difference, sometimes it wont. But it is always there, one way or another.

Accept this, and then you get to include "donk plays" as skill in the skill v. chance debate. See that, and beating the predominance test becomes a lot easier doesnt it?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a sound argument. Claiming every single action relies on skill obscures the line between games like poker and blackjack. In both games you make decisions, and in both games the vast majority of decisions have right and wrong decisions. Why is poker skill based and blackjack not skill based?

If you then start arguing that poker (as opposed to blackjack) is skill based because of those ~5% of decisions that aren't immediately obvious, then you're whole argument start to breaks down since if only 5% of decisions do truly require skill then how can you even try to argue that the game is predominately skill based?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a sound argument. Claiming every single action relies on skill obscures the line between games like poker and blackjack. In both games you make decisions, and in both games the vast majority of decisions have right and wrong decisions. Why is poker skill based and blackjack not skill based?

If you then start arguing that poker (as opposed to blackjack) is skill based because of those ~5% of decisions that aren't immediately obvious, then you're whole argument start to breaks down since if only 5% of decisions do truly require skill then how can you even try to argue that the game is predominately skill based?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I generally agree that poker and blackjack shouldn't be separated from each other, the BIG difference between the two is- casinos can set the rules for BJ such that you cannot play a +EV game, regardless of your skilled decisions.

Still, showing the average holds for BJ vs. what they should be with expert play (as in, experts lose less than average players, so skill "controls" the effects of "luck") is still an argument that I believe can be useful for poker's causes... yes?

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]

2) Judges are often motivated by things other than the facts in front of them (despite what they say).



[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem with the whole skill v. chance argument. If the appellate court wishes to make poker legal in a particular jurisdiction, they will find a way to make poker a skill game. If not, they won't.

All these threads show that it's very difficult to show more skill than chance in poker. There is a lot of lee way for any court to mess around with statutes, precedent and semantics.

Furthermore, if a court does find in favor, the state legislature can always rewrite the law. Arguing skill v. luck is a dead end. As evidenced by the prevalence of lotteries, bingo and sweepstakes, nobody except poker players care about skill or luck.

[Skallagrim]

Ok you guys win, Poker is more chance than skill, and even if its not, it wont matter. GET YOUR MONEY OFFLINE NOW, BECAUSE AS SOON AS THE DOJ REALIZES THAT POKER IS DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A SKILL GAME THEY CAN BUST EVERY SITE THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON, EVERY MONEY TRANSFER COMPANY THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON, AND EVEN A LOT OF PLAYERS CAN GET BUSTED BY THEIR STATE AUTHORITITES AND HAVE ALL THEIR PROCEEDS FROM ILLEGAL GAMBLING SEIZED AND FORFEITED.

What a happy result. Gosh I am so glad you convinced me I am wasting my time with developing this argument.

Think the Feds only care about money, then boy have you given it to them. If poker is gambling by law, virtually all of you have made money from an illegal activity and that means the money is subject to forfeiture to the government. Why settle for a tax or a rake % when you can have it all?

Skallagrim

Oh and I forgot, what are we going to do about California and Missouri where those stupid judges actually found poker to be predominatly skill based. What idiots they were.

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]


Oh and I forgot, what are we going to do about California and Missouri where those stupid judges actually found poker to be predominatly skill based. What idiots they were.

[/ QUOTE ]


They are not stupid. They just like playing poker. They felt keeping poker legal was not against public policy and wouldn't hurt them politcally. After making those decisions, the justices were able to use case law and existing statutes to find in favor of poker.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a sound argument. Claiming every single action relies on skill obscures the line between games like poker and blackjack. In both games you make decisions, and in both games the vast majority of decisions have right and wrong decisions. Why is poker skill based and blackjack not skill based?

If you then start arguing that poker (as opposed to blackjack) is skill based because of those ~5% of decisions that aren't immediately obvious, then you're whole argument start to breaks down since if only 5% of decisions do truly require skill then how can you even try to argue that the game is predominately skill based?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I generally agree that poker and blackjack shouldn't be separated from each other, the BIG difference between the two is- casinos can set the rules for BJ such that you cannot play a +EV game, regardless of your skilled decisions.

Still, showing the average holds for BJ vs. what they should be with expert play (as in, experts lose less than average players, so skill "controls" the effects of "luck") is still an argument that I believe can be useful for poker's causes... yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing that immediately jumps out is casinos can also set the rules for poker such that it's also going to be -EV no matter how good you are - particularly by going with a bad rake structure.

As far as the latter, nobody's going to accept blackjack as a game of skill. If you bring a little chart with you to the table (or are capable of doing some expectation calculations in your head), you can play perfectly and all that's left is 100% chance to determine your results. I think if somebody wants to show poker is a game of skill, they need to craft their argument such that it isn't directly applicable to a game like blackjack. And the skill influences the results of decisions argument fits blackjack perfectly.

[Skallagrim]

There is skill in blackjack, its just that no amount of skill can overcome the cards. The cards always determine the winner in blackjack and the only thing you can do is maximize your percentage expectation (which is always negative unless you count cards).

Now until I started listening to (some of) the folks in this thread who spend hours studying the game of chance that is poker, I thought skill could determine an outcome in poker. Somewhere or other I was foolish enough to think that bluffing, or playing to fool an opponent about my cards could make a differnce. In fact I thought skill determined most outcomes in poker.

But then you guys taught me that deciding how to play my cards is not skill and the cards dictate the majority of results.

Wasted that money I did on Caro's Book of Tells, because clearly its all about the cards stupid. Just like blackjack.

And every book I read after that first list of premium starting hands, also worthless, just like after the "little card" and maybe some counting instruction there is nothing else you need to know to play the best blackjack possible.

And even though I've never had any real luck at blackjack, and have won substantial amounts in casino poker rooms, the drink service and the comps are better at the BJ tables and you guys have convinced me to go back to them.

Skallagrim

PS Dire, jumped into this thread without having read my argument didnt you? Before I was convinced otherwise I thought I had shown that while both games have skill elements, the skill in poker was much greater. But, you know, the general public and the judges who dont play poker will never understand that so why bother trying to think of ways to show them its true?

[Lottery Larry]

Easy, baby- easy. Just because people are arguing/disagreeing with you isn't any reason to go OTT on 'em....

[Skallagrim]

Im OTT because I am amazed at the number of people who dont get just how important this argument is.

Its not the folks arguing with me, I want that; the argument needs to be "vetted" so to speak.

But the people who say it useless, the people who say its impossible, and the people who say its the wrong question, they have to realize that right now the only thing standing between the DOJ and an open attack on poker sites and poker funding mechanisms is the worry that like in CA and MO, poker will be found by a Court to be skill and thus not covered by most state gambling laws (recall; all their recent cases were about sportbetting) and thus not covered by any Federal law.

Being able to say poker is mostly skill is the key to it not being currently illegal.

Until we get the laws changed (which is going to happen tommorrow right?), this question is whats saving us. We lose it, and our game is undeniably illegal (in most of the US) UNTIL the laws are changed.

Skallagrim

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]
Im OTT because I am amazed at the number of people who dont get just how important this argument is.

Its not the folks arguing with me, I want that; the argument needs to be "vetted" so to speak.

But the people who say it useless, the people who say its impossible, and the people who say its the wrong question, they have to realize that right now the only thing standing between the DOJ and an open attack on poker sites and poker funding mechanisms is the worry that like in CA and MO, poker will be found by a Court to be skill and thus not covered by most state gambling laws (recall; all their recent cases were about sportbetting) and thus not covered by any Federal law.

Being able to say poker is mostly skill is the key to it not being currently illegal.

Until we get the laws changed (which is going to happen tommorrow right?), this question is whats saving us. We lose it, and our game is undeniably illegal (in most of the US) UNTIL the laws are changed.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, I don't think that's behind what the DOJ is doing but I can't prove it. So I will let it rest.

Back to the skill v luck argument, I'm still confused by your arguments. I'm sure everyone here agrees that poker is a game of skill. And that skill comes from making +ev decisions. Furthermore, that results of individual hands do not matter. That's why you get flamed when you post results in a strategy forum. But your arguments (which I believe correlate to the tests the courts are using) are about individual hands and are completely results oriented.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
There is skill in blackjack, its just that no amount of skill can overcome the cards. The cards always determine the winner in blackjack and the only thing you can do is maximize your percentage expectation (which is always negative unless you count cards).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I really don't agree that this is the reason that blackjack is not considered a game of skill. If you slightly modified the game of blackjack to make it +EV, by forcing the dealer to stand on 16, it would still be a game of chance even though it would be possible to beat it in the longrun. I mean think about it this way. If the powerball lottery grew so inflated that it were actually somehow +EV to buy tickets, you definitely wouldn't call the lottery a game of skill. Whether a game is 'beatable' is incidental, not consequential, of its standing as a game of predominately chance.

This is really the major problem here. Yes, poker has a large element of skill - but how can you formalize this and prove it? You can't just circularly argue that "Poker is a game of skill because it involves skill." You need to be able to layout a set if criterion showing if a game is predominated by skill or chance. And poker must fit this criterion while games like blackjack must not fit it. I can't even begin to imagine what this criterion would be. Poker and many other games predonimated by chance are very closely linked. What distinguishes poker?

[ekdikeo]

I've always said that poker is only all luck, if you're sitting at a table with me. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

(so says the guy who doubled his bankroll tonight woot)

[Skallagrim]

Ok Dire, rather than send you to the various times I have posted it, here is the argument:

Define terms: Skill = decisions made by players
Chance (or luck) = the distribution of the cards


Now consider a fair representative number of poker hands at any table, and remember, showing chance means the outcome is determined by the cards.

So, first, every hand that does not go to showdown was undeniably the result of player actions, not the cards (there is no rule that says you HAVE to fold 2-7 or call/raise with A-A). In most forms of poker this is the way most hands are resolved (all but one person folds before all the cards are revealed).

Second, when hands do go to showdown, who is at the showdown is detemined by player decisions (to call, fold or raise), not the cards. And quite often the person who would have had the best hand has folded long before all the cards are shown.

Third, even at the showdown the more skilled player will be in the advantage (he who has the best pre-river hand is there usually because his skills tell him he has that hand. So the cards ARE NOT determining who goes into a showdown with the hand most likely to win, it is the skill (or lack thereof) of the players.

Fourth, even at the showdown, the underdog only wins less than half the time because, of course, thats why he is the underdog!

And finally, the amount of the win (especially significant in tournament poker) has been determined completely by the players (though structured by the betting rules), not the cards.

So put all that together, and the only time you can really say that chance DETERMINES the outcome in poker is when there is a showdown and the less skilled player gets lucky and hits his or her improbable card. We all know that happens in poker, we also all know that happens far, far less than half the time.

Therefore Poker results are determined far more often by the players than by the cards. And thus Poker is a game of Skill. This is even more apparent when you factor in that poker is really a game of winning chips, not hands. Since the amount of win or loss on any hand is totally within the players control, that element of poker must also be deemed a skill element.

The distinction with blackjack is apparent in the above argument. There is no betting after the initial bet, so there is no possibility of using psychology in blackjack to win the hand. Also, the limited skill of knowing when to hit or not will not DETERMINE THE OUTCOME, it will only influence it, the outcome will still be decided by what the cards are every time (even if you get the card you want or dont hit at all the dealer can still beat you).

Skallagrim

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
Im OTT because I am amazed at the number of people who dont get just how important this argument is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it's that, I just think a lot of people here are negative. I think that there's a need among those who bluff for a living to be seen as smarter than you, i.e., making the argument that is NOT being made as being the one that is most in one's best interests. To them, they need to see that sometimes, what seems obviously best, really IS best.

[questions]

Is the white elephant in the skill vs. chance argument room the fact that ultimately, it's not about who wins the hand, but who leaves the table with the most money? That is, skill determines how much $$$ you extract from the other players, regardless of your cards; ergo, chance dealing you good or bad cards can be irrelevant.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the white elephant in the skill vs. chance argument room the fact that ultimately, it's not about who wins the hand, but who leaves the table with the most money? That is, skill determines how much $$$ you extract from the other players, regardless of your cards; ergo, chance dealing you good or bad cards can be irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have hit the nail on the head my friend. I have tried to point out the distinction previously but perhaps saying it flat out is needed: You do not necessarily win the most money in poker by winning the most hands. Thats why I distinguish "edge" from "skill." Frequently in poker players make a play knowing they are unlikely to win the hand, but also knowing over time making that play gives them an edge (pot odds).

Yet if we only talk about the edge part, then poker is indeed no different from blackjack where the better players have a bigger edge then the lesser players but any given hand will still be determined by the cards. That situation is precisely what the NC Court held to be a game of chance.

So while reminding courts that overall winning money is the key to poker, WE ALSO HAVE TO SHOW THAT PLAYERS CAN DETERMINE OUTCOMES, I.E. WINNING THE HAND. Of course, in both games you cant win money if you never win a hand. But in poker you can also win a hand independant of the cards, and/or despite having "bad" cards or despite not having the "best" hand.

In fact we already know this to be the case where most hands are folded to the winner. And maybe soon we will have the numbers to show that this is also the case even when there is a showdown.

Skallagrim

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the white elephant in the skill vs. chance argument room the fact that ultimately, it's not about who wins the hand, but who leaves the table with the most money? That is, skill determines how much $$$ you extract from the other players, regardless of your cards; ergo, chance dealing you good or bad cards can be irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This again is not a valid argument. If this were the case, good players would win the vast majority of their sessions. I win just over 60% of my sessions and I'm a large winner at relatively small stakes. I'm sure the win rate for high stakes players, who are presumably the most skilled, quickly converges very close to 50%. And if 'leaving the table with the most money' proves skill, wouldn't the best players leaving the table stuck nearly 50% of the time therefore prove the predominance of chance?

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok Dire, rather than send you to the various times I have posted it, here is the argument:

....


[/ QUOTE ]

This was the exact argument my initial post was commenting on. You are essentially circularly arguing that poker is a game of skill because the decisions involve skill. This argument falls apart for reasons as mentioned earlier.

[EGO]

I posted this idea in another thread, but it's dropping down the page fast, so I thought I'd regurgitate it here.

I've often heard that the standard deviation of a game is the measurement of luck in poker, and that it resolves fairly quickly to close to it's true value.

If luck can be measured, can't we quantify to what degree a reduction of luck implies skill?

I'm not a math geek, not even close. It just strikes me that if luck and skill are part of poker, and you can measure luck - then you should be able to measure skill by the difference in luck between a terrible player and an expert player.

Quote from TOP
[ QUOTE ]
...expert players do not rely on luck. They are at war with luck. They use their skills to minimize luck as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was this quote that led me to this idea.

[popesc]

[ QUOTE ]

This again is not a valid argument. If this were the case, good players would win the vast majority of their sessions. I win just over 60% of my sessions...

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning 60% of your sessions is certainly significant, since no baseball team last year won 60% of their regular season games, and baseball is certainly a game that is mostly skill. (The winner of the world series last year only won 51.6% of their regular season games.) mlb.com (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/index.jsp?ymd=20061001)

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the white elephant in the skill vs. chance argument room the fact that ultimately, it's not about who wins the hand, but who leaves the table with the most money? That is, skill determines how much $$$ you extract from the other players, regardless of your cards; ergo, chance dealing you good or bad cards can be irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This again is not a valid argument. If this were the case, good players would win the vast majority of their sessions. I win just over 60% of my sessions and I'm a large winner at relatively small stakes. I'm sure the win rate for high stakes players, who are presumably the most skilled, quickly converges very close to 50%. And if 'leaving the table with the most money' proves skill, wouldn't the best players leaving the table stuck nearly 50% of the time therefore prove the predominance of chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slim margins do not imply a small amount of skill is needed for a game. All they imply is that there is a small DIFFERENCE in skill levels among the competitors. In a .05/.10 NL game players may all be equally (un)skilled and therefore no one has much of an edge. If Chris Ferguson sits down with $10, he is a huge favorite to win at the table because his skills are so much more advanced than the competition. If he were on HSP against Todd, Daniel, and Barry, he is no longer a big favorite, and perhaps an underdog.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
This again is not a valid argument. If this were the case, good players would win the vast majority of their sessions. I win just over 60% of my sessions and I'm a large winner at relatively small stakes. I'm sure the win rate for high stakes players, who are presumably the most skilled, quickly converges very close to 50%.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that refute my argument that poker is not about winning hands, but winning more money than others at the table, i.e., busting their stacks? (By the way, the reason I referred to making money at poker as a white elephant is because it's obvious that's why we all play it, but nobody wants to argue that because that would be going down a road leading to questions about taxation.)

[ QUOTE ]
And if 'leaving the table with the most money' proves skill, wouldn't the best players leaving the table stuck nearly 50% of the time therefore prove the predominance of chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I were arguing this in court, I'd examine experts' win rates over not just one table against other experts, but play against experts CONTRASTED WITH play against amateurs. The resulting stark contrast would demonstrate skill in that while experts of similar skill consistently keep their chip stacks intact (minus rake) over time, against amateurs, they win big.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the white elephant in the skill vs. chance argument room the fact that ultimately, it's not about who wins the hand, but who leaves the table with the most money? That is, skill determines how much $$$ you extract from the other players, regardless of your cards; ergo, chance dealing you good or bad cards can be irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This again is not a valid argument. If this were the case, good players would win the vast majority of their sessions. I win just over 60% of my sessions and I'm a large winner at relatively small stakes. I'm sure the win rate for high stakes players, who are presumably the most skilled, quickly converges very close to 50%. And if 'leaving the table with the most money' proves skill, wouldn't the best players leaving the table stuck nearly 50% of the time therefore prove the predominance of chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slim margins do not imply a small amount of skill is needed for a game. All they imply is that there is a small DIFFERENCE in skill levels among the competitors. In a .05/.10 NL game players may all be equally (un)skilled and therefore no one has much of an edge. If Chris Ferguson sits down with $10, he is a huge favorite to win at the table because his skills are so much more advanced than the competition. If he were on HSP against Todd, Daniel, and Barry, he is no longer a big favorite, and perhaps an underdog.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you really have to be careful what you say. If, as you said, at an average low stakes the game the players will generally be similarly unskiled and thus the average difference in abilities will be small then chance will be the predominately deciding factor. Similarly, if the players are generally similarly well skilled at higher stakes games then the same holds true. The judgement isn't saying that poker isn't a game of skill, just that it's a game that's predominately decided by chance.

Now the expert versus argument idea to prove skill is interesting - but runs into the same problems as with earlier skill arguments. A blackjack 'expert' would obviously do much better than an 'amateur' blackjack player, but it doesn't change the game's classification as a game of chance.

[Skallagrim]

This really has become an intellectual exercise in dissuading you guys from equating skill with good play. If you can get over that you will be able to easily reconcile the points made in this thread, good and bad.

Is my golf swing NOT an act of skill because I have no idea of the correct way to swing having never played golf before?

I say it is an act of skill, just in my particular case it is very bad skill. Thus when I play an equally bad player, skill (how well I hit the ball) is still determining the outcome (other than, of course, the fluke things that do happen in golf), same as when I play Tiger Woods and he trounces me (unless I get that lucky bounce off a duck....) - its just that my skill is so bad you dont want to call it "skill" anymore because you associate the word skill with "good." Even though its "luck" as to which of us 2 equally bad golfers hits the better shot on any particular swing, its still who hits the better shot(s) that detemines who will win the game. Golf therefore is a game of skill.

Good skill, or in better words, good play, is indeed something that manifests over time, can be defeated by the chance to one degree or another, and is less of a factor against players with similar levels of play. I would be hard pressed to prove that "good skill" acocunts for a specific percent of poker results indeed. Just as I would be hard pressed to prove that Tiger Woods' obviously better skill accounts for a specific percentage of the strokes he beats me by.

But the Courts dont require us to prove the difficult thing you guys are trying to prove when you fail to see this distinction. In other words, the Courts dont require us to prove that GOOD PLAY accounts for MOST outcomes. They require us to prove that CHANCE DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR MOST OUTCOMES.

And we can do that, we can prove that the actions of the players determine most outcomes, not chance.

I call player actions, whether good or bad, actions of skill. From now on here though, I am just going to call them player actions instead of skill so you wont confuse them with only good play.

Skallagrim

[EGO]

Some random musings on skill games.

It's like chess, where one player is more skilled than their opponent. The more skilled opponent will win most of these games. No one would suggest that chess isn't a game of skill, even though one opponent is less skillful than another.

There's even a rating system, with a formula that will show how often a player with a particular rating will defeat a person with a different particular rating, assuming both ratings are accurate.

Maybe poker needs a rating system. Not likely, I know. Maybe a play-money ladder system involving HU matches? If players can rate their expectation over the long term based on ratings differences, then it should be clear that poker is a game of skill.

I think the problem with this debate has been some ambiguity over the meaning of the word "skill". It's got lots of different meanings, and many different parts of speech. I'll throw out a couple of ideas for definitions for the word in the context that it seems to be used here.

Skill:
The ability, in some form of game that involves luck, to produce consistent results over a large sample size.

OK, so I've got only one idea for a definition, and it's certainly not very clear - but I'm just tossing out ideas. This seems to be the crux of Skallagrim's argument, though.

The thing that makes poker a skill game, is that players can play in such a manner that their results, over the long term, are different than what luck would dictate.

Here's an example from my PT database. Over 26,178 hands at .5/1, there's been $5485.30 raked from the pot. If everything else is equal, then everybodies long-term winrate be an even distribution of the rake, or -2.28BB/100 for each player in my database. Naturally, this is false.

However, many player's winrates might fall within the statistical "boundaries", that is - whatever their actual winrate, even over large samples, it is still feasable for them to be -2.28BB/100 players, even at fairly high confidence levels. That's just a guess... I'm not a math whiz.

Compare this to a game like roulette, or blackjack. A player who plays blackjack perfectly will be making (er, LOSING), over a large number of trials, pretty close to what the actual house edge. Same for roulette... it doesn't matter how you play it, but if you play long enough, then your loss will be close to the house edge.

This might raise a quandry, though. How many people actually play enough hands for luck to have less effect on their game than skill? If 50 million people from the US play poker online, but only 1 million people play enough to overcome luck, then it's still (effectively) a game of luck for 98% of the people involved.

Just for the record, I think poker is a game of skill - but I've played over 200K hands. It is a game of skill - for me. However, most people won't play that many hands in their lives (not counting the jokers here, that is.). For instance, only about 16% of the people I've played against this year have played more than 100 hands against me (that's 84% for people with less), compared to 6% for people that have played more than 1000 hands against me.

If a player doesn't play enough poker, then skill isn't as important as luck - and most poker players don't play enough poker to overcome luck.

Just some food for thought.

[Skallagrim]

Ah, long term, short term again, eh EGO?

"If a player doesn't play enough poker, then skill isn't as important as luck - and most poker players don't play enough poker to overcome luck."

For any given player, in any given short term, what you said MAY be true, but it also may not:

I am playing NLHE and I am not getting good cards (bad luck). Over and over again I look down at 2-7, 3-J etc... I fold a lot and am down by a number of blinds. Finally, I look down to see ... another 2-7. But this time, a guy who has been getting lots of good cards, is winning a fair bit, and I can tell is a perceptive player, makes a big move in front of me. Everyone folds to me (I am sitting one away from the cutoff). I put on an act and reraise even bigger. Everyone folds back to the intial raiser. He looks at me, sees my "tightness" and false determination, looks at his nice stack of chips, and, just like I figured, decides not to risk them against my first big raise of the evening. Then I stand up and leave an overall winner.

Where is the luck in that short term winning result?

My conclusion, any group of short term results MAY be due to chance OR it MAY be due to skill.

Skallagrim

[EGO]

Simarly, a player posts in the micros that they are losing 3bb/100 in 1000 hands, and get numerous responses of "sample size", and "anything can happen in 1000 hands."

I think that skill should be defined close to how I stated it, perhaps adding that the consistancy a player should show should be different than what random luck would determine (-2.28BB/100, in the games I play).

Your winrate for this sample session is probably nothing close to your overall winrate - many sessions are not. Your decision to pull a bluff here is a clear example of skill, and it's good one for the argument, since it should resolve itself fairly quickly into your winrate.

Let's take drawing to a gutshot in limit poker. It can be an awfully long time before you hit your gutshot (getting corect odds, of course). A player could play 30 or 40 or more of these, losing a huge amount that affects his winrate in the negative, or he could hit them a few times in a row affecting his WR in the positive. It doesn't matter which, and we both know that - because we will play enough hands for it to even out.

If I draw to a hand that's going to win 5% of the time, getting $24-$1, then I know that I'll be making a certain amount of money. (.05*24)-(.95*1) = .25 Sklansky$$.

However, if I only play this bet once, then skill doesn't factor into my winrate. I'm willing to bet that me drawing to two-outers in huge pots hasn't evened out to where it should be for those decisions EV-wise, even over 200K hands. Good thing it isn't a routine decsion, since my SD would be huge.

I guess I'm saying that there should be some sort of metric that determines skill. Let's falsely assume that poker is 100% luck - then over time everybodies winrates should be: 0-rake/#players. Since it's not, then it implies some level of skill.

Long term winrate, Standard Deviations, something. I don't see how we can prove that poker is more than 50% skill without quantifying how much luck is involved. It seems that figuring out the luck part should be easier.

I could be wrong.

Edit: I hope I'm wrong. I also see this has been discussed before, as referenced in the Poker is a Market thread, and that looking at it from this standpoint is not new, and probably not productive. Apologies for not researching thourougly.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
its just that my skill is so bad you dont want to call it "skill" anymore because you associate the word skill with "good."
I call player actions, whether good or bad, actions of skill. From now on here though, I am just going to call them player actions instead of skill so you wont confuse them with only good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, but part of the problem with blowback that you are receiving may be due to decisions such as this one. You seem to arbitrarily define words or ideas as you choose (unless you're using the generally obsolete defintion of "reason or cause" for skill) and ignore the fact that most people don't define them as you do.

The word skill, for me, implies training, study, and expertise acquired as a result of training/study. Usually this study doesn't lead to BAD skills, so "good" is implicit... otherwise, what is the point of "unskilled"?

I would wager that most people define the word in a similar manner. Therefore, your choice to "redefine" the word skill causes confusion and interferes with what you are trying to say.

Something to consider? You can decide.

edit- of course, evidently Annie Duke defines skill similar to what you do, according to the Wall Street Journal article that came out recently.

[Skallagrim]

"Let's take drawing to a gutshot in limit poker. It can be an awfully long time before you hit your gutshot (getting corect odds, of course). A player could play 30 or 40 or more of these, losing a huge amount that affects his winrate in the negative, or he could hit them a few times in a row affecting his WR in the positive. It doesn't matter which, and we both know that - because we will play enough hands for it to even out.

If I draw to a hand that's going to win 5% of the time, getting $24-$1, then I know that I'll be making a certain amount of money. (.05*24)-(.95*1) = .25 Sklansky$$.

However, if I only play this bet once, then skill doesn't factor into my winrate. I'm willing to bet that me drawing to two-outers in huge pots hasn't evened out to where it should be for those decisions EV-wise, even over 200K hands. Good thing it isn't a routine decsion, since my SD would be huge."


This is absolutely true, and a great example of pot odds. And if this were the only kind of "skill play" in poker, then it would be correct to say "luck short/skill long." But that begs the question, just how big a part of the game is this? How frequently is this the decision you are making. In my game, anyway. I cant call this the most common thought, and even where its present it is only one factor... and most good opponents who have figured things out as much as you know to bet enough to not give you pot odds....

But either way making this decision is an act of skill and involves many other skills to even be able to frame the question.

So I would agree "pot odds are, short term, by their nature, at the mercy of chance, but pay off over the long run."

So now you have explained why sometimes you call with hands most likely to lose on any particular occassion.

But you havent, at least as far as I can see, explained why this means the outcome of most poker hands/games may be due due to chance?

Slallagrim

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its just that my skill is so bad you dont want to call it "skill" anymore because you associate the word skill with "good."
I call player actions, whether good or bad, actions of skill. From now on here though, I am just going to call them player actions instead of skill so you wont confuse them with only good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, but part of the problem with blowback that you are receiving may be due to decisions such as this one. You seem to arbitrarily define words or ideas as you choose (unless you're using the generally obsolete defintion of "reason or cause" for skill) and ignore the fact that most people don't define them as you do.

The word skill, for me, implies training, study, and expertise acquired as a result of training/study. Usually this study doesn't lead to BAD skills, so "good" is implicit... otherwise, what is the point of "unskilled"?

I would wager that most people define the word in a similar manner. Therefore, your choice to "redefine" the word skill causes confusion and interferes with what you are trying to say.

Something to consider? You can decide.

edit- of course, evidently Annie Duke defines skill similar to what you do, according to the Wall Street Journal article that came out recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have come to agree with you, at least as far as 2+2'ers are concerned /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

Part of the problem is that I didnt make clear that I am not talking about "skilled persons" which is what you have described above, but rather "acts of skill." A person can perform an "act of skill" by demonstrating good skills or bad skills or by acting unskilled or by showing skill. And of course, my point about poker was that "acts of skill" determine most results.

But this is not to argue the point; linguistics teaches its students that context and connotation are just as important in conveying meaning as is definition. This is how I refine these arguments and I thank you for your help.

Skallagrim

[Quanah Parker]

I realize Wikipedia is not what most judges base their decisions on, none the less it's nice to see these words on the Wiki page for game-of-skill:
"Most games of skill also involve a degree of chance, due to nature, a randomizing device (such as dice, playing cards, a coin flip, or a random number generator) or guessing by the players."

[Benjamin]

Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/skill.html):

[ QUOTE ]
skill (plural skills)


noun
Definition:

1. ability to do something well: the ability to do something well, usually gained through training or experience

2. something requiring training to do well: something that requires training and experience to do well, e.g. an art or trade

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is helpful to look at the actual definition. This is not a legal definition, and I don't know anything much about how the legal definition of skill might change from state to state or whatnot.

Anyway, using the common definitions of skill we can see that the word both means an ability to do something well, and it means the act or art that requires training or experience to do well.

Relating to poker, as previously discussed, folding is a skill. Those who do not have training or experience in poker do not fold when they should. Folding preflop is a skill that is covered in many poker books in the very first chapter, and it is a hallmark of unskilled poker play to not fold nearly as many hands preflop as they should. Folding postflop is also a skill that unskilled players do not do nearly enough of. The most unskilled players will even fail to fold on the river when they literally have no chance of winning: i.e. calling with 33 on a AAKK2 board. We've all seen these incredible, if rare, calls that indicate the person has no clue how to play the game.

Therefor any hand of poker that is decided by a fold is decided by skill.

Where is the hole in this simple logic?

It isn't the whole argument, but I think this is a fundamental building block of a successful argument that poker is predominantly a game of skill, since we can show from large databases that most hands in many poker games are decided by folds.

[Skallagrim]

Thank you Benjamin !

[CPOSteve]

"Therefor any hand of poker that is decided by a fold is decided by skill.

Where is the hole in this simple logic?"

Here's one hole. How many times have you been at a cash game and it gets folded all the way to the blinds, and they decide to chop? It certainly happens a few times a night, right? Now, why did those players fold? Well, if they got dealt 72o part of the reason is the skill necessary to determine that that is not a productive starting hand. BUT, the predominant reason they made that skillful decision is because of the cards they got dealt which is completely dependent on chance.

There is NO doubt that the more skillful a poker player is, the more money they will make. This does not change the fact that they are skillful at playing a game of chance. The underpinning of most of the skillful decisions a player makes are the cards in his hand and the cards on the table which are completely dictated by chance.

I am aware of the assertion that a great poker player doesn't even need to look at his cards to beat weaker opponents. My question is, how many players actually do this on more than an occasional basis? My guess would be, none. The vast majority of skillful decisions that poker players make are based on the cards they are dealt and the cards in the middle of the table.

An example. You're heads up against a rock. He raises preflop and you call with 43o in LP because you KNOW you can bet him off the hand if the flop has the right texture.
What do you do if the flop comes:
a) K-Q-x?
b) 8-x-x?
Do you not play these two flops differently based on your read of the player? That is skill, BUT the decisions are based on the luck of the cards.

In the end, what I'm saying is this. Poker is played with cards, therefore it involves some level of chance. That level of chance varies based on the type of game, the players, the particular hand etc, but it's always there. (Ok, I shouldn't have said "always" because I can think of circumstances where the cards don't factor into a skillful player's decisions. e.g. low M tournament situations. Call it almost always.) It is unique in the casino in that a skillful player is actually +EV, but that does NOT change the fact that luck plays a significant factor in the outcome.

Flame away.

Steve

[Skallagrim]

Steve, you have committed the same error many folks make, only in reverse. Browse around and you will find many folks saying poker is a game of skill because otherwise some people would not be better at it than others....you can find the flaw in that cant you?

Its the same flaw in what you have posted.

As I have said many times, poker is a game that clearly involves both skill and chance. You have said that too.

But just because chance is an element in poker does not make it a "game of chance" any more than the fact that there is a skill element makes it a "game of skill."

The question is, which is the predominant element.

In your example you must realize that there is no rule which requires the folding or calling with 4-3os (and many noobs just love to bluff with that hand...). And maybe you should raise here because the rock only might have A-J and will still fold. So was it the 4-3 or the decision of the player that determined that play? Or a mixture of both? And if both, which was MORE important in determining the outcome, the cards or your skill at reading the other player?

Skallagrim

[CPOSteve]

I think what makes poker a game of chance is the fact that the heart of the game is a "random element."

Whether it's dice or cards or a wheel, a game of chance relies on an element who's behavior is random and conforms to a statistically known set of rules (i.e. all outcomes are equally likely or the outcomes are distributed in a "knowable" format). The ratio of luck to skill in any game of chance exists on a continuum based on the nature of the randomizing element and the rules of the game.

A game of coin flipping between two friends where one is assigned heads and the other tails is 100% luck. Casino games, on the other hand, involve some level of skill. For example, knowing the statistically correct play in blackjack makes a player more likely to win than just playing on your gut. Now the casino has designed the rules in such a way as to make all players statistical underdogs, but the skillful player is less so.

Poker is probably the most difficult game to nail down on this continuum because the luck/skill ratio is constantly shifting. It changes based on game, format, structure and even within a hand. The luck/skill ratio involved in a single nl hand starts high immediately following the dealing of the hole cards and diminishes the closer you get to showdown because more and more information is available to the skillful player as bets are made and cards are revealed.

Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying is a) I agree that poker is a game with a ratio of luck to skill b) I don't know what that ratio is c) I don't think that the ratio is truly "knowable" because of the factors above and d) most importantly I don't think we're going to find a court willing to buy the game of skill argument as long as playing cards are at the heart of the game.

[Skallagrim]

"most importantly I don't think we're going to find a court willing to buy the game of skill argument as long as playing cards are at the heart of the game. "

So bridge for money is gambling?

Not according to this California Court: In re Allen, 59 Cal.2d 5, 377 P.2d 280.

I could also cite for you the Cal. and Missouri cases that hold that poker is not mostly chance.

And a Federal Court decision finding Backgammon a game of skill....

Finally, ever go into a hobby shop and see one of those Military Simulation board games? They have dozens of pages of very complex rules for recreating historical battles with either miniatures or cardboard pieces. Most people without at least a college degree cant even grasp the basics. Yet how do they decide individual conflict within the game? DICE. Must be a game of chance (PS, these simulations are based on what our military uses to plan operations - someone should tell them not to base tactics on games of chance eh?).

And just because you cant or wont help us craft convincing arguments about the predominance of player decisions as the basis of most poker outcomes, that does not mean the rest of us should stop trying.

Skallagrim

[CPOSteve]

First, "I don't believe the court will find..." isn't the same as "you shouldn't try." I definitely think you should try, and that's why I'm taking part in the discussion. I think it's a tough argument to win and the BEST way to make your argument better is to have people challenge the assumptions. By all means, the only way to win the war is to keep pushing forward on as many fronts as possible.

I've now read your cited case and I stand corrected...and a wee bit smarter today. I will concede that, at a minimum, the likelihood of finding a court to rule poker a game of skill is not as low as I would've thought. That being said, I would still call it an uphill battle at best. Sadly, the image of bridge vs. the image of poker colors the opinion no matter how effective your argument may be.

As for the last part, I wouldn't consider these simulations to be games of chance because the dice that determine the battles are not "at the heart of the game." I understand that that is an imprecise phrase, but it's the best I can come up with at this point. At any rate, as you correctly point out, the skill level required to succeed at these games is so overwhelming of the "luck factor" that even a casual observer would say that skill predominates.

I think that about does it. I'm sorry I don't have any magic bullets, and I fear there's going to be a lot more bad news before there's any good. The problem of poker on the internet is almost a perfect storm of public policy nightmares. Legalizing gambling, states rights, Internet policy etc. None of these issues are easy to solve and this issue encompasses all of them. If I had one word of wisdom for everyone here it would be to vote. Vote in every single election that comes along. Your voices simply will not be heard unless you have a track record of voting. The biggest handicap you have right now is that the people who want to legalize internet gambling (predominantly young men under the age of 30) are some of the least likely people to vote and your congressmen know that. Pissing you off won't result in them losing an election.

[Skallagrim]

Thank you Steve, nice post.

PS - though if you have ever played one of those simulation games and seen your best laid battle plans thwarted by a series of bad dice rolls, you'ld want to call it a "game of chance" just as much as when your aces get cracked /images/graemlins/wink.gif.