Why does 2+2 call poker gambling?

[RGL]

I find it a bit ironic that one section of the site is called Internet Gambling and it contains all the threads about Internet poker, bonuses and software. If I were an opponent of Internet poker, I'd cite the leading site naming as support of poker being gambling. Perhaps the powers that be for the site should consider renaming it.

[PokerMadeMeFat]

They call it gambling because it is gambling.

[4_2_it]

Poker is gambling. Most here would describe it as a game of skill that involves a component or degree of luck. (Regs can feel free to further polish my definition but I think OP gets the gist.)

[internetdonk]

Please refer this post back the pocket fives site where you came from....

[Legislurker]

But if they called it winning, everyone would play.

[Skallagrim]

If betting $10 with your buddies on who will get the best score at your Thursday night bowling game is gambling, so is poker.

If gambling is betting on a game of chance, poker is not gambling.

If it were not for the fact that the word "gambling" has some bad legal status, I wouldn't care whether you called it that or not.

Skallagrim

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
They call it gambling because it is gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mitch Evans]

RGL,

Don't listen to these grumps. Wagering money on the turn of a card is most certainly not gambling.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
RGL,

Don't listen to these grumps. Wagering money on the turn of a card is most certainly not gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, ingesting a beverage through your mouth and swallowing it, is most certainly not drinking.

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RGL,

Don't listen to these grumps. Wagering money on the turn of a card is most certainly not gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, ingesting a beverage through your mouth and swallowing it, is most certainly not drinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, getting blown by an intern is most certainly not having sexual relations with that person.

[Skallagrim]

Is wagering money on whether the ball knocks down 10 pins rather than 9 gambling?

Skallagrim

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were an opponent of Internet poker, I'd cite the leading site naming as support of poker being gambling. Perhaps the powers that be for the site should consider renaming it.

[/ QUOTE ]

When poker stops BEING a form of gambling, then you can come up with a name change.

Now, if you automatically interpret "gambling" as "-EV game playing", then come up with a new word now.

[JPFisher55]

Poker is not gambling. Craps, blackjack and roulette is gambling. Sports betting is not gambling, like poker it takes skill to win. However, IMO it is harder to win at sports betting because you are wagering against the house that knows a lot about sports and you must pay a rake that is higher than online poker rake.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I were an opponent of Internet poker, I'd cite the leading site naming as support of poker being gambling. Perhaps the powers that be for the site should consider renaming it.

[/ QUOTE ]

When poker stops BEING a form of gambling, then you can come up with a name change.

Now, if you automatically interpret "gambling" as "-EV game playing", then come up with a new word now.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are already new words out there. My favorite is "gaming" even though the casinos have tried to take it and apply it to their "gambling" games.

"Wagering" is good to, as you can wager on any contest, including ones of skill.

When people play chess for money what do you call it?

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

"Gaming" works for me.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
There are already new words out there. My favorite is "gaming" even though the casinos have tried to take it and apply it to their "gambling" games.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, I read somewhere that the original term was "gaming" and, when that got a bad rep, the move went to "gambling"... making that trend back a bit ironic

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is not gambling. Craps, blackjack and roulette is gambling. Sports betting is not gambling, like poker it takes skill to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is poker, then? BJ can't be enough skill to make it +EV? What is betting on horses?

Define a term for poker, please, that will mean "not the same type of game as other gambling games, even though you play solely for money"

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is not gambling. Craps, blackjack and roulette is gambling. Sports betting is not gambling, like poker it takes skill to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is poker, then? BJ can't be enough skill to make it +EV? What is betting on horses?

Define a term for poker, please, that will mean "not the same type of game as other gambling games, even though you play solely for money"

[/ QUOTE ]

"Gambling" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling)

The term gambling has many different meanings depending on the cultural and historical context in which it is used. Currently, in Western societies, it has an economic definition, referring to "wagering money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods". Typically, the outcome of the wager is evident within a short period of time.

The term gaming[1] in this context typically refers to instances in which the activity has been specifically permitted by law. The two words are not mutually exclusive; i.e.: a “gaming” company offers (legal) “gambling” activities to the public.[2]

[Skallagrim]

Lets call poker and all other games that you play against other people for money or prizes "gaming."

Lets call all games that you play against a "house" for money or prizes (so called "banked" games) "gambling."

If we can get this linguistic change popular, just think how it will infuriate the FOF types and the casino interests who oppose us. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Skallagrim

PS - where in this mix you put betting on other people's games (like pro sports and animal racing), I will let others decide.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets call poker and all other games that you play against other people for money or prizes "gaming."

Lets call all games that you play against a "house" for money or prizes (so called "banked" games) "gambling."

If we can get this linguistic change popular, just think how it will infuriate the FOF types and the casino interests who oppose us. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Skallagrim

PS - where in this mix you put betting on other people's games (like pro sports and animal racing), I will let others decide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, 'GAMING' it is, as to the horses, I think they have a fancy name, para-mutual wagering.

Come to think of it, that concept would fit poker tournaments as well, players pool money and some win a portion of the pooled money, others do not.

obg

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
as to the horses, I think they have a fancy name, para-mutual wagering.

Come to think of it, that concept would fit poker tournaments as well, players pool money and some win a portion of the pooled money, others do not.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that even the worst house rake doesn't make you want to create this comparative link between the two types of "paramutualling"

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets call poker and all other games that you play against other people for money or prizes "gaming."

Lets call all games that you play against a "house" for money or prizes (so called "banked" games) "gambling."

If we can get this linguistic change popular, just think how it will infuriate the FOF types and the casino interests who oppose us. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Skallagrim

PS - where in this mix you put betting on other people's games (like pro sports and animal racing), I will let others decide.

[/ QUOTE ]

So flipping coins with another person for money, or running a marathon (most major mnarthons put up prize money), the tour de france, and most olympic events are gaming now?

I'd rather work to try and get the games anc activities we care about, basically poker, legal, than engage in an almost certainly futile exercize in changing popular language usage, particularly to try and make such an inconsequential distinction.

[Skallagrim]

The distinction is far from inconsequential Zetack. Separating poker from online slots (and similar games) would negate virtually every argument the FOF folks and the "gambling is dangerous" folks use against us.

Think how much was accomplished by the linguistic change from "[censored]" to "gays" and from "ni**er" to "blacks" and from "inheritence tax" to "death tax" - the examples are legion....

The point is that if you can change the language you can change the thinking.
This is a basic principle of linguistic philosophy. Read some Wittgenstein or Chomsky (on linguistics ONLY). If thats too intellectual for you, just remember the words to John Lennon's "Mind Games."

And if its just that you dont like the words I have suggested, come up with better ones!

Skallagrim

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is not gambling. Craps, blackjack and roulette is gambling. Sports betting is not gambling, like poker it takes skill to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a very, good comparisons, just somone posting on the internet that "poker is not gambling" doesn't make it true.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO it is harder to win at sports betting because you are wagering against the house that knows a lot about sports and you must pay a rake that is higher than online poker rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "the house" I assume you mean legal sportsbooks. They don't need to know anything about sports to win. In fact these days none of the major legal books set theit own initial lines. They merely adjust them to keep a near even percentage on each side of the game.

Also using your definitions a 2/4 limit game with a ten dollar rake would be gambling but one with a $1 rake would not. How do you explain this discrepancy? Face it, like it or not poker is gambling. If you don't think so have you ever had AK off , been headsup against AK off and lost the pot? Please explain how your skill made any difference at all in that hand?


Jimbo

[Skallagrim]

Jimbo, poker is undeniably a game that involves BOTH Skill and Luck/Chance.

Your example of AK being beat by AK is countered by the hand where some one bluffs AK out of the pot with 2-7. How can you say luck/chance determined the outcome of that hand?

The key question is whether the luck or the skill is the more important factor. Some hands are decided by luck, some by skill. Same with the amount of the win. But if you really believe MOST results are the product of chance, why do you read these forums? What would be the point of trying to "improve your game" if it was mostly the result of chance anyway?

That is what makes poker different and what makes being a poker pro possible: MOST results in poker are the product of the player's actions, not simply the cards dealt. In my opinion, and in what should be the opinion of anyone who believes poker is entitled to be treated differently from slots and craps, games where the play of the players determine (for the most part) the outcome of the game, are NOT "gambling."

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

A 2/4 limit holdem game with a $10 dollar rake would be harder to beat then one with a $1 rake, but neither is gambling. I like Skall's word "gaming." Playing poker, bridge, backgammon and gin rummy is "gaming" because the player with the most skill wins in the long run.

[eof]

so casino owners are gambling? gambling is when you get paid or not because of luck. playing poker is no different than playing chess or any other game of skill. if you put one slightly better chess player up against another slightly worse one, the slightly better one will not win every nor even necessarily the vast majority of games. chess is clearly a game of skill. poker is a game of strategy that some people bet on. basically poker is chess, and you can't make chess illegal, even online where they cheat

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
so casino owners are gambling? gambling is when you get paid or not because of luck. playing poker is no different than playing chess or any other game of skill. if you put one slightly better chess player up against another slightly worse one, the slightly better one will not win every nor even necessarily the vast majority of games. chess is clearly a game of skill. poker is a game of strategy that some people bet on. basically poker is chess, and you can't make chess illegal, even online where they cheat

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Because poker *is* gambling. The term "gambling" does not presuppose either skill or chance, it simply presupposes monetary risk/reward.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Jimbo, poker is undeniably a game that involves BOTH Skill and Luck/Chance.

Your example of AK being beat by AK is countered by the hand where some one bluffs AK out of the pot with 2-7. How can you say luck/chance determined the outcome of that hand?

The key question is whether the luck or the skill is the more important factor. Some hands are decided by luck, some by skill. Same with the amount of the win. But if you really believe MOST results are the product of chance, why do you read these forums? What would be the point of trying to "improve your game" if it was mostly the result of chance anyway?

That is what makes poker different and what makes being a poker pro possible: MOST results in poker are the product of the player's actions, not simply the cards dealt. In my opinion, and in what should be the opinion of anyone who believes poker is entitled to be treated differently from slots and craps, games where the play of the players determine (for the most part) the outcome of the game, are NOT "gambling."

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

*Sigh*. Almost everybody, when talking about the luck component starts talking about when one hand beats another. You have to look at all the hands that were dealt in. My guess is that in a full ring game a very small percentage of hands that win, probably under ten percent, are the same hand that would have won purely by luck, that is if all hands stayed in to the river.

So if 7-2 sucks out on A-A on the river, a lot of people say, see luck won out over skill in that hand. But if somebody folded 3-9 off pre-flop which would have beat them both, the outcome of the hand has been completely changed by the exercize of skill.

And that's the basis of the argument for legalizing poker. But poker is still gambling by most resonable definitions of the word. Fortunately, most state statues that have "anti-gambling" statutes don't simply say "gambing" is illegal, they make a distinction between games of skill and game of chance. (Unfortunately, in my state the appellate courts have ruled that poker is a game of chance not a game of skill). Changing the popular defintions of the word won't have any impact on these state statutes.

And as far as trying to influence public opinion by a distinction between gambling and gaming? C'mon, most folks are going to understand gaming is a form of gambling. You need far more distinct terms. How about jousting, meaning contesting against an opponent for money? Or if you don't want an existing word, Contfomey. "Hey, I hear you're a professinal gambler! Well, no, actually, I'm a professional Contfomer - I play poker and pool for money."

Anyway, I just think thats a long slow process, with little chance of significant success, and I'd rather see poker legalized accross the country in, say, the next decade.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Because poker *is* gambling. The term "gambling" does not presuppose either skill or chance, it simply presupposes monetary risk/reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also a wager. I've seen a number of threads get derailed when people want to leave out the wagering part of it, and then argue that the stock market is gambling. Without a wager, you do not have gambling.

[Skallagrim]

Most folks instinctively understand the difference between playing chess or bridge for money and playing craps or slots for money. They have no problem with the former, and think people who play the latter for anything more than "fun money" are fools, degenerates, or addicts.

To get legislative change we need to show the average person who does not really understand the depth of the game of poker that playing poker for money is more like playing chess than it is like playing craps.

Having a word change will hardly accomplish this on its own, but it will help. When people unfamiliar with it say "poker is gambling" they are thinking its just like craps: you need to know what you are doing, but your results are due to chance. By saying in response "poker is NOT gambling its [whatever word you choose]" we begin the education process that moves poker in that average person's mind from the bad connotation/category (risking money on your luck) to the good connotation/category (risking money on your skill).

Skallagrim

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

To get legislative change we need to show the average person who does not really understand the depth of the game of poker that playing poker for money is more like playing chess than it is like playing craps.

I smiled when I read this if for two reasons. First, this is the exact opposite of what we want to do when we're playing. Personally, I prefer it if my table has some people at it who view poker like roulette.

Second, the thing we need to do to get legislative backing is to show that a) internet poker will not dilute B&M casino revenue, and b) that the tax revenue from legal gambling will outweigh the nebulous "societal costs" of gambling.

Here (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/gambling_mass/) is a link on the Boston Globe site that has compiled all the editorials and op-ed pieces on casino gambling. Note that the entire discussion (except Jeff Jacoby's piece) focuses on tax revenue vs. impact on society.

If we're going to appeal to politicians, we have to speak their language.

[Skallagrim]

It is ironic that what may be good for the game legally is not necessarily whats good for the game financially /images/graemlins/wink.gif. But so be it, I doubt that anyone but the newest noob who plays doesnt realize that poker requires at least some skill/judgment.

As to speaking politician's language, you are right, but not including the whole picture. Politicians also worry about votes (money comes first, but they know that without votes they are in no position to get the money). So if most of a district is strongly "anti-gambling" no amount of lobbying or arguing is going to get the Rep. from that district to support gambling. But if you can get a good number of those anti-gambling folks to stop being anti-poker, then you have an opportunity to change that Representative too.

Specifically, one way to deal with the concerns of "cost to society" is to show that poker, being a skill game, is not like other "gambling" in creating those costs - in fact, it creates far fewer costs than things like slots and roulette. That is clearly one way to respond to the "too many social costs" crowd: poker being a game of skill between people is not what has been studied, and is far different from those "addictive" games of chance played by people against a casino.

To ultimately win we have to put ALL of these arguments forward.

Skallagrim

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

is to show that poker, being a skill game, is not like other "gambling" in creating those costs

I'd downplay this, myself, because its so easily countered. What percentage of people who play poker are long-term winners? Is it not conceivable that people who over-estimate their poker acumen will fall prey to the same problems?

The skill game argument is great as far as it counters existing laws that ban "games of chance." I do not think it is a good counter against those in government who would try to protect us from ourselves, and good old liberal Taxachusetts is full of those types.

[Skallagrim]

The "studies" our enemies cite almost always involve slot machines. Occasionally there is discussion of table games like blackjack and such, but really when you look at, its slots that worry these people (rightly or wrongly): they envision the person always less intelligent then themselves sitting helpless in front of a machine seduced by the colors and sounds and incapable of not putting that last $20 in. The last $20 that should have been spent on the child's lunches....You can here it now "these are the people we need to protect from themselves."

As we all know, this is (mostly) hogwash, but it is the image used against us.

Contrast that image with the image of a group of people around a table actively mentally engaged in a competitive game like bridge or poker. There are none of the slot-style seductions.

Do most lose at poker? Yes, of course, but the desire to compete, to strive to be the best even if you lose, is a prized value in the good ole US of A. Will some people get lost in this competition and over do it? Yes, some folks spend way to much on competing at golf too, but the numbers who go to far at a competitive game are much, much less than the numbers seduced by the slots. Its apples and oranges.

That is how you convince a strident anti-gambling do-gooder that poker should be treated differently (leaving out the hogwash part of course).

Skallagrim

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Jimbo, poker is undeniably a game that involves BOTH Skill and Luck/Chance.

Your example of AK being beat by AK is countered by the hand where some one bluffs AK out of the pot with 2-7. How can you say luck/chance determined the outcome of that hand?

The key question is whether the luck or the skill is the more important factor. Some hands are decided by luck, some by skill. Same with the amount of the win. But if you really believe MOST results are the product of chance, why do you read these forums? What would be the point of trying to "improve your game" if it was mostly the result of chance anyway?

That is what makes poker different and what makes being a poker pro possible: MOST results in poker are the product of the player's actions, not simply the cards dealt. In my opinion, and in what should be the opinion of anyone who believes poker is entitled to be treated differently from slots and craps, games where the play of the players determine (for the most part) the outcome of the game, are NOT "gambling."

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skallagrim, I appreciate your passion for getting online poker legalized. That does not excuse you for attempting to put words in my mouth then using a strawman arguement in a very weak effort to discredit my position that poker is gambling.

As others have said you can call a dog a cat but that doesn't make it true. If JP was honest with himself both you and he would simply admit that poker is gambling period without any doubt, it has nothing at all to do with skill overcoming luck in the long run, it is by it's very nature and definition gambling.

Jimbo

To clarify some of the words you tried to put into my mouth; I believe in the very very long term skill overcomes luck in poker. I do not believe the majority of the poker players advocating clarifying the legality of online poker are more skillful than lucky.

[Skallagrim]

I am not trying to put words in your mouth Jimbo. I appreciate your comments in this forum. I made a straw man argument (2-7 bluffing AK) to counter your straw man argument (AK losing to AK).

Otherwise we just disagree. I am not merely arguing for the sake of legality, I truly believe Poker results are PREDOMINANTLY the result of the plays you make, not the cards you are dealt. I believe this is true over any representative sample, though I admit that in a small, unrepresentative sample the cards dealt could be more important - of course we have all seen that happen.

On the subject of the word gambling, I personally have no problem calling poker gambling - you risk something hoping to gain greater reward. I call most investing gambling too, especially commodities trading.

But in the legal world there is a huge difference between an activity being gambling or not gambling. That is the only reason I would prefer to not call poker gambling and I have offered my reasoning as to why it is legitimate to distinguish the two.

Skallagrim

PS - check out this link for a more lengthy discussion of skill v. luck (be sure to scroll down to the second article): http://gpsts.org/poker-a-game-of-skill/

[oldbookguy]

What interesting thread.

In my talks with people and in several letters I have written, I make the distinction Skall mentions by interjecting early on, I do NOT gamble, I play cards against other people pitting my abilities to out play you versus your ability to out play me, barring of-course uncontrollable circumstances; I.E. desperation in tournament play or just a bad decision made at the right time.

If asked about the latter, I explain short stacked versus the escalating blinds in a late game and as to a bad decision at the right time, a 9% draw is that, 9 out of 100 it will win.


obg

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Realizing, of course, that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. It's always better to refine our argument among friends first rather than beta testing in the heat of battle.

That is how you convince a strident anti-gambling do-gooder that poker should be treated differently (leaving out the hogwash part of course).

One final comment. I think you use these arguments with the middle-of-the-road fence-straddlers. They should be the focus of our efforts. The strident do-gooders are beyond hope. No sense wasting time and resources chasing windmills. Win over the middle and you win the war.

[RGL]

If you look at the forum topics to the right, you'll see gambling in exactly four places.

General Gambling - Includes sports betting, other gambling games, entertainment betting, probability and psychology

Internet Gambling - Included Internet Gambling (entirely about internet poker), Internet Bonuses (almost entirely internet poker), Affiliates/Rakeback (entirely internet poker) and Software (entirely internet poker).

Given the discussion on this and other threads, it's clear that the distinction between poker/skill based games and luck/non-skill based games is important to members of this forum. More importantly, it may be important for the ultimate resolution of the issue.

Back to the OP, why not change the name on the list to Internet Poker to clearly separate it from General Gambling?
What do we lose? Or am I missing something?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
To get legislative change we need to show the average person who does not really understand the depth of the game of poker that playing poker for money is more like playing chess than it is like playing craps.

I smiled when I read this if for two reasons. First, this is the exact opposite of what we want to do when we're playing. Personally, I prefer it if my table has some people at it who view poker like roulette.

Second, the thing we need to do to get legislative backing is to show that a) internet poker will not dilute B&M casino revenue, and b) that the tax revenue from legal gambling will outweigh the nebulous "societal costs" of gambling.

Here (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/gambling_mass/) is a link on the Boston Globe site that has compiled all the editorials and op-ed pieces on casino gambling. Note that the entire discussion (except Jeff Jacoby's piece) focuses on tax revenue vs. impact on society.

If we're going to appeal to politicians, we have to speak their language.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an interesting article about the ultimate effects of a fully implemented UIGEA pushing on-line gaming further out of reach of regulators. The net effect of which is to create money flows even more likely to be misused by criminals.

Most Amercians are willing to pay taxes when they percieve a benifit. Right now under-reporting gaming winnings seems to have reached the tipping point in the equation.

The Gov't faces a choice, IMO, they can continue to attempt to stick their fingers in a very leaky dyke (the internet) or let us player legally draw the water from the lake.

Take e-pass for example, that is a 5% tax on deposits that goes uncollected although imposed by Congress. If the UIGEA is fully implemented that tax rate will go up.

Prohibition is the perfect example. All attempts to ban led to more crime and a lousey product, no body was saved, many died. Taxes and regulation led to the elimination of the criminal element and a much safer, even cheaper product.

D$D

[Impact]

Is playing poker with play money gambling? Doesnt seem like it. But its still "poker" right?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
Is playing poker with play money gambling? Doesnt seem like it. But its still "poker" right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah. The wagering is the key part of the game. Play money is not real poker.

[Lottery Larry]

Maybe there's something in using a word, or argument, that makes it clear:

- Certain forms of gambling, skill has little chance of affecting the outcome and almost no chance of changing a negative situation into a positive one.

- Other forms of gambling, such as our favorite card game, are where skill can change results, which are normally determined by mere odds/probability. You might have to fend off the craps sharpshooting crowd a bit....

I have NO idea what word to use for the second type of gambling, however....

We should also ban the term "luck" and talk about probability instead... but that's probably asking for too big a leap.


Sidebar- Can we reasonably consider stock market trading "gambling", or not (what exactly IS "hedging a market position")? What about insurance policies?

Is creating a new business not "gambling", when supposedly 80% fail in 5 years?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Play money is not real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

.... because play money affects how people actually play poker, so it's not quite the same thing.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

We should also ban the term "luck" and talk about probability instead... but that's probably asking for too big a leap

We can use the poker term, "variance" or the statistical representation of variance, "standard deviation."

All just semantics to me...

Spock: "It appears random chance has operated in our favor."
McCoy: "You mean we got lucky."
Spock: "I believe I said that."

[Skallagrim]

Its really just all about getting the folks unfamiliar with poker to recognize that its different from the kinds of gambling they are familiar with: lotteries, bingo halls, raffles, slot machines...

The way to start that "discussion" is to stop them and argue with them when they call poker "gambling." We really dont care if we change their words, we really do care that we change their attitudes towards poker. And arguing about whether poker is "gambling" or not, as you can easily see from this thread /images/graemlins/wink.gif , is a good way to provide the education needed to provoke the attitude adjustment.

Skallagrim

[whangarei]

I originally thought poker should not be called gambling. I heard Negreneau say that he's not gambling when he plays poker, his opponents are. Just like a gambler playing craps, the house (Negrenau) has the edge. But since most players are gambling in that sense then that may be the appropriate term. "Gaming" is the best term for how I view the game.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Its really just all about getting the folks unfamiliar with poker to recognize that its different from the kinds of gambling they are familiar with: lotteries, bingo halls, raffles, slot machines...

The way to start that "discussion" is to stop them and argue with them when they call poker "gambling." We really dont care if we change their words, we really do care that we change their attitudes towards poker. And arguing about whether poker is "gambling" or not, as you can easily see from this thread /images/graemlins/wink.gif , is a good way to provide the education needed to provoke the attitude adjustment.
Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]


At first I thought this was a pretty useless thread.

But Skall makes a very important point that has a good political foundation.

When poker is played well there is very little luck involved.


D$D<--still requires luck to win

[DoTheMath]

Poker is a form of gambling. Bets are made.

Read, among other things, SSHE's sections "Gambling Concepts Introduction" and "Fundamental Gambling Concepts". In that book, Miller et al. seem to think that it is important to remember that playing poker IS gambling.

There is an important distinction between games of skill and games of chance. This distinction is important because of laws which treat the two forms of gambling differently. However, the distinction is not between some things which ARE gambling and some things which ARE NOT gambling. It is a distinction between two forms of gambling.

Read the article (http://gpsts.org/poker-a-game-of-skill/) posted by Skallagrim carefuly. It does not claim that betting on games of skill is not gambling. It says it is not illegal gambling.

Sure, try to find a euphemism for gambling that will make poker more acceptable. Definitely provoke discussions that highlight the difference between games of skill and games of chance, and that demonstrate that poker is a game of skill. Just don't make the mistake of denying what poker really is: a gambling game.