(Revised) Poll: is poker gambling or not?

[Chris Alger]

I would appreciate votes and feedback on what might appear to be a fairly simple question. The issue is whether poker should be considered gambling according to a particular definition.

[cowboyzfan]

poker is gambling. you bet money hoping to win, most lose. I understand your desire to not calling it gambling. Yet, Ed Miller clearly explained why it is gambling in his book, Small Stakes Hold'em.

To me, this issue is tough because most Americans want the government to solve all their problems. We are a society of victims, with no desire to have personal responsibility.

Then enemies of personal responsibility can never explain why the government has the right to tell people what they can and can't do with their money. You know they are completly out of ammo when they say "it is for the children".

The problem with this online gambling issue is that those who support it, have no natural allies. The left wants the governement to control their economic lives and the right wants them to control their social lives.

Some have mentioned the name Jack Abramoff in this issue. But Abramoff was supporting Indian casinos, in other words, attacking gaming in other venues. Same with Vegas, they don't want a free reign for online gambling, they want Americans to be forced to go to Nevada or AC to gamble.

I don't see any indigenous American special interest fighting for the rights of freedom.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
"Gambling" means risking money on the outcome of an event over which the person taking the risk has no control.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a rough part to work through. I can see it going either way, but I voted for it is.

[grapabo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Gambling" means risking money on the outcome of an event over which the person taking the risk has no control.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a rough part to work through. I can see it going either way, but I voted for it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of had the same issue. Yes, at the end of the decision-making process, one has no control over the outcome when the risk is taken, but the skill in poker is deciding whether and when to take that risk, and to maximize the amount of control over the outcome as much as possible. This is particularly true in games where you're up against other people, as opposed to the house games.

[Hellmouth]

Poker is gambling in the short term, skill over the long term. Although we cannot influence the cards, by playign proper strategy we can eek out a small +EV.

Greg

[jaffa]

The element of bluff, means that you would have some control. If you were a good player you'd be able to win hands you wouldn't otherwise win. Also, it, technically, could be possible to win almost every hand if you were so amazing at bluffing and general play that you could convince everyone at the table you had the best hand each time. Obviously no one actually exists like this, but it the rules allow it to happen. Also, because you can fold, after seeing your cards, preflop, without putting money into the pot, that surely counts as some control. I voted no anyway. But its a tough call, and is that the standard definition of gambling?

[Hybrid_11]

but technically speaking you have no control, and theres no way to change that, a clear yes to the question. You'll never have control, there is no way you cant consider it anything but gambling.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is gambling in the short term, skill over the long term. Although we cannot influence the cards, by playign proper strategy we can eek out a small +EV.

Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does +EV mean skill?

If the rake was incredibly high, making it unprofitable for every player, would the game still be skill?

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is gambling in the short term, skill over the long term. Although we cannot influence the cards, by playign proper strategy we can eek out a small +EV.

Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does +EV mean skill?

If the rake was incredibly high, making it unprofitable for every player, would the game still be skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the game can not possibly be +EV without skill based on the current rake structure. If things change than they change. However it doesnt change the fact that even 10K hands are not enough to prove that you are a long term winner. You need more to minimize the effect of luck on your win rate. Thus my origional statement is correct.

Greg

[Wake up CALL]

"Gambling" means risking money on the outcome of an event over which the person taking the risk has no control . Under this definition, can poker (as conventionally played in casinos) fairly be described as "gambling?"

Using this definition, nothing would be ever considered gambling, in every gabling game you have some small degree of control. A better term would have been little influence rather than no control. This is one of many reasons why the definition you chose to post will never be used in a legal statute.

[ubercuber]

I voted no based on that definition. Skilled players win, poor players lose.

Why gambling is illegal to begin with is beyond me. Alcohol is legal. Lotteries are legal. Butt out of our lives The Man! The people who are losing are typically so far from basic strategy that it is clear they have never bothered to google for tips! They don't care, they are having fun.

[PiedPiper]

Most people use the term "gambling" to mean a game where skill is inconsequential. That is not true with poker.

Why do baseball teams play long seasons and play 5 and 7-game series? Because on any given day, they can be upset and lose. The best teams even go on streaks where they lose 5 of 7 or worse during the regular season (think about a good poker player having 5 of 7 losing sessions!). Yet we don't call baseball "gambling". The best baseball players go on streaks where they go 0 for 10. How many of the best poker players out there have 10 straight losing sessions though? Yet people want to call poker gambling, and call baseball a true competition based on skill.

My conclusion:

1. If poker is gambling, so is baseball.
2. Yet baseball is not gambling.
3. Therefore, poker is not gambling.

[Bob Ciaffone]

Poker is a card game. When it is played for money, it is gambling. Some people play it just for fun. The problem is the law treats all gambling games the same, whereas a game that is only between the players should be treated somewhat differently than a gambling game against the house.

[b33nz]

If you would be a 99% favorite... You'd still be gambling on an uncertain outcome. So yes poker is definetley gambling and if anyone disagrees, they do not know the fundamentals of poker.

[Blue Pig]

[ QUOTE ]
If you would be a 99% favorite... You'd still be gambling on an uncertain outcome. So yes poker is definetley gambling and if anyone disagrees, they do not know the fundamentals of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try being 99% favorite 100 times. How many quintillions of years have to pass before you lose? It's certainly not gambling if you do it long enough. You won't lose in your lifetime if you do it 10 times. That doesn't sound like gambling to me. Are the casinos with their tiny craps edge losing anywhere? When casinos have an edge, they are defeinitely not gambling.. it's called business. Same with poker players. You should reevaluate the fundamentals of poker.

[Blue Pig]

Your question is flawed since you have control over what you do in poker.

[psuasskicker]

If poker is gambling under such a definition, than investing any money in the stock market pretty much has to be considered gambling as well.

- C -

[Keys Myaths]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is gambling under such a definition, than investing any money in the stock market pretty much has to be considered gambling as well.

- C -

[/ QUOTE ]

That logic is pretty flawed.

Overall, with *everyone* that invests in the stock market combined, there's a +EV.

Overall, with *everyone* that invests in poker play, there's a -EV.

[Poker Face Oz]

I belive that Poker without a VIG is 100% legal in Victoria Australia.The Lotteries Gaming and Betting act of 1966 Section 10 advises:- "Any game in which the chances are not alike favourable to allthe players including among the players the banker or other person by whom the game is managed or against whom the other players stake play or bet"

In section 11 it says " Any game with cards or other instruments of gaming wherefrom any person derives a percentage or share of the amount"

Thus a home poker game where everyone has the same odds, with no "house advantage, banker or vig" is not breaking the law based on this Act! No wonder Joe Hachem is the current WSOP Champion.

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is gambling in the short term, skill over the long term. Although we cannot influence the cards, by playign proper strategy we can eek out a small +EV.

Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly stated .... long term it is a game of skill ... short term it is luck

[thedustbustr]

OP, If you are offered 2:1 on a coinflip for your entire net worth, and you accept, that is a hell of a gamble, though you surely have it +EV. Adjust it so that you can control the odds you are offered by the size of your bet, and now you control it, but it's still gambling.

Your definition isn't fantastic.

[RickyG]

[ QUOTE ]
Your definition isn't fantastic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. A businessman opening a new bar has no control over whether people will attend his bar. All he can do is use all of his knowledge to his advantage and invest his money in ways that will maximize his expected return. But even if you opened the most perfect restaurant, had the best advertizing, you could not FORCE people to attend it. Thus, in this sense, you have no control on the outcome, although you can use strategies to increase your chances of success. Thus, I venture to say that under this definition, both poker, and most other situations in life are gambling.

[Chillout]

Whether you bet large or small, bluff or not, play for a day or a year, doesn't matter with regards to the initial question:

The issue is whether poker should be considered gambling according to a particular definition.

In poker, you do indeed risk money on the outcome of an event over which the person taking the risk has no control - The event being the flop turn and river cards being dealt.

I.e. poker is gambling by this definiton. A separate discussion is wether this definition is correct.

[Chillout]

Unless you are the dealer, do you have ANY control of what cards come on turn or river?

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you are the dealer, do you have ANY control of what cards come on turn or river?

[/ QUOTE ]
Where players object is the same players keep winning, in ring games and in tournaments. Does that not display that skill is vital being successful in the game. In each individual hand, a player does not use their skill to make certain cards appear. The game is not to make certain cards appear, they appear on chance. The game is to acquire your opponent(s) money. You do that in several ways, which require skill in playing what you have, what is on the board, what your opponent's likely holdings are and how will they react to different actions on your part. The skill comes in frome extracting more money from your opponents than you lose to them plus the rake. I think tournaments have a better chance of proving strong skill vs chance argument to avoid the legal defintion of gambling, since only rarely do players bust out on the first hand and often when they do it is poor skill as much as chance. Rebuy tournaments would therefor offer even greater opportunity to display skill as the underlying factor in success, which is what ultimately will be required to have something based on chance to not be categorized as gambling, in the legal sense.

[jjigglers]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you bet large or small, bluff or not, play for a day or a year, doesn't matter with regards to the initial question:

The issue is whether poker should be considered gambling according to a particular definition.

In poker, you do indeed risk money on the outcome of an event over which the person taking the risk has no control - The event being the flop turn and river cards being dealt.

I.e. poker is gambling by this definiton. A separate discussion is wether this definition is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really surprised the poll is so close, and this post summarizes why it should not be.

If we bet on sports (even with an edge, inside knowledge, etc.) we still can't control the game. Same with betting in poker. We can't control what comes out. Just because we think we know what comes out a certain % of the time, and use this to our advantage, doesn't mean the outcome is fixed. The outcome converges (to something) over a long period of time, but so do most statistics that have a small sample size.

Poker is gambling, whether you think you have an edge or not, you still do not control the outcome.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Using this definition, nothing would be ever considered gambling, in every gabling game you have some small degree of control. A better term would have been little influence rather than no control. This is one of many reasons why the definition you chose to post will never be used in a legal statute.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually North Dakota and Colorado both use this defintion in their statutes, which I believe (that is I think I remember reading somewhere) is adapted from a model statute by the American Law Institute promulgated sometime in the 1960's. Other states use the phrase "control or influence." From the Colo. Rev. Stat. Sect. 18-10-102: "As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires, . . .(2) "Gambling" means risking any money . . . contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device, or the happening or outcome of an event, including a sporting event, over which the person taking a risk has no control . . . ."

I suspect that differing definitions of what "control" means account for the split in opinion. If control over an outcome means the ability to determine and choose the outcome, then you're right. If control means influence, then poker should be distinguished from other casino-type negative ev games. where the bettor has no control over the outcome once the wager is made.

[Fro]

I think the use of the word influence is key here. A player can can bet against another player in hopes that he will fold, thus *influencing* the outcome of the game. He cannot however *control* the cards that are dealt or whether or not a opponent will fold. I know this seems somewhat semantic since we tend to think of influence and control as being varying degrees of the same thing but in the case of poker it provides a means of differentiating poker from other casino games.

[BonusPros]

For sure gambling, but one of the few, if not the only methods that you can manipulate the odds enough in your favor to make the prospect of winning worth the risk. Stocks could be considered gambling if you just look at the risk vs. reward issue

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]

Thus, I venture to say that under this definition, both poker, and most other situations in life are gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put.

If you got dealt AA every time, and went AI every time - you would still be "gambling" since you have NO CONTROL over the five cards that wind up in the middle.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you bet large or small, bluff or not, play for a day or a year, doesn't matter with regards to the initial question:

The issue is whether poker should be considered gambling according to a particular definition.
in order to
In poker, you do indeed risk money on the outcome of an event over which the person taking the risk has no control - The event being the flop turn and river cards being dealt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The event is not just 'the flop turn and river cards being dealt'. The event 'a hand of poker' also includes the actions of other players, and a common tactic is to bet in order to make your opponents fold a better hand, thus winning you the pot independant of the turn of the cards.

I don't see how this fits the definition 'no control' over the outcome of the event.

On the other hand, I think this minute disection of a given definition is fairly useless, since the vast majority of people will consider poker gambling, me being one of them. A more pertinent question, IMO, is whether it is a game of skill. Many states, including my own (NC), allow wagering on yourself in a game of skill. Unfortunately the state's definition apparently focusses on the short term, and the courts have repeatedly ruled poker is not a game of skill under the law.

B.

[silkyslim]

is "pulling out" gambling like poker is?

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If poker is gambling under such a definition, than investing any money in the stock market pretty much has to be considered gambling as well.

- C -

[/ QUOTE ]

That logic is pretty flawed.

Overall, with *everyone* that invests in the stock market combined, there's a +EV.

Overall, with *everyone* that invests in poker play, there's a -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true in the case of Options. So options are gambling?

I answered it's not gambling only due to the wording of the question. If you simply asked without forcing me to use that definition I would say it is gambling.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you would be a 99% favorite... You'd still be gambling on an uncertain outcome. So yes poker is definetley gambling and if anyone disagrees, they do not know the fundamentals of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try being 99% favorite 100 times. How many quintillions of years have to pass before you lose? It's certainly not gambling if you do it long enough. You won't lose in your lifetime if you do it 10 times. That doesn't sound like gambling to me. Are the casinos with their tiny craps edge losing anywhere? When casinos have an edge, they are defeinitely not gambling.. it's called business. Same with poker players. You should reevaluate the fundamentals of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

whether or not you will win in the long run is irrelevant to the question of whether or not you are gambling. the event that is "beyond your control" as per the given definition is the way the cards fall. you are betting on the cards. you can't control the cards. you can control (to a degree) how much you may win or lose in the long run by the way you bet relative to the way your opponent bets, but you can't control the event you are betting on.

poker is certainly gambling. it's a zero sum game (actually negative sum with rake). nothing is being produced. for someone to win, someone else has to lose. poker winnings do not add anything to GDP the way normal income does. it's a game of chance that results in redistribution of money among individuals. it's as clear an example of gambling as you will ever find.

as an aside, the idea that a "good player" can always expect to "make" money is absurd. a good player can only take money from a bad player. if everyone was a great player, no one could expect to profit...because there is zero net profit among all players.

[Prevaricator]

isnt economics in general supposed to be zero sum?

someone smart tell me the difference please.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Of course poker is gambling. The same way investing in stocks and bonds or starting a business is gambling. In all these cases, the smart, educated gambler has an edge over the donkeys, but they're still gambling.

Too many people think the word "gambling" implies no skill is involved in the game. All the word implies is that the outcome of each wager is out of the control of the players.

[Nickelcity]

It's gambling.

If everyone played perfect poker, after enough hands, everyone would finish in the red (due to the rake). The only way you make money, therefore concluding it's skill rather than luck, is that your opponents routinely make -EV decisions.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
the event that is "beyond your control" as per the given definition is the way the cards fall. you are betting on the cards. you can't control the cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the event is 'a hand of poker'. A common tactic is to bet simply on the probability you can make your opponent fold his hand. By making such a bet, you exert some degree of control over the outcome of the hand of poker.

If the card game doesn't include the possibility of such bets (bluffs, designed to win the hand independant of the turn of the cards) it's not a form of poker. So, to ignore that part of the game of poker is flat wrong.

B.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
isnt economics in general supposed to be zero sum?

someone smart tell me the difference please.

[/ QUOTE ]

no. if i use my labor and knowledge to create a baseball bat out of a log i found on the ground, one baseball bat has been produced. if i then sell that baseball bat for $20, the buyer gains a baseball bat (which is worth at least $20 to him) and loses $20, and I gain $20. so my net gain is $20. his net gain is whatever the bat is worth to him minus $20. we both gain. society's net gain is equal to the value of the baseball bat to the buyer. (my net gain + his net gain will equal that)