Poker as a skill(Need help)

[TheProdigy]

Hello,

I have posted this before and if you feel it is inappropriate please just delete.


I am writing a research paper on poker, and it will include a couple things about recent legislation.

The thesis will be something like:
"Poker is a skill that can be used as an effective investment vehicle that may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

I have done a lot of searching for the topic. I have found a lot on the legislation, and a lot on the investment. I am going to get a couple players to turn over some of their stats to prove the "investment + return" part. What I need is a good and reputable author that has written something on the subject of "Poker is a skill and not gambling"

Does anyone have anything like this? Many of the sites(bet-the-pot.com, etc) don't really show up on my searches but are still written by reputable players. These guys don't have to be professors, but it has to be written by someone other than me.

Thanks! I am also searching up the couple sklansky threads where he talks about this, but I don't know how or if I can ever cite these things.

Edit: Forgot to add why I am putting this on here. Afterwards I would plan to e-mail this paper(8 pages or so) to my senators and other people in the struggle. I could also post this to people here so they could forward it as well.

[PPABryan]

You may want to look into some of the stuff coming out of Harvard Law School. The think tank is called the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society (GPSTS), and is led by a well respected professor their, Charles Nesson. Hope that helps.

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[KEW]

Here is a link from a recent Harvard debate(I have not read it yet it just came up)...

http://gpsts.org/poker-a-game-of-skill/

Poker as a "skill" as been discussed here several times..Do a search...Sklansky had an article that could be of use in a recent Internet Magazine..The article was also discussed in depth in the 2+2 Mag forum

[Skallagrim]

I love that link above ... especially Howard Lederer's Proof that Skill predominates over Chance in the game of poker.

Of course, long time readers of this forum will note that the basic proof Howard provides was first posted in this very forum (as Howard acknowledges at the end), apparently by some poster with a weird, Norse sounding screen name. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Bookmark that link folks, this is how we establish poker as a skill game in Court and thus get it out of the status of "illegal" gambling in about 4 out of 5 of the US states.

Skallagrim

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
apparently by some poster with a weird, Norse sounding screen name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very cool. I didn't realize you were that far reaching Skallagrim.

[Lottery Larry]

I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise.

[Skallagrim]

You really think poker is more chance than skill L-Larry? Perhaps its some other point you disagree with....

If you really think poker is more chance than skill perhaps you also would be willing to post the screen names with the sites you play at...?

Skallagrim

[TheProdigy]

Yea really exactly what are you doing here with 6k posts?


Thanks everyone, the link provided will help me write a lot(I had a lot of this in mind but since I have a link to a source I can now have a source behind it)

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
You really think poker is more chance than skill L-Larry? Perhaps its some other point you disagree with....

If you really think poker is more chance than skill perhaps you also would be willing to post the screen names with the sites you play at...?



[/ QUOTE ]

And the stakes you play at, times of day, ... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I hadn't heard this argument presented in this form before. Very convincing. Great work Skall /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
apparently by some poster with a weird, Norse sounding screen name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very cool. I didn't realize you were that far reaching Skallagrim.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you search these forums and the Sklansky forums you will find the proof as first put forward by me. Howard took the basic idea and refined it extremely well (with some ideas from Sklansky) and added some additional points that make the argument even stronger. Howard and I discussed his article prior to its publication. I dont mean to take anything away from Howard, he took the basic idea and made it very presentable in a way that was far better than what I had done - it was like I gave it birth but he nurtured it into a beautiful adult.

Anyway, I am proud of this proof (justifiably I think) and appreciate any recognition I get from it. But the article is Howard's - he deserves the credit for the final product.

The more important point is to use it in courts (hopefully succesfully) to establish poker as a legally recognized game of skill. As Senator Kyl of AZ said (yes, that Sen. Kyl), if we do that the UIGEA does not apply to our game in most US states.

Skallagrim

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
If you really think poker is more chance than skill perhaps you also would be willing to post the screen names with the sites you play at...?


[/ QUOTE ]

HU for bankrolls, eh?

And as long as you are speaking for me, what else do I think?

[Skallagrim]

Pretty touchy there LL ... Was it too hard to understand the sentences before the one you quoted?

"You really think poker is more chance than skill L-Larry? Perhaps its some other point you disagree with...."

If its not some other point you disagree with, I would imagine that you also think that online poker is rigged, and the world is a really stupid place for not recognizing what an amazing, overpowering intellect you have, and that you think it is really terrible that someone on an internet forum would respond to a snide post with a snide post.

But, as I said, maybe it was some other point you disagree with...

Skallagrim

[Lottery Larry]

This was a good series of articles.

[ QUOTE ]
http://gpsts.org/poker-a-game-of-skill/


[/ QUOTE ]

I found the juxtaposition of the first article, followed by the following quote by Lederer, to be rather interesting:

"The beauty of the game is any hand can win under the right circumstances. This is a clear distinction from gambling games like sports betting and casino games. The outcome of those games is almost always a definitive result produced by a final score or the conclusion of a random chance event. The winner is determined by who correctly predicted the right outcome"

Doesn't this seem to read as if Howard is lumping in sports betting with casino gambling? Or, at least, that people not predisposed to be on the "pro-" side may read it that way?


Also, I wonder if there will be any linguistic stumblings for most people, on the use of "skill" to mean "anti-skilled"... or, fish and idiots.

But, those are just nitpick points, not a defamation of the general argument.

Nicely done

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty touchy there LL ... Was it too hard to understand the sentences before the one you quoted?

"You really think poker is more chance than skill L-Larry? Perhaps its some other point you disagree with...."

If its not some other point you disagree with, I would imagine that you also think that online poker is rigged, and the world is a really stupid place for not recognizing what an amazing, overpowering intellect you have, and that you think it is really terrible that someone on an internet forum would respond to a snide post with a snide post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'M the touchy one? Maybe you shouldn't imagine tone where there is none.... or make broad leaps in interpretation of statements

But, you're on a roll- let me know what ELSE I really think

[Skallagrim]

Cool down. You originally wrote "I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise."

I read the OP's premise to be poker is a game of skill. From your first post above, it appears you agree with that premise. It would also appear you agree with that premise or you wouldn't challenge people to play "HU for bankrolls."

So what was it you instinctively disagree with?

And please stop ignoring the "IF"s in my statements.

Skallagrim

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Cool down.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am perfectly cool. I wasn't the one who ratcheted up the aggression.


[ QUOTE ]
You originally wrote "I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise."

I read the OP's premise to be poker is a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
or you wouldn't challenge people to play "HU for bankrolls."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what I did? Really?

[ QUOTE ]
So what was it you instinctively disagree with?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'd like YOU to take another crack at what you think I was disagreeing with. Seriously, I think it's important for you to do so. THEN we can discuss what I thought and whether it would be correct.

[ QUOTE ]
And please stop ignoring the "IF"s in my statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had really meant "if" when you used it... your implied tone from the words and challenges that you did initiate on your own, in your replies to me, pretty much indicated what your assumptions were..... don't you agree?

Or was that a wildly unsupportable assumption that I just made?

[Skallagrim]

I respond here often, as I am sure you are aware, on the subject of whether poker is a game of chance or a game of skill. It is a subject I believe is extremely important for the future of the game of poker, and so I will take shots at people who claim that poker is a game of chance and who should also know better. A person who has been a member here for over 4 years and has 5K+ posts is not someone I would normally think actually believes poker is a game of chance, and is someone who should know better. But thats what your first post appeared to say. My first post noted that maybe that was not what were trying to say, but IF it was, then you deserved the ribbing.

Peace

Skallagrim

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I respond here often, as I am sure you are aware, on the subject of whether poker is a game of chance or a game of skill. It is a subject I believe is extremely important for the future of the game of poker, and so I will take shots at people who claim that poker is a game of chance and who should also know better. A person who has been a member here for over 4 years and has 5K+ posts is not someone I would normally think actually believes poker is a game of chance, and is someone who should know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if all of the above are true, why exactly would you FIRST assume that I was disagreeing with the statement "poker is a game of skill" ?

This back and forth may seem to be pointless, but I think there's a VERY good point for you to consider, Skall.

Just so we don't waste another step, I think it might be helpful to you to look at my statements and your replies and decide if they were warranted.... and if that's, dare I say it, "instinctively" how you want to come across....


[ QUOTE ]
But thats what your first post appeared to say. My first post noted that maybe that was not what were trying to say, but IF it was, then you deserved the ribbing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a more likely interpretation of your initial reply to me? What your first reply "noted" and what it said (including context and everything else that is normally in conversation) are pretty disparate, don't you agree?

Or, at least you agree that ONE interpretation of what you typed was more likely that another, more inquisitive, interpretation of intent?


Let's start over:

"I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise. "

1) What is the premise that LL is instinctively disagreeing with?

2) Why did he use "instinctively" ?

3) Why is he interested in the final version of the paper by the OP?

4) What motiviations of LL's am I assuming, regarding his statement?


Extra credit if you can summarize my interpretation of what poker is.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I suspect his disagrees with the "controlled rate of return" part.

[Lottery Larry]

Hey, don't you have some chores to do? And is YOUR homework done, young man?

'Git!

[Skallagrim]

My final post on this subject Larry, and I am only doing this one because a search reveals that you have made some informative and helpful posts in this forum in the past.

I think YOU need to look back on your original post. Not only me, but also TheProdigy and whangarei read it as a disagreement that poker is a game of skill.

In response, I said maybe that isnt what you meant, but if it is what you meant then "where do you play..." I made a joke of that belief, as did whangarei, because it is, IMO, a laughable belief. And, as I am sure you are aware, it is well known that players who believe the game is decided by chance are, except on the rare occasions they actually get lucky, the easiest players to beat.

I am not going to answer your questions because I dont see the point. If you have some point to make simply make it, dont ask me to guess it. If, as I thought I made clear originally, you were not trying to make the laughed at point, then you can simply say so and the kidding at your expense stops.

Again, Peace.

Skallagrim

[TheProdigy]

Lottery;

Please stop trolling.

All you did was try to make yourself out to be really smart while avoiding questions and making people guess as to what you meant while twisting their words.

You are hostile and quite useless to this thread. Please in the future refrain from responding in my threads if you have any respect because I feel your attitude is detrimental in the discussion. You need to calm down.


P.S. No point in quoting my post and dissecting the different parts(In BOLD) because I simply don't care.


Skall; Thank you for the link and thank you for the help. I have looked up a couple more articles and things are slowly coming together. I wish I had more time so I could write a really impressive paper, but unfortunately only have next week to write it. I am going to try my best though /images/graemlins/smile.gif And yes, there are no reasons IMO to reply to LL as his only reason is obviously to troll this thread because if he had something useful he wouldn't have done it in a cryptic way. He was obviously just trying to start a useless argument.


Thanks to everyone else as well! That one site def. helped and I am hoping I can put something nice together!

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to everyone else as well! That one site def. helped and I am hoping I can put something nice together!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That is a very convincing article. Many thanks to Skall for his work in this effort. I hope he gets his due rewards.

Baryy Greenstein on PokerRoad radio took a similar approach to how I viewed the subject. He basically said "Duh, yeah its more skill than luck." Any poker player knows that. It's obvious the more you play the better you get, for example. He said anyone who says differently is just throwing up a smoke screen. But a solid argument like Skall and Lederer and Sklansky have worked on will hopefully help to get the game to be "legally" recognized as a skill game.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Lottery;

Please stop trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trolling. I was trying to make a point about how others jump to conclusions, read things into simple statements, and how they may be coming across in a forum... without spoon-feeding them.

If you consider that trolling, I don't. If you want to assume I'm just an idiot with 6k posts, feel free.

[ QUOTE ]
All you did was try to make yourself out to be really smart while avoiding questions and making people guess as to what you meant while twisting their words.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is not what I was trying to do. If that's how it was interpreted, that's both my fault... and theirs. I would say mainly theirs, in this case.

BTW, most of what you're accusing me of, is what I was trying to make Skall aware that he was doing imo.

[ QUOTE ]
You are hostile and quite useless to this thread. Please in the future refrain from responding in my threads if you have any respect because I feel your attitude is detrimental in the discussion. You need to calm down.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I already said, I was never NOT calm. Why do you assume I was angry, because I was willing to debate what people replied to me with?
More directly, I never responded to you, or really anyone else, with any hostility, so if you want to take comments within your thread, not directed at you, personally... that's your call.


[ QUOTE ]
and dissecting the different parts(In BOLD) because I simply don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called marking for emphasis.

Okay, you don't care. Feel free to ignore. Disappointing, because I would have been interested in reading your arguments for your premise.... unless your premise was, as Skall assumed, merely that poker is a game of skill.

In that case, it's been done.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, there are no reasons IMO to reply to LL as his only reason is obviously to troll this thread because if he had something useful he wouldn't have done it in a cryptic way. He was obviously just trying to start a useless argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you truly believe that, including the last part, why do you make unnecessary public statements such as this? I guess you just wanted to show Skall that you were supporting him... ?



Kurn had it correct. Since it seems that a simple statement wasn't clear enough, I'll spell it out for anyone else who gets this far:

My first reaction
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

... on reading this-

[ QUOTE ]
The thesis will be something like:
"Poker is a skill that can be used as an effective investment vehicle that may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

[/ QUOTE ]

...was that the main part of what you were going to discuss, seemed incorrect to me. If there had been specific data that I thought were a counterpoint to your argument, I would have added them and not used the word "instinctively".

I didn't have any facts to back up that instinctive reaction, so I would have liked to see what your arguments were to support that thesis.

But, since we trolls don't get final results to review, I guess I'll just have to torture myself, wondering...

[TheProdigy]

I will still post it.

The last reply of yours should've been your first reply. There was no need to teach any lessons, just make a good reply. That was your first good reply and I thank you for that.


Now exactly how do you disagree? You think that you can't continue to make returns? I want to hear exactly how you disagree exactly.

I understand that you cannot get an expected return, but over a long run you can expect a return(I think that should make sense). For example, over this year I have had 1 month where I lost money, but since I play many many hands, I have constantly returned winning month after winning month. The thing is, I even push my limits and am always trying to move up and play better players, so I don't even have a big advantage at any level yet. I think next year when I don't move up much from 2/4nl that I will have a lot less variance and better returns.

If you don't think poker is a skill game(long-term) and don't think that you can consitently get a return by playing it, then I do have data(my year of playing) that should help prove otherwise. I have played ~1mill hands and I would assume that is a pretty good sample to help change your mind.

But anyways, if you can be more specific about your problems with the thesis then I will definitely write a paragraph or two with your argument against my thesis as one of my refutations I include in the paper.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
The last reply of yours should've been your first reply. There was no need to teach any lessons, just make a good reply.
Now exactly how do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

sigh... I disagree with much of what is contained above, in the edited quote at the top of this specific reply, based on various replies in this disaster.

But, to avoid futher hijack around unrequested and unnoticed lessons, I'm dropping the effort.


[ QUOTE ]
Now exactly how do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm too afraid to reply to this.


[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think poker is a skill game(long-term)

[/ QUOTE ]

NOW I'm on tilt.....
I have never- NEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVER NEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVER- ever said that poker is NOT a game of skill.

I have never implied that poker is not a game of skill.

NEVER

The continued responses popping up, that want to attribute this thought to my words, are (it has to be said) being made by people who evidently need to improve their English translation skills..... at least in this thread.
(if your paper, Prodigy, is ONLY about "poker is a skill game", then I retract that previous blanket statement and ask you to remove the unneeded parts of your thesis.)

Therefore, this is NOT part of the current discussion, in any way, shape or form.

If I have to be more clear than this, I'm running over someone's cat.


[ QUOTE ]
I want to hear exactly how you disagree exactly

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Instead, I'm breaking down your "thesis" statement

1) "can be used as an effective investment vehicle "
2) "may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return"
3) "despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

It's YOUR premise- you have to prove all of these things in your paper, or you need to remove the ones you can't.

Do it here, do it there, whatever.

[/rant]

[Skallagrim]

Its lunch time here and I cant resist breaking my promise.

For someone who harps a lot on english language skills, Larry, wouldn't you agree that the last 2 pages of posts could have been easily avoided by simply stating in your first post "... I instinctively disagree with the premise that there can be a controlled rate of return [or whatever it is you exactly disagree with]."

Or your second post could have been: "Ha, ha guys, its not the skill argument I disagree with its ..."

Good luck on your continued efforts to lure us in to discovering what it is you really think /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Skallagrim

[Berge20]

All,

Please let's get this thread back to the original intent from this point forward. I think we're to a point of just going after each other (and how we choose to present or not present things) and I would prefer that it not devolve into more of the same.

[Skallagrim]

Point well taken Berge, my last post was made during a weak moment.

[Lottery Larry]

With apologies to Don Corleone:

"In the interests of the peace we make here today, I forswear my vengence now and in the future"

[sobefuddled]

http://www.boston.com/ae/games/articles/2007/11/05/high_stakes/

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.boston.com/ae/games/articles/2007/11/05/high_stakes/

[/ QUOTE ]

""People who are into poker have a lot of trouble holding on to absolutes. To me, it's a way of thinking liberally and seeing what the world looks like from another person's point of view."

[/ QUOTE ]


Is "holding onto absolutes" supposed to be a desired quality? I prefer the phrasing: "Poker players should reflect the ability to avoid being trapped into 'absolute' thinking"

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I prefer the phrasing: "Poker players should reflect the ability to avoid being trapped into 'absolute' thinking"

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that sucked.

[TheProdigy]

sobef; TY for link!

LL: I was only talking about the data when I said the skill thing, meaning more "if one thinks it isn't skill" instead of directly at "you."


You seem to want to ignore my middle paragraph and just make responses based on different parts and then ignoring the other parts. I am an investing noob, so maybe I am wrong in my wording, but explain to me how:

"1) "can be used as an effective investment vehicle "
2) "may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return"
3) "despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

How is data providing a couple years, or 1mill hands on a constant upswing overall not kind've helping to prove that it can be used as an effective investment? What I am trying to say, in easier terms, is that you can learn the game and learn it well enough that you can produce consistent and big enough wins in between losses that it is an effective way to produce returns in a long-term upward manner. Did I just state the thesis in wrong investment terms that make it mean something other than what I want it to mean?

I'm also not sure what you can disagree with on the last part. Mainly I am saying that part so I can talk about the legislation against it later. Also, the games are tougher now because of the legislations but the games can still be beat.

I understand you don't like to spell anything out since everyone should be smart enough to decrypt your thoughts, but I would highly appreciate it if instead of listing things you disagree with maybe you list reasons as to why you disagree with these things?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
sobef; TY for link!

LL: I was only talking about the data when I said the skill thing, meaning more "if one thinks it isn't skill" instead of directly at "you."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then my apologies for the rant. After supposedly having squashed it, to see that pop back up....


[ QUOTE ]

I am an investing noob, so maybe I am wrong in my wording, but explain to me how:

"1) "can be used as an effective investment vehicle "
2) "may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return"
3) "despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

How is data providing a couple years, or 1mill hands on a constant upswing overall not kind've helping to prove that it can be used as an effective investment? What I am trying to say, in easier terms, is that you can learn the game and learn it well enough that you can produce consistent and big enough wins in between losses that it is an effective way to produce returns in a long-term upward manner. Did I just state the thesis in wrong investment terms that make it mean something other than what I want it to mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. That clarifies the positions you are taking, vis a vis your original thesis statement. Including actual data to verify those statements, in your paper, should hopefully take care of your goal.

I'm still not clear if you will be proving your thesis on a general population basis, or just yourself, or a select few?

Part of my instinctive rejection of your exact wording in the thesis was based on you applying those presumption to a large group of players.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also not sure what you can disagree with on the last part. Mainly I am saying that part so I can talk about the legislation against it later. Also, the games are tougher now because of the legislations but the games can still be beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh- that wasn't what I thought you meant by the legislation part.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand you don't like to spell anything out since everyone should be smart enough to decrypt your thoughts

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be really funny, if you knew me. LOL'd at the "decrypt your thoughts" part.

As far as what I was doing in this thread, don't assume that I normally take that path. However, I think that people (in general) don't think enough about what they read and write, especially in snap reactions in electronic communication... and it's getting worse.
But, that's a windmill for another day.

[ QUOTE ]
but I would highly appreciate it if instead of listing things you disagree with maybe you list reasons as to why you disagree with these things?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lost in the earlier word wars was my statement

If there had been specific data that I thought were a counterpoint to your argument, I would have added them and not used the word "instinctively".

I don't have data to say you are wrong. I don't know enough about it to say if you ARE wrong. Reading it initially, it just seemed too narrowly focused to be workable as a provable thesis.

Thus, my initial request to see your completed conclusions, so I could then either be educated or have something more concrete to debate/research.

[TheProdigy]

Thanks for the reply.

Hopefully I can bang out something that is good enough for a general population but with a short time frame and limited knowledge, I doubt I can live up to your standards. (Not meant to be a put down, but you obviously can write/analyze better than me so I am saying it won't be up to those standards).

I of course may change the thesis if I cannot help prove it but really conclusively proving this thesis is hard to do(because some say no amount of data is long enough, I suppose), my main point of the paper is more to help prove that poker is a skill game and can be consistently beat, and the wording may need to be changed to fit this topic.

[Kaka]

Great article/proof (IFF the statistics bear out the claims). I have previously had difficulties articulating an argument that would differentiate poker from blackjack - as the decision to stand, hit, double, etc. seems inherently skillful to me.

Not that I have anything against blackjack, but Lederer's definitions would appear to make such distinction, as the vast majority of blackjack hands do go to showdown and involve comparing cards. Intuitively, then blackjack would be a game predominated by chance (the deal of the cards) and poker a game predominated by skill (the decision to exit a hand prior to showdown).

For the record, "predominate," in my mind means something more than 50.00000001% (which is a preponderance, in legal jargon). Not sure what the legal standard would be, but if the statistics show 60-40 or even better, 67-33, then I would feel stronger about meeting the predominate standard. (Maybe it's just the word "dominate" contained in it, but it just seems like a higher standard).

Not sure if this is timely, but there is a TN Attorney General opinion from 2005 dealing with some of the cases and other sources discussing skill versus chance - and going with chance (not a big surprise in TN - bible belt). No real help for your argument, but it may be helpful to know what cases/sources have argued/found against the skill factor.

Not that any of these sources appear to have delved into a deep analysis, but here they are anyway:

http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/op/2005/OP/OP159.pdf

[Skallagrim]

Just a quick note on Tennessee gambling law. There, gambling is defined as "risking anything of value for profit whose return is to any degree contingent on chance..." ANY DEGREE being the key words. I will not deny that there is some degree of chance present in poker, and thus poker is illegal under TN law. TN is the only state that uses the "any degree of chance" standard though. Even fishing tournaments are illegal in TN.

However, in Howard's (and my) proof, we deal explicitly with the mistake courts make when analyzing poker, and you see it in this TN AG opinion too: they assume every poker hand must be decided by the cards, and no amount of skill changes the cards. Of course we regular players know that most hands are not decided by the cards, in most hands the final (and other player's) cards ARE NEVER SEEN. The skill acts of folding and betting/bluffing decide those hands. This is the key distinction missed by all courts in finding poker not to be a game of skill, they fail to realize that a poker hand CAN be decided by skill acts, not just cards. No one remembers the hand where everyone folds to a single player, everyone remembers the hand where pocket aces got cracked on the river to cost someone a tournament. "Remember the folded hands" is thus the key to beating this argument.

And its the same thing that distinguishes poker from blackjack. Other than the limited surrender option in some casinos, every blackjack hand must be played to the final card. Hence the cards always decide the winner; though skillful betting and hitting/standing improve your odds (for some folks even to +EV), skill acts never CONTROL whether you win or lose a hand in blackjack.

Skallagrim

[Kaka]

good call on the "any degree" language. ouch. kind of seems like any sort of equity investment in a business starts to look like gambling. how are adjustible rate mortgages legal in tennessee? how is building a commercial development off the beaten path in the hopes that a big suburban development goes up next door, but such plans are not yet finalized? chance, i'd say has at least a fleeting chance in making such a development work. i generally don't like absurdity arguments but "any degree" is a SILLY standard.

i also note that the "casino game" language in the tennessee constitution can be a difficult concept to overcome, as folks don't understand that card rooms can and do exist without casinos.

[JPFisher55]

Fishing tournaments illegal in Tennessee. I am a bass fisherman, but I do not fish in tournaments. I know that many bass fishing tournaments are held in Tennessee every year. Kentucky Lake and Barkley Lake on the Tennesee-Kentucky border are very popular.
I attended the weigh in of the 1974 BassMasters Classic held on Percy Priest Lake near Nashville, TN. I was a sophmore at Vanderbilt that year. This may be the most ignored gambling law ever.

[Skallagrim]

I found it shocking too JP. But the case is cited there in the linked AG's opinion. Maybe they dont charge an entry fee?

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Skall, every year Tennessee hosts many bass tournaments. B.A.S.S. often has a tournament on Kentucky Lake. The FLW is the other large organization hosting bass tournaments. Those two organizations are the big guns in bass fishing. ESPN now owns B.A.S.S. and Walmart owns FLW, which is much younger, but may have more money. In 2008, the WBT, BASS' women's tour will have a tournament on Old Hickory Lake near Nashville. I fished it many years ago, but preferred Percy Priest. The FLW tour, its main and biggest tournament circuit, has scheduled a tournament on a lake in TN with which I am not familiar. Tournaments held by both BASS and FLW typically have first place prizes in the 5 figures.
Other smaller organizations hold bass tournaments through out Tennessee. All have an entry fee and give both cash and sometimes boat prizes.
I guess the TN authorities ignore this law as it pertains to bass fishing tournaments, which do benefit local economies.

[rbnn]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a quick note on Tennessee gambling law. There, gambling is defined as "risking anything of value for profit whose return is to any degree contingent on chance..."

[/ QUOTE ]

This provision would make illegal paying an entry fee to play in a chess tournament. A player's return in a chess tournament depends on chance because it depends on the results of his own games and on the results of other players' games. The result of a particular chess game is partly determined by chance: whether a player makes a move depends on his assessment of whether it is the best move based on an incomplete analysis of the game tree. This move is sometimes actually the best and sometimes not; whether it really is, depends on luck to some extent. That is, a good player might sac a pawn thinking it is "probably sound" or, if it is not sound, that the opponent will "likely blunder." But a player cannot know for sure this is the case - he has to have some luck.

Indeed, if two players of the same ELO rating play one another, each player will win the same proportion of games. The whole model for ranking chess players, the ELO rating, is dependent on modelling the outcomes of games as chance-dependent.

[jcl]

[ QUOTE ]
And its the same thing that distinguishes poker from blackjack. Other than the limited surrender option in some casinos, every blackjack hand must be played to the final card. Hence the cards always decide the winner; though skillful betting and hitting/standing improve your odds (for some folks even to +EV), skill acts never CONTROL whether you win or lose a hand in blackjack.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is intentionally busting then not the same 'skill element' as folding preflop? I have to say this is where I find the argument for poker very awkward. Saying that a poker hand ended because someone applied their skill element of folding sounds retarded. I can end a blackjack hand by repeatedly hitting until I bust and that would be the complete opposite of skill.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And its the same thing that distinguishes poker from blackjack. Other than the limited surrender option in some casinos, every blackjack hand must be played to the final card. Hence the cards always decide the winner; though skillful betting and hitting/standing improve your odds (for some folks even to +EV), skill acts never CONTROL whether you win or lose a hand in blackjack.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is intentionally busting then not the same 'skill element' as folding preflop? I have to say this is where I find the argument for poker very awkward. Saying that a poker hand ended because someone applied their skill element of folding sounds retarded. I can end a blackjack hand by repeatedly hitting until I bust and that would be the complete opposite of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be completely wrong but the skill game argument of poker vs blackjack has less to do with the amount of skill involved than the fact that in blackjack you are playing against the house, where the house has a built in advantage.

A very "skillful" player can beat the house in blackjack, but there aren't that many and the house will soon ban them, just ask Andy Block among others.

Poker on the other hand is played against other players. Yes in a raked game the house always makes money but it doesn't gain an advantage from less skilled players the way it does in blackjack.

In poker the better your skill level, the more profitable the game is over the long run. Yes this is also true in blackjack but ultimately in blackjack there is an insurmountable wall that is the house's advantage.

So the fact that you can fold rather than double down in blackjack is about the only way to both increase your bet as well pretty much ends the similarities between the two games. There is no further betting nor folding in blackjack and after the first move the game is entirely dependent on chance, in poker the additional betting rounds acutally increase the amount of skill to ultimately win the most pots.

In additon in blackjack no matter how badly you play a hand it has no influence on the outcome of future hands, you can really mess up someone else sitting at the table for that hand, in blackjack, but your skill level displayed never changes the dealers strategy for future hands. This is what is missed by most people who have learned poker from watching it on television.


D$D

[jcl]

I was referring to the legal argument they are using.

[Skallagrim]

The fact that you can intentionally lose in blackjack by busting out on purpose shows that there is a skill element to blackjack.

But come on, lets not completely divorce our logical arguments from reality. No one plays any money game to lose on purpose. When you fold in poker, you lose the hand on purpose, but you do so because it is essential to being a long-term, overall winner at the game. No amount of busting out on purpose will ever improve your blackjack results, so no one does it in reality.

I understand where you guys are coming from, let me remind you where I started from: the court decisions that hold poker to be a game of chance. Those same decisions constantly recognize that poker has some skill, that players "can improve their odds through the exercise of that skill." But they conclude poker is a game of chance "because the end result is ALWAYS due to the random factor, the distribution of the cards." they think this because, as any one not really a poker player knows, the "winner" is always the player with the best hand right? The more savvy judges acknowledge that the "occassional" bluff exists, but think it is too small factor in the game to matter.

It is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THEREFORE, to demonstrate to these judges basically unfamiliar with poker, THAT THE CARDS DO NOT ALWAYS DETERMINE THE END RESULT - NOT EVEN MOST OF THE TIME; that most poker results are independent of the cards entirely: that they are far more dependent on the player's perception of the cards. That is the hurdle my and Howard's proof, and so far only my and Howard's proof, overcomes. And it comports with what we players instinctively know, that most hands will end by folding, that being able to convince your opponent you have better cards than him or her is just as, if not more, important over the long run than actually having the better cards. So is figuring out when you dont have the cards and you will NOT be able to convince the opponent otherwise, so you fold and lose less than your less skilled opponents, giving you more to play with next time, and increasing your overall results for the better.

In sum, if you cannot get over the conclusion that "the winner is determined by the cards" you lose the skill argument as a matter of law.

If you can do that better than me and Howard DO IT!!!!!

If all you want to do is say that shouldn't be test, there are better tests, OK, say it; but recognize that that is the test the courts have imposed and so your opinion does not advance the cause.

Skallagrim

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
No amount of busting out on purpose will ever improve your blackjack results.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about the Surrender rule? :P


The rest of your post is one I'd put under my new thread. maybe I can't successfully argue that long-term financial results are the determination, legally, of success at poker.

You've argued this before, that the short-term focus of the courts is the key redefinition that we need to make. Legally, you may be correct.

[TheProdigy]

Hey guys,

I almost didn't post this as it is one of my worst works. I did a good job finding some decent sources, but when you add in her rules on sources and things like that I had to leave out some stuff. Also had to include things I didn't want to, and wrote most of it the night before. Definitely not my best work, and maybe I will write something actually good without having to repeat myself/etc. I never claimed to be a good writer, but if anyone wants to critique this or work on it or do anything with it just get a hold of me.

edit: Obviously none of the formatting works...Sorry if it sucks but I did get an 'A' on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Chase Schwalbach
Dr. Sexton
English 100 (014)
November 12, 2007
Texas Hold’em
Investing in nearly anything is a risky choice, and poker is no different. Even though many different investments are risky, poker has gained notoriety as a negative investment. This isn’t completely true, even though poker has become a negative stigma in the eyes of many. Texas Hold’em, a specific type of poker game, is one of the few games played in Las Vegas that can be beaten long term. Texas Hold’em is an effective investment vehicle that may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it. Texas Hold’em, in particular, is a game of skill that is a negative investment at first but is one that can be turned into a positive one with experience and development.
To be able to thoroughly explain my topic, one must understand the game completely to understand the rules and terms of Texas Hold’em. The game is usually played with a group of nine people sitting at a table and a dealer. The first player to the left of the dealer, or the small blind, will put half of a bet in the pot. The second player to the left of the dealer, or the big blind, will put a full bet into the pot. These two bets are made before any action is taken so that betting is encouraged later in the hand to win this money that was already put into the pot. After this, the dealer will deal two cards to each player, which are collectively known as hole cards. The player to the immediate left of the big blind will open the action by taking any of three options. Each player in the hand will have the option of folding, calling, or raising. After each player has acted accordingly, the dealer will turn over three community cards, known as the flop, in the middle of the table. These cards, along with any of the two cards in each of the players’ hands, are used to make the best five card combination according to the poker hand rankings chart. Anyone left in the hand will act in turn starting to the direct left of the dealer, and when all bets are closed the dealer will flip over the fourth community card, known as the turn. The last step is repeated once again and the dealer flips over the final card, known as the river. Bets are once again placed, and when all action is closed the players flip over their cards and the best five card combination wins. Any player can win the pot at any time if he is the last one left in the hand before the final round of betting.
To be able to produce a consistent return in anything, one must prove that the game is not decided by chance but by skill. In baseball, the Yankees always buy the best players and consistently produce returns, by making the playoffs every year. Although nearly everyone considers baseball to be considered a skill game, there are luck factors in it just like there are luck factors in poker. James McManus, a writer for The New York Times, points out the luck factors in baseball. He talks about how different umpires could call one pitch a strike and one a ball, how the wind can push down a ball that could be a home-run one day and how it could make a ball that wasn’t hit well a home-run the next day (D7). Although luck is a factor in the game, the reason that the Yankees keep winning is that skill is the biggest factor in the long-run. It is easy to illustrate the long-run by showing that the Yankees keep making the playoffs because of a long season where they win consistently. Unfortunately, these same Yankees haven’t won a championship in many years because in each round of the playoffs the teams only play until one team wins three games. Even though the Yankees may be the better team, natural factors and things out of their control have led to their losses in the short-term playoffs recently (D7).
Poker in general has always been viewed as a gambling game by the public. They think that people are losing their savings playing cards and the game is harmful to America. Actually, in college-aged players, who are usually said to be the most susceptible to gambling addiction, a tiny 4% of the students who play actually ever develop any kind of addiction to gambling. In addition, only 1 to 2% of the American population have any type of gambling problem (McKee P5). Also, the view of poker as a gambling game is slightly skewed. It is a fact that poker is gambling in the short-term. In a hand, an hour, a day, or even a month, the best players can lose consistently. When one extends this period to a year of skillful play with a large amount of time invested into the game, these numbers change. Many players online have played 500,000 or more hands and are quite ahead overall (“Winnings”).
At first, it would seem to anyone that hears the rules of this game that it is directly decided by chance. This is partly true and partly false. A game like blackjack is one that is decided directly by chance, because each time you get dealt a hand you must flip over your cards at the end of your hand and compare the cards to see who wins. In Texas Hold’em, however, each betting round can decide the outcome of the hand. Any player can win the hand at any time, no matter what type of hand he or she holds (Johnson). Actually, in a study done by Howard Lederer, a well known poker player who has been known to study the game extensively, his data showed that approximately 60% of hands played between players in poker are decided before any cards are flipped over (7). The players who can skillfully bet the correct amount of money to win these pots will come out of the game a winner, regardless of chance, since the cards don’t ever come into play. Anyone who excels in poker is generally following a strategy that is actually completely opposite of getting lucky and winning hands by only having the best hand when the cards are flipped over. As Howard Lederer writes:
The better a player becomes at the game, the more selective that player becomes in the hands to play. Winning poker players tend to play fewer hands, but they win a greater percentage of hands where they make a significant investment. They also win bigger pots when they win a hand, because they are skillful in their betting. (7)
Players that excel at Texas Hold’em only play the best starting hands, which are the hands that win the most when the betting is done. By folding their worse hands, they are taking away their chance of investing money into a hand that it expected to have a negative return (5-8).
Another way to prove that chance isn’t predominate in poker is by looking at games that are known to be chance. If one goes to a craps table, they cannot lose purposely. They have to let the die decide if they are going to win or lose each time they bet (Johnson). In poker, however, one can purposely lose their money in a very quick way. By putting all their chips into the pot with a bad hand over and over again, you stand to lose your money quickly. On each hand you can put all your money in as a ten to one underdog, whereas in games like craps and slots you never can put your money in as an underdog like that (Johnson). Some professors agree that this a good way to show that you must make certain skillful decisions to be able to come out ahead in poker, whereas in games of complete luck, you cannot change the outcome of any bet you make in the game (Johnson).
Those uneducated about the game will always dismiss it and put it into the same context as games that you play against the house, which are games that you will always lose long-term. Games like roulette, slots, and craps are games where you have to wager against the actual casino. The casino will set the odds of winning and each time you place a bet they have a better chance of winning the bet than the person making the bet does. Poker isn’t played against the casino, it is only played in the casino and played against other players. Charles Nesson, a Harvard law professor, is on the side of Poker as a game of skill. He says that poker "teaches thinking skills; teaches how to see from another's point of view; teaches how to assess risk, how to manage your resources” (qtd. in Monaghan A6). Also, he is against the recent legislation that bans online poker. Since the ban is only on games that are mainly determined by chance, Nesson argues that poker should be exempt.
In games such as craps, slots, or a lottery, the result is decided by chance. Poker, its proponents argue, is a game of skill. While luck determines whether a person is holding a pair of aces or a handful of duds, the game is really about betting and getting opponents to fold, so strategy, psychology, self-control, and risk-assessment mean a skilled player can win regardless of what cards she or he holds. (Johnson)
The recent legislative measures against online poker have brought about the debates about poker as a skill game. In the recent SAFE Port Act, an act focused on the ports in our country, Congress attached a completely unrelated bill on internet gambling (Schwartz 4). When this rider was attached to the bill, it wasn’t discussed before the main bill was passed. The bill was actually to ban any game that is subject to chance, which is too vague to be effective (4). Realistically, this terminology could be applied to nearly any game at all, but Congress has decided instead to focus on games that can be won by skillful play. Since the bill passed, many influential people have come to the side of poker players. One of the most influential people, former senator Alfonso D’Amato, has recently been at the forefront of the movement to get poker legalized in the United States. He recently signed a lobbying deal with a poker advocate group, the Poker Players Alliance (Rivlin and Richtel C1). Senator D’Amato also has a stance on the subject of poker being a skill game. He says that poker shouldn’t be lumped together with games of pure chance like roulette and craps, going as far as to call it a sport instead of a game (D2).
As one can see, poker is definitely a long-term game of skill. Poker was once called the Cheater’s Game, because of the type of people playing the game at the time (McManus D2). Poker is often still viewed as a game played in smoke-filled rooms with the same type of cheaters, but it is nothing like that anymore. Poker is now a highly skillful game played and supported by some of the greatest minds in the world. People that are as educated as Senator D’Amato and Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson don’t put their names on the line for something that isn’t reputable. These important people show that poker is no longer a game played in the back alleys by hustlers and cheaters. These people are backing online poker for a reason, and that reason is that it can be beaten long-term as a way to continually gain capital. Since poker is a game of skill, it can be used to provide a return for anyone who plays it, just like any other skill can provide returns in other forms. Poker should no longer be shunned to the background of society, but should be embraced as a game that people of all ages and demographics can play and win.


Works Cited
Johnson, Carolyn Y. “High stakes.” The Boston Globe 5 Nov. 2007.
<http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/11/05/high_stakes?mode=PF>.
Lederer, Howard. “Is Poker a Game of Skill?” Global Poker Thinking Society.
29 Oct. 2007. <http://gpsts.org/poker-a-game-of-skill/>.
McKee, David. “Pathological gambling among the young is exaggerated, experts say.”
Las Vegas Business Press 31 Oct. 2005, sec. Page 2: 5. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Camden-Carroll Library, Morehead, Kentucky. 31 October 2007. <http://www.epnet.com>.
McManus, James. “Skill and Luck in the Two National Pastimes.” New York Times 20
Aug. 2005, sec. D: 7.
McManus, James. “Once Swept Under the Rug, Now on the Table.” New York Times
21 Jan. 2006, sec. D: 2.
Monaghan, Peter. “Betting on Students.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 54.9 (26
Oct. 2007). 12 Nov. 2007 < http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i09/09a00602.htm>.
Rivlin, Gary and Matt Richtel. “D’Amato Never Folds.” New York Times 5 Mar. 2007,
sec. C: 1-2.
Schwartz, David G. “Congress should study, not ban, ‘Net gambling.” Las Vegas
Business Press 18 Oct. 2006, sec. Opinion: 4.
“Winnings.” 18 Nov. 2007. Hold’em Manager Beta 0.55b. Roy Goncalves, 2007.


[/ QUOTE ]