Argument: Poker is skill because it matters who you play

[popesc]

All games that are played involve some chance and some skill.

Blackjack, for instance, is a game that is predominately chance. If you follow basic strategy, you can minimize your losses. If you are skillful at card counting, you can even achieve a positive expectation.

Baseball, on the other hand, is a game that is predominately skill. Baseball managers routinely make decisions based on statistics. If a batter hits 80% of balls to left field, a manager will shift the defense. When deciding a pinch hitter, batting average is a major consideration. Also, the best team does not win every baseball game. In fact, rarely (ever?) does a team win 75% of their games.

What is the difference between baseball and blackjack? In blackjack, it doesn't matter what casino you go to. It doesn't matter who the dealer is. Your decisions completely dictate your expectation. In baseball, it matters quite a bit who you are playing. The Yankees have a bankroll that lets them sign all the best players, and they are always a difficult (but not impossible) team to beat because of it.

It this respect, poker is more like baseball than blackjack. I can clean up the home game I attend, but wouldn't want to play in a game with 10 professionals.

Discuss.

[krupatime]

I like this argument.


However people will say it doesn't matter who you play out of ignorance. ..then you go have to show/prove it does.

[RGL]

I think you've nailed it! On first blush, I can't think of an exception.

BTW, it also clarifies why I hated The Deer Hunter.

The last 1/4 of the movie deals with head to head (literally) Russian Roulette contests in which the U.S. participant becomes a champion. It is done in the movie as if it's a wagering event in which two participants are engaging in a contest of wills and skill, when in fact it's purely a matter of chance and luck. This disconnect ruined the movie for me.

I suspect it also underlies how Hollywood usually gets it wrong when it comes to gambling. It portrays gambling as if it's person to person, from baccarat in the original Casino Royale to the multitude of crap games to the way the final hand is played in Cincinnati Kid, when what is depicted is actually luck.

And, as you point out, it's an error made by many in the political, regulatory and judicial systems. Your framing of the issue, IMHO, is the Occam's Razor.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
I like this argument.


However people will say it doesn't matter who you play out of ignorance. ..then you go have to show/prove it does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even the biggest fish in the world won't stay at a table full of nut-peddlers for too long. For many years, I've heard them pass comments complaining and I've seen them quit all kinds of tight games.

I like the OP's argument as well, but it's not completely true.

For instance, there is definitely skill (albeit a very small amount) in both sports betting and horse racing. For horses, it doesn't matter which track takes your bet. For sports, I could see an argument stating that it matters which bookie you use because there are different lines and different amounts of juice...but it's pretty negligible to call a bookie an opponent. In either case, it is the only the conditions that change, not the opponents; making them very similar to other gambling type games.

Also, blackjack can be beaten with supreme counting skill and the edge does vary from casino to casino. Some games are harder to beat than others based on the rules, the cut, and the number of decks. Of course, the dealer doesn't matter (unless you can find dealers who make mistakes and overpay /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[Our House]

...on the flip side, there are pure gambling games that involve opponents. Street craps is one followed by tossing coins and rock/paper/scissors. We understand that the opposition's skill doesn't matter in those games (meh, I've heard arguments for RPS being all about metagame, but I don't buy them) but will a judge?

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]

For instance, there is definitely skill (albeit a very small amount) in both sports betting and horse racing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pouncing on a minor point that doesn't really address the issue, I think you're wrong here. It takes as much if not more skill and work to be a successful sports bettor/horse handicapper as it does to be a successful poker player.

[popesc]

I address the skill factor inherent in some games of chance in my original post
[ QUOTE ]
If you are skillful at card counting, you can even achieve a positive expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even games that are predominantly change involve some skill. My argument is that since your opponent plays a huge part in your expectation, skill is the predominant factor in poker.

[Skallagrim]

"My argument is that since your opponent plays a huge part in your expectation, skill is the predominant factor in poker. "

You have presented a good argument for skill being a factor in poker. And, by anecdotal evidence, most would agree a big factor. The only problem with your argument, from the legal point of view, is that it doesnt seem to have a way to QUANTIFY the skill element. Without that part, there is no way to say for certain that skill predominates over chance.

So lets work on that part.

Skallagrim

[Our House]

Skall,

Have courts been able to quantify the skill element in baseball?

[Our House]

I believe I can help quantify skill elements across the board...

All games in which EV > 0 is achievable have 100% skill. This is a very important fact, so I'll repeat it.

All games in which EV > 0 is achievable have 100% skill.

That's right, 100 percent skill! The ONLY difference between these games is the time frame it takes.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
All games in which EV > 0 is achievable have 100% skill.


[/ QUOTE ]

I like this!

[popesc]

I don't think anybody questions that poker involves some skill. The legal test (at least in the recent NC case) is whether or not skill is the "predominant" factor. Quantifying the skills involved has already been done in other posts:

1) Having good starting hand requirments
2) Reading other players
3) Determining correct bet sizes
4) Calculating pot odds
5) Observing weaknesses in the play of others and exploiting it
etc.

The question that I am trying to address is whether skill is the predominant factor in poker. If chance is the predominant factor, then a rational player wouldn't worry about playing more skillful opponents.

[popesc]

Positive expectation is not an indicator of a game that is predominantly skill.

Blackjack players can achieve positive expectation via card counting.

Or, consider the following game: Flip a coin. If the result is heads, I'll pay you $2. If the result is tails, you pay me $1. You would clearly have a positive expectation, but the game would be 100% chance.

(My original post stated that all games played have some chance and some skill. It should have read "most games...")

[repulse]

[ QUOTE ]
Positive expectation is not an indicator of a game that is predominantly skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in zero-sum games though, right?


And I like the idea of the original post. It is far from seamless or even logically meaningful, but it is definitely a convincing argument as far as the semantic battle of the predominance test is concerned.

[popesc]

Zero-sum just means that for every dollar you win, I lose a dollar. In that respect my coin flip game is zero-sum, pure chance, and gives you a positive expectation (and me an equal but opposite negative expectation).

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anybody questions that poker involves some skill. The legal test (at least in the recent NC case) is whether or not skill is the "predominant" factor. Quantifying the skills involved has already been done in other posts:

1) Having good starting hand requirments
2) Reading other players
3) Determining correct bet sizes
4) Calculating pot odds
5) Observing weaknesses in the play of others and exploiting it
etc.

The question that I am trying to address is whether skill is the predominant factor in poker. If chance is the predominant factor, then a rational player wouldn't worry about playing more skillful opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not quantifying the skills thats at issue, its quantifying how often those skills make a difference and showing that its more than 1/2 the time.

I could say in response to your argument that it proves poker is only 10% skill because you know that chance will determine 90% of the hands, and skill 10% and therefore you would not want the more skilled player to win those extra 10% of the times.

Now, of course, the above numbers are pure fiction, but the logic applies. Even if I expect a more skilled person to beat me only a small percentage of the time as a result of his skill, I still would rather play the person who does not have that advantage.

Skallagrim

[popesc]

I don't think you can quantify what 50% skill means.

I was watching a baseball tournament (forgot which one), the series was tied 2-2, and the following statistic was placed on screen:

The winner of game 5 of a seven game series tied at 2-2 wins the tournament 76% of the time.

The announcer's seemed stunned about this fact. They seemed not to understand that if they flipped two coins instead of playing the last two games, the winner of game 5 would win 75% of the time.

If you start looking at statistics, you could probably convince somebody that baseball was a game of chance if you used the 50% chance criteria.

But if you want quantification, how about this:

Given the chance to play either a skillful opponent or a non-skillful opponent, I will choose the non-skillful opponent 100% of the time.

[Skallagrim]

There are 2 basic ways (so far) being discussed to quantify the effects of skill in poker:

First, the one I have proposed in numerous places (LOOK IT UP) that counts the number of hands decided by an action of a player against the number of hands decided by a final card (and ackowledges that an as yet unknown number of those final card hands must also be the result of player actions).

While numerous people have criticized my argument as irrelevant or going in the wrong direction, no one has yet refuted it.

The second argument, which no one has yet been able to quantify at all, is the manifesting of skill in the monetary results of skilled players. In other words, we all know Doyle B. wins more than an average guy at the same limits - that is his skill in action, but how can we show that his superior skill is making the difference over 50% of the time in any given hand, session, year or tournament? Or, in reverse, how could you prove that Doyle's skill is not just making him win an extra 10% of hands or money?

Skallagrim

[Uglyowl]

I would have vastly different set of results against different people. Why is that?

Are some people just inherently lucky that I would be playing against? No, I am better than some and worse than some (in other words, more skilled or less skilled)

[pokerrn72]

i would provide several graphs of winning player's results over 1,000,000 hands or so as convincing evidence that poker is predominantly a game of skill.

this seems irrefutable to me, as it is statistically impossible for someone to be lucky over that many hands.

[TruePoker CEO]

I think you need to reduce the argument further:

It is the nature of the game itself, not "who you play" which matters.

Your play affects the outcome in poker.

In games of chance (and sports betting), Heisenberg (and Pete Rose) aside, you are merely an observer whose actions do not affect the outcome of your wager. (Yes, someone throws the dice in craps, but that is a random event if the game is honest.)

Blackjack and baccarat involve some skill, i.e. decision making, but it is insufficient to overcome chance in the long run. Whether you play skillfully or not, the decisions you make will not determine the outcome, eventually you will lose.

Poker offers skill an opportunity to affect the outcome, either positively or negatively. "Who you play" may make it more or less likely you win or lose, but "who you play" does NOT matter, it is the nature of the game which matters.

Your "Who you play" argument recognizes that when the lamb lies down with the lion, only one of them will get up. However, you need to discuss the nature of the game itself, not focus on who is playing.

[repulse]

[ QUOTE ]
Zero-sum just means that for every dollar you win, I lose a dollar. In that respect my coin flip game is zero-sum, pure chance, and gives you a positive expectation (and me an equal but opposite negative expectation).

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoops. I meant symmetric, not zero-sum.

[SHnewbie]

I only have a few minutes before I have to leave for a meeting (so I haven't given this any thought yet), but I just glanced at this thread and wanted to make a brief comment on some of the results I have seen from students I have taught SH LHE. I have graded numerous 100-300 hand samples and have noticed a benchmark that I have used to help students determine how far away from becoming a 2BB/100 winning player they might be. With a small sample of 4-6 students, every student seemed to be a losing player at either 1/2 or 2/4 SH LHE until they only made mistakes on 3% of their total actions (decisions). The total actions number came directly from pokertracker and quantifies the number of total decisions the player made over a given session.

Obviously, these results are subjective, do not take into account the EV change caused by the error, and are dependant upon the competion and type of game you are playing and would likely not be a consideration for a legal argument in its current form. However, it does show that a winning player needs to make the correct decision (based on mathematics involved in the EV of the hand) roughly 97% of the time.

With the number being so high, there should be a way to quantify that skill is greater than luck in poker. In this example, we are only talking about the skill involved in playing a hand correctly and not even going into the skills involved in table selection (which would change the 3% number) and other skills in poker.

Also, it doesn't go into how a more skilled player/winner (for example, 2 BB/100 winner) can experience less monetary swings than a less skilled player/winner (for example, 1 BB/100 winner). In a sense, a player's skill can actually change the variance/luck that they are faced with in the long run.

Just some random comments that might provoke some more thought on this issue.

[popesc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Zero-sum just means that for every dollar you win, I lose a dollar. In that respect my coin flip game is zero-sum, pure chance, and gives you a positive expectation (and me an equal but opposite negative expectation).

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoops. I meant symmetric, not zero-sum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need both symmetric and zero-sum to make having a positive expectation sufficient to prove your game is skill based. Unfortunately, poker is neither (if a rake is taken).

[popesc]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to reduce the argument further:

It is the nature of the game itself, not "who you play" which matters.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because poker is predominantly skill, "who you play" matters. This is a factor in every game of skill. I would have little (no) chance to beat Tiger Woods in a round of golf, or get a hit off of Roger Clemens, because skill is a predominant factor. I can beat each of those guys at "flip the coin" about half the time.

[ QUOTE ]

Your play affects the outcome in poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't dispute this, in fact it is the reason I avoid more skillful players.

[ QUOTE ]

In many games of chance (and sports betting), Heisenberg (and Pete Rose) aside, you are merely an observer whose actions do not affect the outcome of your wager. (Yes, someone throws the dice in craps, but that is a random event if the game is honest.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Blackjack and baccarat involve some skill, i.e. decision making, but it is insufficient to overcome chance in the long run. Whether you play skillfully or not, the decisions you make will not determine the outcome, eventually you will lose.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you card count, you can achieve a positive expectation in BJ. Look at previous posts of mine above for other examples for why positive expectation is not sufficient for show a game is predominantly skill based

[ QUOTE ]

Poker offers skill an opportunity to affect the outcome, either positively or negatively.

[/ QUOTE ]

so do games of chance such as BJ, three card poker, Pai Gow, Let It Ride etc.

[ QUOTE ]

"Who you play" may make it more or less likely you win or lose, but "who you play" does NOT matter, it is the nature of the game which matters.

Your "Who you play" argument recognizes that when the lamb lies down with the lion, only one of them will get up. However, you need to discuss the nature of the game itself, not focus on who is playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

My whole point is that in games that are predominantly chance, it doesn't matter who you play. You don't care about the opponent since whether you win or lose is predominantly chance.

In games of skill, who your opponent is matters greatly. If they are more skillful, you will probably lose. If they are less skillful, you will probably win.

Caring who the competition is something unique to games that are predominantly skill. It is also a test that poker passes easily without resorting to any detailed talk of probabilities. It should be used in addition to Lederer's argument that since most hands don't make it to show down, the element of chance (i.e. the cards) usually doesn't matter. And also throw in some FTOP to quantify what "skill" in poker means.

[repulse]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need both symmetric and zero-sum to make having a positive expectation sufficient to prove your game is skill based. Unfortunately, poker is neither (if a rake is taken).

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, that's true. A hypothetical symmetric game of chance where each player was guaranteed a profit from an outside source wouldn't be skill-based.

Poker could be both, though. Rake-free, of course, as a reasonable enough simplification for the theoretical grounds of this claim. And a positive expectation in a raked game (negative-sum) would certainly be as sufficient a condition as positive expectation in a zero-sum game.

I'd say poker is essentially symmetric. Tournaments are certainly symmetric. In practice, a cash game is symmetric enough, especially if everyone always chose to join and leave the table at the optimal points in the button movement.. I think there would be a few more assumptions necessary here, but it's certainly close enough.

A cash game where players were not allowed to leave or enter until the button makes a full orbit (ensuring that all players have all possible positions at all times) would be symmetric. And if the argument could show that this type of poker game were skill-based, it'd be hard to deny the extension of this to standard poker.

[popesc]

What you're talking about is symmetric poker. Multiple tables are set up so the deal is the same at each one. You are playing against the person in the same seat as you on a different table. I saw a link to a CardPlayer article on it, but can't seem to find it now.

I agree showing that symmetric poker is predominantly skill would go a long way to convincing people poker is predominantly skill. (and to relate this to my original post, I wouldn't want to hold the same seat as Chris Ferguson)

[repulse]

No, I just meant any cash game where the probability that any given player being in any given position is equal.

For example, a heads-up cash game where an even number of hands was played would be symmetric. Each player is in each position an equal amount of the time. You'd just have to control that an even number of hands was played before one of the players quit.

The symmetric/duplicate poker thing is a good angle, too. It seems to have a better reception as being "skill" even though it presents some new sources of variance (you could lose a lot of money by folding K2s UTG if the guy at the other table donks around with it and wins a big pot).

[Skallagrim]

"It should be used in addition to Lederer's argument that since most hands don't make it to show down, the element of chance (i.e. the cards) usually doesn't matter."

Just for the record, that was Skallagrim's argument first.

[popesc]

Oops, I first saw the argument stated by Howard Lederer in a WSJ article. I did not intend to deny you any credit.

[popesc]

Since each player would not be dealt the same cards, your situation is not symmetric.

[CMHPokerMike]

Maybe this has been discussed before, but why not use a computer simulation of some kind to attempt to prove this.

Have two "logics" for computerized (limit) poker players. One to make purely random decisions. The other to make decisions based on a simple set of rules which would roughly approximate the play of someone who had a bit of a clue. (I'm not trying to trivialize how hard that would be.)

Have the randoms play against each other for millions of hands with essentially infinite stacks. Then have a table of 1 rules player against the randoms for millions of hands. Then have a table of all rules players. I would think that the table with 1 rules/9 randoms would have the rules player at a significant advantage. The all-rules/all-random tables should end up with everyone having roughly equal stacks.

Thoughts?

[The Bryce]

This is silly. In order to play good poker you have to accurately assess the likelihood of your opponents actions and then choose the actions that are going to have the highest average expected return. The more accurately you assess your opponents actions, the higher your expected return. The more knowledgeable you are about poker and the better the lines you choose, the higher your expected return. The fact that poker hasn't been proved as a game of skill in court makes me think that someone somewhere has been very lazy.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Oops, I first saw the argument stated by Howard Lederer in a WSJ article. I did not intend to deny you any credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to apologize, maybe its Howard who should give me credit /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

Maybe Howard gave it to the WSJ reporter after thinking of it himself (he is a smart man and I have no way of knowing for sure).

And maybe it was only coincidentally after I have been posting it around the web for a few months and had sent it directly to the PPA board.

Seriously, I am far more concerned that this argument, OR SOME BETTER ONE I HAVE YET TO HEAR, gets the job done.

Still, especially if the argument works, it would, of course, stroke my ego to get some credit, but nobody "owns" an argument.

Skallagrim

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe I can help quantify skill elements across the board...

All games in which EV > 0 is achievable have 100% skill. This is a very important fact, so I'll repeat it.

All games in which EV > 0 is achievable have 100% skill.

That's right, 100 percent skill! The ONLY difference between these games is the time frame it takes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Addressed this in another thread.

If the powerball grew large enough such that buying tickets was suddenly +EV, your argument would declare the lottery a skill based game. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Whether it's possible to 'beat' a game or not has nothing to do with whether or not chance predominates skill.

[popesc]

ok, back to the original topic.

Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly chance and where it matters who your opponent is?

Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly skill and where you don't care who your opponent is?

If the answer to each of the above questions is no, then we have a very convincing test that can be applied to games to determine if they are predominantly skill or predominantly chance.

I can't think of a way to answer either question yes.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, back to the original topic.

Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly chance and where it matters who your opponent is?


[/ QUOTE ]

Roshambo

And on another level: slots, lottery, etc.. All offer different odds and chances.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly chance and where it matters who your opponent is?

[/ QUOTE ]
Rock/Paper/Scissors as I mentioned before is definitely a chance game. However, some opponents may be predictable and therefore can be metagamed into losing.

[ QUOTE ]
Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly skill and where you don't care who your opponent is?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't think of one yet. Good argument.

[popesc]

A lottery with different odds is inherently a different game. Given the same lottery, it doesn't matter who sells you the ticket.

[Rastadon]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anybody think of a game that is predominantly chance and where it matters who your opponent is?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about chees-n-flip? Play chess for $40 and then flip a coin for $60. This game is at least 60% chance, but I don't think you want to play a chess gm at it.

[popesc]

Chess-n-flip is very interesting. It illustrates a hurdle that must be overcome with poker. The idea that you can measure the "amount" of chance and the "amount" of skill in a game and add them to get 100% puts us on a path where I don't think poker wins.

But for argument's sake, in chess-n-play, your skill in chess is what determines if your EV is +40, -40 or something in between, so skill is the predominant factor in determining your expectation for the game.

[Skallagrim]

popesc, whats wrong with saying chance in poker is when the cards determine the winner? Since most hands are resolved without seeing all the cards (folding to the winner), that moves most hands out of the chance category right up front.

We can then argue about the % of chance in hands that do go to showdown, and the amount of skill involved in maximizing winnings and minimizing losses, but we are already above 50% not chance.

Skallagrim

And yes, while some people play poker at such small stakes that they do go to the river more than 50% of the time, thats not most poker. Its like trying to determine if baseball is a game of skill by watching a group of overweight 40 yr olds with no training play an afternoon softball game while drinking: they swing wildly at every pitch and its pure luck when they connect. And a little league team would beat them almost every time.

[tautomer]

I think some kind of heads up experiment can be done. Set up a game of a certain number of hands where the hole cards and board cards are known beforehand by the person running the experiment. It needs to be set up such that it is an EV neutral game overall. By that I mean each players average EV is 50% preflop and on all streets by the end. This should reduce variance overall. Obviously you wouldn't want any AA vs KK hands etc. Have matches of skilled players vs novices, skilled players vs skilled players, and novices vs novices. It would be quite an undertaking but I think the results would give very good evidence for skill being the overwhelming factor in poker.

[popesc]

I don't want to break down your argument because I like it. But,

Betting on a given hand is highly (but not completely) correlated with the strength of the hand you are dealt, which is an element of chance. So even hands that are not shown down contain some element of chance.

As soon as the cards are dealt, chance has entered into the equation. And chance is an element on every hand. If we try to get into a debate of percentages, poker won't win. Every hand has some element of chance, and every hand can be played skillfully.

Consider this: In a game of skill played between two equally matched opponents, the result will be determined by chance.

[Skallagrim]

You say this popesc, "If we try to get into a debate of percentages, poker won't win" but why?

If I respond to a chance situation, is my response the result of chance?

If I walk down the street and happen to see a person drop their cell phone, thats chance. My decision to either ignore it, return it to them, or keep it is not chance even though without chance I would never have had to make that decision.

What makes it so hard to accept that a decision about your cards is not chance even though what cards you have are the result of chance?

Just because you routinely fold 2-7 doesnt mean that you have to the next time it is dealt to you.

If you get dealt 2 cards and flip a coin to decide your play, that is chance. If you use your brain, that is skill.

And it is skill even if its the "wrong" play, and it is skill even if your a simpleton who knows little about poker and bets because "its my favorite hand."

Cards are chance, play is skill. Tell me where I am wrong?

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
A lottery with different odds is inherently a different game. Given the same lottery, it doesn't matter who sells you the ticket.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying playing poker with a table of fish is an inherently different game than playing with a table of rocks. It's not. It's the exact same game, just your correct strategy and expectation changes.

[popesc]

I don't think you are wrong, I just think that your argument might not convince a judge. It might, but if it doesn't we need more points to raise.

If we talk percentages, people will immediately associate the discussion with chance. In addition, I think poker is too complicated to definitively say that >50% of hands are decided by skill (or >50% are decided by chance).

I agree that every decision in poker requires some skill, and you are put into every situation by chance. I'm definitely going to lose money if by chance I never get into a good situation. I will definitely make money in the long run if I play the game skillfully. I think you can easily show both statements empirically, but neither is convincing in showing poker is predominantly skill.

We need to frame the debate so that we win. Instead of trying to come up with some arbitrary measure that says poker is >50% skill, I think it is easier to show similarities between poker and accepted games of skill, and dissimilarities between poker and accepted games of chance.

[Skallagrim]

Fair enough popesc.

Unfortunately, being less than 50% chance is precisely what most laws require us to prove at present. I would agree that other there are other and better tests, but this is the one the law has given us, and that is not likely to change anytime in the near future.

Skallagrim

PS, I want you to take the argument apart if you can. I want to be able to anticipate any flaws or responses before having to present it to a judge or (preferably) a jury.

And I do appreciate every argument made here. Although I do think the one I have is still the central one precisely because it follows the legal test, all the other arguments are also part of the arsenal. Dont stop them just because I keep bringing you guys back to what the law requires.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to reduce the argument further:

It is the nature of the game itself, not "who you play" which matters.

Your play affects the outcome in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as we stay focused on equating "outcome" with "money won or lost" rather than "hand won or lost"... that might have a chance.

Otherwise, any person will point to someone who was "lucky" enough to catch a 2-outer and win as proof that chance rules all.

[popesc]

I thought the legal test was whether chance was the predominant factor.

I don't know what the legal definition of predominant is, but the dictionary definition is "having greatest importance". Back to my original argument, poker is a game of skill because the relative skill of the players is much more important than the cards.

In your cell phone example, there were two things that happened. By chance, a cell phone was dropped, then you decided what to do with it. 2 things occurred, 1 was by chance, so 50% chance was involved. What you did, though, was much more important than the phone dropping.

[popesc]

A better argument for why predominant does not necessarily mean >50%:

Air is 78% nitrogen, but the 21% that is oxygen is the predominant factor in making it breathable.

[Skallagrim]

Thats quite creative popesc, and I think I would use the part about "importance" to emphasize that "outcome" really should include getting the most chips not just winning the hand.

But no judge I have ever been in front of would buy the argument that "air is predominantly oxygen" /images/graemlins/wink.gif (unless he or she were bought off).