WSJ: Harvard Ponders Just What It Takes to Excel at Poker

[burningyen]

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

[PBJaxx]

Good read, thanks.

[Big Bend]

I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, and was pleasantly surprised to see the front page article with Howard Ledderer's pic on it. One thing Howard mentions is that most poker pots are won without ever showing a hand... so how could that be considered a game of "luck". Hopefully this Harvard group can help enlighten the idiots who think poker should be illegal.

BB

[Uglyowl]

Good article.. of interest:

Joining them is the newly muscular Poker Players Alliance, the game's lobbying group, whose membership has swelled to more than 400,000 .

[Sparta45]

Good read.

What's sad is to read the forums they link you to in which people discuss whether poker is skill or luck. Reading some of the logic being used explains why it is so hard to convince somebody that poker is a skill game....

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, and was pleasantly surprised to see the front page article with Howard Ledderer's pic on it. One thing Howard mentions is that most poker pots are won without ever showing a hand... so how could that be considered a game of "luck". Hopefully this Harvard group can help enlighten the idiots who think poker should be illegal.

BB

[/ QUOTE ] One thing Howard mentions is that most poker pots are won without ever showing a hand... so how could that be considered a game of "luck".

I thought of that argument first.

Skallagrim

[hlacheen]

Yea just read it in the paper. So glad to see this in mainstream press.

I also found Steve Levitt's new project "Pokernomics" interesting in theory:

http://www.pokernomics.com/

[MasterLJ]

I think the most effective argument is to start two players out with $X. Have one player employee strategy, have the other purposefully try to lose it all as fast as possible.

This should clearly demonstrate there are winning and losing strategies and by simple implication, skill.

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the most effective argument is to start two players out with $X. Have one player employee strategy, have the other purposefully try to lose it all as fast as possible.

This should clearly demonstrate there are winning and losing strategies and by simple implication, skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this meeting, Lederer suggested a similar proof that is also probably a bit more rigorous. Suppose your opponent employed a completely skill-less strategy, ie choosing randomly whether to raise, fold, or call at every decision point, without regard to the strength of his hand or anything else. Lederer claims he can demonstrate mathematically that he could beat this strategy 96.5% of the time ON ANY GIVEN HAND.

[Tofu_boy]

Thanks for the Link.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the most effective argument is to start two players out with $X. Have one player employee strategy, have the other purposefully try to lose it all as fast as possible.

This should clearly demonstrate there are winning and losing strategies and by simple implication, skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this meeting, Lederer suggested a similar proof that is also probably a bit more rigorous. Suppose your opponent employed a completely skill-less strategy, ie choosing randomly whether to raise, fold, or call at every decision point, without regard to the strength of his hand or anything else. Lederer claims he can demonstrate mathematically that he could beat this strategy 96.5% of the time ON ANY GIVEN HAND.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lederer's strategy is to bet/re-raise at every decision point. Opponent will usually fold at some point, plus Lederer wins half the showdowns.

[xxx]

nice article

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing Howard mentions is that most poker pots are won without ever showing a hand... so how could that be considered a game of "luck".

I thought of that argument first.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and didn't Annie's argument come from Sklansky's son?

[PokerAmateur4]

I am disappointed greatly whenever I see someone saying that contacting representatives etc. is a waste of time. Here, a bunch of people contact this representative, then we get a bill:
From the article:
"
Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler says he has drafted a more specific bill after being besieged by poker players in his South Florida district. "My bill will say that poker is a skill," he says."

[demon102]

obviously poker is a game of skill, I can beat everyone in this thread and everyone that posts in 2+2!!! that should be enough that poker is a game of skill.

[Uglyowl]

The article is in the top 5 most popular articles at the journal, so it is getting quite a look at.

[bobhalford]

If poker is recognized as a game of skill, does that have any bearing on it's legalization?

There was a time when pinball was illegal because it was considered gambling. They had to bring a pinball machine into the courtroom to demonstrate the skill involved. Perhaps a similar argument needs to be made in order to legalize poker.

[rando]

Everyone who clicks on that link should vote in the poll, right now 76% skill, 24% luck... not to shabby!

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is recognized as a game of skill, does that have any bearing on it's legalization?

There was a time when pinball was illegal because it was considered gambling. They had to bring a pinball machine into the courtroom to demonstrate the skill involved. Perhaps a similar argument needs to be made in order to legalize poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

If poker is legally recognized as a game of skill then it is perfectly legal to play it for money, both online and live, in about 35 states. The other 15 or so states either outlaw poker specifically, or have laws so broad (like SC - cant play ANY card game for money) that the skill v. luck debate wont apply.

And I totally agree with you as to the right courtroom tactic. Part of any case presentation should include a walk through of 10 or 20 hands with expert commmentary on what the players were thinking and deciding as they chose their actions. Too many people think that its always "I got these 2 cards, I must do this" and no more.

I think a judge or jury actually hearing ALL of the considerations Phil Ivey makes before deciding to fold, bet, call or raise, would go a long way in convincing them that poker is mostly a skill game.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am disappointed greatly whenever I see someone saying that contacting representatives etc. is a waste of time. Here, a bunch of people contact this representative, then we get a bill:
From the article:
"
Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler says he has drafted a more specific bill after being besieged by poker players in his South Florida district. "My bill will say that poker is a skill," he says."

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

By the way, Wexler went from being our enemy in 2000 to being with us against HR 4411 to cosponsoring HR 2046 (the Frank bill) to considering authoring his own legislation. Similarly, Peter King went from voting for HR 4411 and allowing UIGEA into the Safe Port Act to cosponsoring the Frank bill. This shows the power of educating our representatives.

[cuserounder]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a judge or jury actually hearing ALL of the considerations Phil Ivey makes before deciding to fold, bet, call or raise, would go a long way in convincing them that poker is mostly a skill game.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking that one step farther, if there was a demonstration of a person who had never played before playing 20 hands and describing what considerations they are making before each decision, then an average player, then a winning player, then a pro. It would be very very clear there was a great deal of skill involved in the decision making. Imagine a new player, who would basically be saying he's not thinking of much.. As opposed to a pro going through the full spectrum of a decision.

Then the correlation between skill and winning needs to be shown, which would be fairly simple with perhaps some hand databases from winning and losing players who have played 100K hands.

[S550]

good post cuserounder. . .i agree the difference in the levels of thinking and the # of factor considered and decisions being made will will very greatly between all 4 ranks (newbie, amateur, serious amateur/semipro, and pro player) well stated post

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the most effective argument is to start two players out with $X. Have one player employee strategy, have the other purposefully try to lose it all as fast as possible.

This should clearly demonstrate there are winning and losing strategies and by simple implication, skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with that argument is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that argument is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that a point in our FAVOR?

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that argument is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that a point in our FAVOR?

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If we're arguing that any game where there is an easy way to lose means it is a skill based game, it doesn't bode well that luck based games like blackjack would be considered skill games under this set of rules.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that argument is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that a point in our FAVOR?

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If we're arguing that any game where there is an easy way to lose means it is a skill based game, it doesn't bode well that luck based games like blackjack would be considered skill games under this set of rules.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't realize we were placing BJ in the "luckbox" game category... then again, with the LV rules I saw recently, you might have a point.

What am I misinterpreting about this statement:
"is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques"

... other than I wasn't calling BJ a mainly luck game? And even so, if a luckbox game's $$ results can be affected by losing strategies (i.e. lack of skill), then shouldn't that show that poker results, with a lot LESS luck, should be greatly affected by skill?

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that argument is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that a point in our FAVOR?

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? If we're arguing that any game where there is an easy way to lose means it is a skill based game, it doesn't bode well that luck based games like blackjack would be considered skill games under this set of rules.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't realize we were placing BJ in the "luckbox" game category... then again, with the LV rules I saw recently, you might have a point.

What am I misinterpreting about this statement:
"is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques"

... other than I wasn't calling BJ a mainly luck game? And even so, if a luckbox game's $$ results can be affected by losing strategies (i.e. lack of skill), then shouldn't that show that poker results, with a lot LESS luck, should be greatly affected by skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Blackjack has some skill decisions, yes. But it is not a game that can be beaten in the longrun (unless you can count cards of course). I don't think what I'm saying is that hard to comprehend, if you're going to make a set of rules that define a "skilled" game, it's going to be completely moot if blackjack would be considered a skill game.

If you don't consider BJ a game of luck, then I don't know what else to tell you but there is no chance we could successfully use blackjack to show why poker is a skill game. There are many more effective arguments that would actually appeal to most Americans.

[UF_Gators]

[ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize we were placing BJ in the "luckbox" game category... then again, with the LV rules I saw recently, you might have a point.

What am I misinterpreting about this statement:
"is that games of mainly luck that feature any amount of skill at all, like blackjack, all have obvious losing techniques"

... other than I wasn't calling BJ a mainly luck game? And even so, if a luckbox game's $$ results can be affected by losing strategies (i.e. lack of skill), then shouldn't that show that poker results, with a lot LESS luck, should be greatly affected by skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't call Blackjack a game of 'skill'. True you have the opportunity to make decisions that affect the outcome, but there is a mathematical certainty to every one of those decisions. A complete idiot could sit down at a Blackjack table with a grid showing the statistically best play for each situation and win at a rate approaching about 49% over a large number of hands. Same for anybody else no matter how intelligent or 'skilled'.

The decisions you make in poker involve judgment. There are probabilities involved in drawing, but ultimately you have to make a judgment about the range of hands you opponent could have based on his prior holdings, betting action, apparent emotional state, appearance, etc. Those who have the ability to recognize patterns, remember hands, read people, etc are more 'skilled' at playing poker than the average Joe that can't.

[AaronT]

Hmmm... considering the on-going comparison between blackjack and poker.

If Blackjack is not skilled because Blackjack has a mathmatically optimal play for each decision we have a problem for poker. Poker likewise has a mathmatically optimal play for each decision. There is undoubtably a Nash Equilibrium strategy for the game where each player plays optimally. It's just that the game has yet to be solved. If the argument is that blackjack is not skill based for the reason that mathmatically optimal play exists then that argument should extend to poker as well.

If you don't buy that, consider that once the game is solved one could produce a chart much like those that exist for blackjack that state what to do under any possible situation. Granted it would be a HUGE chart, but it's not inconceivable. The chart would likely also differ in that in many situations the answer would be fold X% of the time, call Y% of the time, and raise Z% of the time instead of always do W.

Aaron

[Skallagrim]

Such a chart would be possible for every game that involves decision making.

Blackjack is a game of chance that allows for the exercise of some skill, but skill alone can never win the game - the cards determine every outcome.

Poker is a game of skill that includes an element of chance. Skill, the decisions of the players, determines most outcomes, but chance has the ability to come in and determine some outcomes.

In both games a mathematically correct model can be devised that allows for the knowledgable players to maximize their expected return based on probabilities, but only in poker can that advantage be further advanced by skilled play which allows you to win hands that pure chance would have otherwise led you to lose.

Finally, poker is a game against other humans, allowing for psychological factors to come into play and varying levels of skill to also affect outcomes. Blackjack is played against the house which cannot be influenced psychologically nor can it vary its level of skill.

Nuff said.

Skallagrim

[KipBond]

Any game, including poker, is a game of skill to the extent that the actions of you (and any teammates/opponents) determine the outcome of the game. It is a game of luck to the extent that the outcome is determined by other criteria (usually a non-predictable/random event within the game).

Poker is fairly unique in that some games can be mostly luck, while others are mostly skill. For example: a poker tournament with 2 people both with $1,000 in chips, where the blinds are $1,000/$2,000 is completely determined by luck. Same tournament, 2 people, with blinds of $1/$2, increasing gradually every 120 minutes, is mostly skill.

[Taso]

Anyone else think the idea of a poker university is BAD? Why do we want to educate poker players?! God no.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else think the idea of a poker university is BAD? Why do we want to educate poker players?! God no.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you know what - when people say that playing cards for a living is like drug dealing (which is what a poker pro claims his father thought of professional poker playing when he told his father he was dropping out of college, according to a bio on him which I read the other day), my response? "I didn't write the rule that money is what makes the world go around. That was Adam Smith or Ayn Rand or maybe Liza Minelli, but money IS an essential fact of life. Just like sex." I'm not sure exactly why running sanitation services or manufacturing arms are considered more respectable than playing poker for a living, but it's true. :shrug:

[AaronT]

[ QUOTE ]
Such a chart would be possible for every game that involves decision making.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. So, per UF_Gators there is no such thing as a game of skill. His argument, as I read it, was that blackjack was not a game of skill because anyone could simply follow a pre-calculated optimal strategy. And per your assertion any game, in theory, could be solved and the optimal strategy determined.

[ QUOTE ]
Blackjack is a game of chance that allows for the exercise of some skill, but skill alone can never win the game - the cards determine every outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

False, the cards do NOT determine every outcome. I can choose to continue to hit until I bust and then the outcome was determined strictly on skill (or lack thereof).

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a game of skill that includes an element of chance. Skill, the decisions of the players, determines most outcomes, but chance has the ability to come in and determine some outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is question begging. You've defined skill in support of a position in a discussion that's purpose is to define skill. Regardless, however, your statement applies to blackjack as well as poker as long as you remove the artificial stipulator of "most" which, as KipBond points out you can't even apply to all of poker.

[ QUOTE ]
In both games a mathematically correct model can be devised that allows for the knowledgable players to maximize their expected return based on probabilities, but only in poker can that advantage be further advanced by skilled play which allows you to win hands that pure chance would have otherwise led you to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by "hands that pure chance would have otherwise led you to lose." It is tautological that in a game that allows decisions that can effect the outcome that the outcome can be effected by the decisions.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, poker is a game against other humans, allowing for psychological factors to come into play and varying levels of skill to also affect outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Varying levels of skill effect outcomes in Blackjack as well. That does not distinguish the two.

[ QUOTE ]
Blackjack is played against the house which cannot be influenced psychologically nor can it vary its level of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that poker against a computer AI is not poker? That looks like a true Scottsman fallacy to me.

My original point, which I still hold on to, is that if UF_Gators is correct in considering blackjack not a game of skill for the reason that a mathmatically optimal solution exists then poker is also not a game of skill.

Let's consider a definition of skill. Let us call skill the propensity of a given player to make a decision consistant with the optimal strategy for the game. Then, as I understand UF_Gators, for games in which there are solutions (which you correctly point out is all games) the existance of an optimal strategy means that everyone should play optimally as robots which negates the skill factor between players leaving only chance to determine outcomes.

Of course the easier thing to do is to simply reject UF_Gators reason for not considering blackjack a game of skill. This is the tact I take.

Aaron

[koolmoe]

Whether Blackjack (or any other game for which all strategies are <= 0 EV) is considered a "game of skill" is immaterial because the optimal strategy for any such game is simply not playing it.

IMO, any reasonable definition of a "game of skill" or a "game in which skill predominates" must stipulate that there exists at least one strategy for which playing the game using said strategy gives the contestant positive expectation.

That definition would be a little to technical for the average person to understand, I think.

[questions]

If blackjack were a game of chance, neither card counters nor those who somehow win on a consistent basis would be barred from casinos.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether Blackjack (or any other game for which all strategies are <= 0 EV) is considered a "game of skill" is immaterial because the optimal strategy for any such game is simply not playing it.

IMO, any reasonable definition of a "game of skill" or a "game in which skill predominates" must stipulate that there exists at least one strategy for which playing the game using said strategy gives the contestant positive expectation.

That definition would be a little to technical for the average person to understand, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Value" is subjective. Some people might just really like playing the game, even if they will lose money in the long-run. If it costs $5/person to enter a chess tournament, where there is no monetary prize -- that doesn't mean the game is not a game of skill.

It's a game of skill because your actions (and those of your opponent) determine the outcome of the game. There are usually no outside events in chess that determine the winner -- it's entirely a game of skill.

[Skallagrim]

OK Aaron, lets play the sparse the quote and nitpick game:


[ QUOTE ]
Blackjack is a game of chance that allows for the exercise of some skill, but skill alone can never win the game - the cards determine every outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
False, the cards do NOT determine every outcome. I can choose to continue to hit until I bust and then the outcome was determined strictly on skill (or lack thereof).

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, my bad, I assumed we could all understand that we are talking about trying to beat a game, not an attempt to purposely lose it. I conceed, you could determine MOST hands in BJ, though not all. Once in a while the cards will deal you a Blackjack that is not matched by the House. So you are wrong to say you could lose every hand. - How does it feel to be nitpicked?


[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a game of skill that includes an element of chance. Skill, the decisions of the players, determines most outcomes, but chance has the ability to come in and determine some outcomes.
[ QUOTE ]
This is question begging. You've defined skill in support of a position in a discussion that's purpose is to define skill. Regardless, however, your statement applies to blackjack as well as poker as long as you remove the artificial stipulator of "most" which, as KipBond points out you can't even apply to all of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

No Question begging, this is the conclusion, not the argument.


[ QUOTE ]
In both games a mathematically correct model can be devised that allows for the knowledgable players to maximize their expected return based on probabilities, but only in poker can that advantage be further advanced by skilled play which allows you to win hands that pure chance would have otherwise led you to lose.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by "hands that pure chance would have otherwise led you to lose." It is tautological that in a game that allows decisions that can effect the outcome that the outcome can be effected by the decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean you can bluff people off hands. Cant do that in BJ.


[ QUOTE ]
Finally, poker is a game against other humans, allowing for psychological factors to come into play and varying levels of skill to also affect outcomes.

[ QUOTE ]
Varying levels of skill effect outcomes in Blackjack as well. That does not distinguish the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point entirely, the skill of the guy sitting next to you has no effect on the outcome (other than the guy (s) on the right who will randomly influence the cards you get by their hitting or not - sorry to deprive you of that nitpick in advance).


[ QUOTE ]
Blackjack is played against the house which cannot be influenced psychologically nor can it vary its level of skill.
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that poker against a computer AI is not poker? That looks like a true Scottsman fallacy to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be, if that was even remotely implied by what I said. Can you name this famous fallacy: "A" and "B" are sets that overlap, Set "C" does not overlap with "B," therefore set C and A do not overlap...?


[ QUOTE ]
My original point, which I still hold on to, is that if UF_Gators is correct in considering blackjack not a game of skill for the reason that a mathmatically optimal solution exists then poker is also not a game of skill.

Let's consider a definition of skill. Let us call skill the propensity of a given player to make a decision consistant with the optimal strategy for the game. Then, as I understand UF_Gators, for games in which there are solutions (which you correctly point out is all games) the existance of an optimal strategy means that everyone should play optimally as robots which negates the skill factor between players leaving only chance to determine outcomes.

Of course the easier thing to do is to simply reject UF_Gators reason for not considering blackjack a game of skill. This is the tact I take.

Aaron

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont agree with gator either (which I thought was obvious).

But you say "Let us call skill the propensity of a given player to make a decision consistant with the optimal strategy for the game." So a player who shows ZERO POINT FIVE (0.5) propensity for optimal strategy is still exercising skill isnt he? Its just BAD skill.

And so you have failed to refute my original premise, decisions are skill, cards are chance, and decisions determine at least some winning outcomes in poker. In Blackjack, the only decision that can DETERMINE an outcome, is the decision to hit till you bust and thus purposely lose most of the time.

Skallagrim

[koolmoe]

[ QUOTE ]
"Value" is subjective. Some people might just really like playing the game, even if they will lose money in the long-run. If it costs $5/person to enter a chess tournament, where there is no monetary prize -- that doesn't mean the game is not a game of skill.

It's a game of skill because your actions (and those of your opponent) determine the outcome of the game. There are usually no outside events in chess that determine the winner -- it's entirely a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, no amount of skill can influence the outcome from a wagering point of view, so I would argue that it is not a game of wagering skill though winning the tournament would certainly require chess skill.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether Blackjack (or any other game for which all strategies are <= 0 EV) is considered a "game of skill" is immaterial because the optimal strategy for any such game is simply not playing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why we're spending so much time on blackjack, but I do come from a card-counting background, so I'll take a stab at it.

Without ANY advantage techniques, MOST blackjack games are -EV. Some are +EV following perfect basic strategy, though none I can think of in the U.S (unless there's a promotion). The SD at Barona is close to break-even.

Following a strategy card cannot make a -EV game +EV, so that's not skill. Blackjack can be +EV by card counting, hole carding, ace sequencing, couponing, comp hustling, shuffle tracking, and many other ways. These are all skills (even the couponing). Skill is required to turn a -EV game into a +EV game.

The IRS recognizes blackjack as a game of skill for a professional gambler.

[Skallagrim]

Agreed Engineer, but just so the debate does not get further muddied up, your statement "The IRS recognizes blackjack as a game of skill for a professional gambler" is correct because the IRS only demands a game have SOME skill to be so classified for tax puposes. For determining whether a game is gambling as legally defined, the test is MOSTLY skill with respect too the outcome of the game, or, more correctly, outcomes are determined less than 50% of the time by chance.

[EGO]

I posted some musings in the NC (North Carolina) thread, but I thought I summarize them here.

Poker is a game of both luck and skill. The argument is how much luck, and how much skill?

How may times have we seen a post in these forums where somebody is asking about results after 1000 hands, or 5000 hands, or even 10,000 hands? Pretty darned often. At least often enough to garner snotty responses, and instructions to read the FAQ, or sometimes some kind soul pointing out that even 10,000 hands is not enough to overcome luck? There is a clear belief by the majority of poker players that it takes a huge amount of hands for skill to overtake luck.

I'm not sure that most poker players will play enough hands for their skill to overcome luck. It seems that whether or not poker is a game of skill depends on who is playing it, and how long they play for.

[Lottery Larry]

"Poker is at heart a betting game in which players compete against one another for a growing pot of money. Players win either by getting the others to fold their cards or by having the best hand, ranked according to a hierarchy."


Arggghh, NO! Players collect MONEY by getting others to fold or by having the best hand.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
"Poker is at heart a betting game in which players compete against one another for a growing pot of money. Players win either by getting the others to fold their cards or by having the best hand, ranked according to a hierarchy."


Arggghh, NO! Players collect MONEY by getting others to fold or by having the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Collecting money = winning, right?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed Engineer, but just so the debate does not get further muddied up, your statement "The IRS recognizes blackjack as a game of skill for a professional gambler" is correct because the IRS only demands a game have SOME skill to be so classified for tax puposes. For determining whether a game is gambling as legally defined, the test is MOSTLY skill with respect too the outcome of the game, or, more correctly, outcomes are determined less than 50% of the time by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where the debate gets tricky. Our goal isn't to prove to a judge that skilled poker players win long-term. Rather, we have to satisfy some legal definition of skill, which varies from state to state. I wonder if the PPA or some other organization will finance an experienced gaming attorney who can bring in some experts next time a case like this comes up.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed Engineer, but just so the debate does not get further muddied up, your statement "The IRS recognizes blackjack as a game of skill for a professional gambler" is correct because the IRS only demands a game have SOME skill to be so classified for tax puposes. For determining whether a game is gambling as legally defined, the test is MOSTLY skill with respect too the outcome of the game, or, more correctly, outcomes are determined less than 50% of the time by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where the debate gets tricky. Our goal isn't to prove to a judge that skilled poker players win long-term. Rather, we have to satisfy some legal definition of skill, which varies from state to state. I wonder if the PPA or some other organization will finance an experienced gaming attorney who can bring in some experts next time a case like this comes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This, surprise surprise, is exactly what I (an experienced criminal defense attorney) am preparing to do. Do not ask me for any specifics, but I have clients who may need this argument someday.

If not me and my client then some other lawyer and his or her client. Whoever finds themselves in the spot to make the argument, we all win if they win, and we all should help. You help work the legislative side Engineer, I am helping work the litigation side, we all want to end up in the same place, we all need to support each other.

Oh, but if the PPA (of which I am a member) would want to finance me, well I'd be a fool to say no .... /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This, surprise surprise, is exactly what I (an experienced criminal defense attorney) am preparing to do. Do not ask me for any specifics, but I have clients who may need this argument someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no idea. Sweet! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Best of luck if it goes to litigation.

[ QUOTE ]
You help work the legislative side Engineer, I am helping work the litigation side, we all want to end up in the same place, we all need to support each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent. I've supported your efforts to date and will continue to do so. I appreciate the support you've provided to my efforts as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, but if the PPA (of which I am a member) would want to finance me, well I'd be a fool to say no .... /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

One never knows. Best of luck.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Poker is at heart a betting game in which players compete against one another for a growing pot of money. Players win either by getting the others to fold their cards or by having the best hand, ranked according to a hierarchy."


Arggghh, NO! Players collect MONEY by getting others to fold or by having the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Collecting money = winning, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not really.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Poker is at heart a betting game in which players compete against one another for a growing pot of money. Players win either by getting the others to fold their cards or by having the best hand, ranked according to a hierarchy."


Arggghh, NO! Players collect MONEY by getting others to fold or by having the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Collecting money = winning, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not really.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can have -BB/100 stats and still be winning? What are you talking about?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arggghh, NO! Players collect MONEY by getting others to fold or by having the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Collecting money = winning, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not really.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can have -BB/100 stats and still be winning? What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not- you answered your question for me.

Think about what that -BB rate means, as far as the type of player and the number of hands involved in vs. won...

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Blackjack is a game of chance that allows for the exercise of some skill, but skill alone can never win the game - the cards determine every outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

The cards do NOT determine the important outcome, which is money won/lost. Same as poker (but much, much simpler for BJ, of course).

But we've hit on this before, so I won't rehash.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Our goal isn't to prove to a judge that skilled poker players win long-term. Rather, we have to satisfy some legal definition of skill, which varies from state to state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting- I would have thought that the goal you said we don't want WAS the best way to prove that poker takes more skill than "luck"

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arggghh, NO! Players collect MONEY by getting others to fold or by having the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Collecting money = winning, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not really.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can have -BB/100 stats and still be winning? What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not- you answered your question for me.

Think about what that -BB rate means, as far as the type of player and the number of hands involved in vs. won...

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so the problem is he missed the "long term" aspect.