Is poker gambling?
 

The other day me and my friend were arguing about the very nature of poker. Is poker gambling? I know in a literal sense putting money into a community pot, whether in blackjack, roulette or poker is risking your money, therefore gambling, but theoretically Is poker really a gamble. Assume you only put money in the pot when you are a favorite or getting the right price due to skill (knowing your opponent, pot odds etc). In terms of the math, you can expect to win more than you lose, making putting that money into the pot an investment rather than a gamble. I know luck gets thrown into the mix but theoretically the luck will even out over the long run. Suggestions, comments?

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Also consider that when i do decide to gamble, i often find myself in the common coin toss, usually in tournaments. Although this is a gamble I am betting on something that i have at least a 45% chance. What other forms of gambling do you have a 45% chance to win? Not the slots, not the lottery, not roulette. What are the odds of winning on any given slot machine. Presumably much worse than the odds you have on even a measley two outer. (roughly 8% on flop and 4% on turn

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assume you only put money in the pot when you are a favorite or getting the right price due to skill (knowing your opponent, pot odds etc). In terms of the math, you can expect to win more than you lose, making putting that money into the pot an investment rather than a gamble. I know luck gets thrown into the mix but theoretically the luck will even out over the long run. Suggestions, comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's your thought process applied to roulette:

[ QUOTE ]
Assume you only put money on the roulette table when you are not getting the right odds due to gamb0000l. In terms of the math, you can expect to lose more than you win, making putting that money into the pot a transfer to the house rather than a gamble. I know luck gets thrown into the mix but theoretically the luck will even out over the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

If roulette isn't gambling, then there is no such thing as gambling. As far as I can tell the thought processes are the same.

As far as whether it is gambling, why is it relevant that poker is +EV? Do you think the gambling addict that spends hour upon hour at the casino playing slots and craps is gambling? The same EV equations apply to her.

Overall I don't think it matters. Poker clearly is gambling. People, especially those trying to convince themselves or others that it's ok for them to play poker, want that not to be the case because there is some social stigma attached. If you want to convince someone that it's ok, IMO a better approach is to look at a lot of other gambling situations that are ok. Investing in the stock market, for example, is clearly gambling. Convince yourself or others that the form of gambling in which you are participating is more like this than the dude losing his work check a dollar at a time in the slot machine.

Jared

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Yes.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Here's a few links to past "Is Poker Gambling?" threads (they pop up regularly):

Is Poker Gambling?
Another one
Yet another

The short answer is yes. You'll get a lot of people who say no, but they're just arguing semantics and trying to rewrite the definition of "gambling". There's always RoR in poker.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Read the first few chapters of Small Stakes Holdem. The definitive answer to your very question is answered there.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

ditto

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a few links to past "Is Poker Gambling?" threads (they pop up regularly):

Is Poker Gambling?
Another one
Yet another

The short answer is yes. You'll get a lot of people who say no, but they're just arguing semantics and trying to rewrite the definition of "gambling". There's always RoR in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one thing in life where there's not RoR in some sense.

When lay people talk about whether poker is gambling, they mean, does an element of chance prevail theoretically? Although they never state this as such, that's what they mean. And the answer is, for the skilled poker player who has an edge, in the long run, no, poker is not gambling. If you argue that there's RoR in poker, well there's the same in putting your money in an insured bank. The bank could go broke via a national crisis, China could blow up our country when you're on vacation, etc. There's always RoR, no matter how minute. If you ask me my RoR with my BR playing the stakes I do, it's probably around 1/20,000. So it's gambling? I have a better chance of winning some lotteries than going broke.

When people on 2.2 say poker is definitely "gambling", they mean it is wagering something of value on an uncertain outcome. However, when lay people discuss whether poker is gambling, they're obviously not talking about the same definition; for everyone knows that the game wagers money on an outcome that is not known. The real question that people are asking is, is poker a game where skill or chance predominates? They're asking if poker is a game where skill will prevail, or will luck?

Believe me, when lay people ask you if poker is a game of skill or luck, if it's "gambling", for the true, wise professional, the answer is, "no".

For unwise pros, it can be b/c they play above their BR, they tilt and play -EV poker, they literally gamble with coinflips all in preflop, they go for draws when they know they don't have the odds when they're steaming, etc.

For wise pros who play well within their bankroll, their RoR is lower than pretty much all investments in the real world, and if they play at stakes where their edge is large, at least in NL, you win somewhere around 6/7 days played, assuming around 2k-2.5k hands/day and no tilt.

Because lay people don't think investing in stocks is gambling, or owning one's own business, or starting a new business, then neither is professional poker for the wise pro. Not in the way most people discuss it. In a technical sense? Yes. Practically by what people mean when they discuss it on a daily basis? No.

People who don't play poker need to understand that it's a game of skill, that my money is more certain than their paycheck. I can't have a losing month b/c my edge is too big, I play too many hands, and I have so many forms of cushion such as rakeback and bonuses. I gamble a lot less than most businesses, yet for them it's called "investing".

For outsiders, we have to be careful what we allow them to call "gambling", and be clear about how they are defining it compared to how we are. You should ask them to define it before answering their question.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is poker gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Idiot.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is poker gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a few links to past "Is Poker Gambling?" threads (they pop up regularly):

Is Poker Gambling?
Another one
Yet another

The short answer is yes. You'll get a lot of people who say no, but they're just arguing semantics and trying to rewrite the definition of "gambling". There's always RoR in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one thing in life where there's not RoR in some sense.

When lay people talk about whether poker is gambling, they mean, does an element of chance prevail theoretically? Although they never state this as such, that's what they mean. And the answer is, for the skilled poker player who has an edge, in the long run, no, poker is not gambling. If you argue that there's RoR in poker, well there's the same in putting your money in an insured bank. The bank could go broke via a national crisis, China could blow up our country when you're on vacation, etc. There's always RoR, no matter how minute. If you ask me my RoR with my BR playing the stakes I do, it's probably around 1/20,000. So it's gambling? I have a better chance of winning some lotteries than going broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the same applies to roulette, craps, (-EV) blackjack and any number of games that are without dispute gambling. In roulette in theory luck does not win out - you will lose a portion of the money you put on the table in the long run.

Why doesn't the same logic apply to -EV games that you are using for +EV games?

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Maybe someone mentioned that in an earlier thread,
but:
poker is gambling, if and only if all players got the same playing skill.
otherwise, it is an optimization problem where the most skilled player will have the maximum expected win.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is poker gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]


What is it with this community, that people can't just give a basic, helpful answer to someone without being derogatory? Does this really make you feel better?

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

If it makes you feel worse, then it probably achieved what it was intended to do. (unfortunately)

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

If it were sheer chance, how does that explain Brunson or Hachem or Negreneau's continued success at winning??? Is there an element of chance? Yes, of course. But skill at knowing what to do, when to do it, against whom to play a strategy, for what stakes, etc. - THAT is skill.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

I think most people under estimate the amount of skill and knowledge required to win at poker

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

You all do realize that this is much more an argument over how to define the term "gambling" than an argument over what is poker. Poker is a game of skill and luck - how much of each is a matter of debate.

The fact that playing with significant skill can turn it into the only +EV game in the casino makes it different from ALL other casino games.

Games such as slots, craps and roulette have virtually no skill (a betting system is not the same as playing the game with skill). Games like blackjack have some skill, but it is never enough to overcome the math that gives the house the edge.

Should the term gambling apply equally to poker, blackjack and slots? Thats a language question. For more on this read some Wittgenstein [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Skallagrim

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Gambling is wagering on an unexpected outcome. Of course poker is gambling. Even if you play a +EV game, it is still gambling.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You all do realize that this is much more an argument over how to define the term "gambling" than an argument over what is poker. Poker is a game of skill and luck - how much of each is a matter of debate.

The fact that playing with significant skill can turn it into the only +EV game in the casino makes it different from ALL other casino games.

Games such as slots, craps and roulette have virtually no skill (a betting system is not the same as playing the game with skill). Games like blackjack have some skill, but it is never enough to overcome the math that gives the house the edge.


[/ QUOTE ]

Error Alert!

The amount of luck vs. skill in poker is not really up for debate. The bounds of how well someone can run over a long period in various games are pretty well explored, as is the expected variance average winners encounter. Much of this info is in 2+2 books if you're curious.

And there are at least 2 other beatable games in the average casino - +EV blackjack is everywhere (the difficulty is to get them to let you keep playing) and the sportsbook is an obvious one as numerous people have proven they can beat it over the long haul. The racebook is potentially vulnerable as well.

Roulette has been legally beaten in the past, but the laws have since changed. It might be possible to do again in the future if you could find a person with the rather bizarre talent for accurately estimating embedding theorem predictors in their head. That would be a pretty special find though.

You are correct about craps and slots, although there are definitely slots that can be beaten when comps are factored in.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

We should really define what "gambling" means before we decide if poker is gambling or not.
It`s pretty hard to objectively define it w/o making the term meaningless. The best approach imo is to just look what legislation defines as such.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

That's just it, a lot of people want to go redefining "gambling".

If you start altering the definition, and then make a whole bunch of exceptions and assumptions (as Megenotia did above), then you can say it's not, but then you're just playing semantics.

For certain people in certain situations, poker can be +EV gambling, but that's still gambling. Most definitions have it as 'wagering on an uncertain event' or something similar.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is poker gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]


What is it with this community, that people can't just give a basic, helpful answer to someone without being derogatory? Does this really make you feel better?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question has been asked at least a hundred and fifty times.

Yes, poker is gambling, period. The fact that it is +EV for most of us doesn't mean it isn't gambling.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it were sheer chance, how does that explain Brunson or Hachem or Negreneau's continued success at winning??? Is there an element of chance? Yes, of course. But skill at knowing what to do, when to do it, against whom to play a strategy, for what stakes, etc. - THAT is skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't mean it aint gambling.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is wagering on an unknown outcome. Of course poker is gambling. Even if you play a +EV game, it is still gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Many many outcomes in poker are expected. You just don't know which way the little rat bastard is going to suck out on you this time. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is wagering on an unexpected outcome. Of course poker is gambling. Even if you play a +EV game, it is still gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there isnt much in life that isnt gambling - your definition includes the stock market, working on commission, insurance contracts, commodity and real estate trading etc...

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You all do realize that this is much more an argument over how to define the term "gambling" than an argument over what is poker. Poker is a game of skill and luck - how much of each is a matter of debate.

The fact that playing with significant skill can turn it into the only +EV game in the casino makes it different from ALL other casino games.

Games such as slots, craps and roulette have virtually no skill (a betting system is not the same as playing the game with skill). Games like blackjack have some skill, but it is never enough to overcome the math that gives the house the edge.


[/ QUOTE ]

Error Alert!

The amount of luck vs. skill in poker is not really up for debate. The bounds of how well someone can run over a long period in various games are pretty well explored, as is the expected variance average winners encounter. Much of this info is in 2+2 books if you're curious.

And there are at least 2 other beatable games in the average casino - +EV blackjack is everywhere (the difficulty is to get them to let you keep playing) and the sportsbook is an obvious one as numerous people have proven they can beat it over the long haul. The racebook is potentially vulnerable as well.

Roulette has been legally beaten in the past, but the laws have since changed. It might be possible to do again in the future if you could find a person with the rather bizarre talent for accurately estimating embedding theorem predictors in their head. That would be a pretty special find though.

You are correct about craps and slots, although there are definitely slots that can be beaten when comps are factored in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is additional info and does not make my post an error.

So you know the answer as to whether Poker is more skill than chance? Please further enlighten us! If you convice me I will gladly hire you as my expert witness in the next illegal poker/gambling case I have - and the PPA will want to use you for congressional testimony. Seriously, all I said was its a subject of debate, and that is a clearly true.

If you can get away with card counting and do it perfectly, yes it does make Blackjack slightly +EV (if you find the casino where you can do this please send me a private message).

Sports betting I am not so sure about - Of course if you really are able to predict the outcome better than the odds the house gives you - but so much UNpredicitable happens in sports - I dont bet on sports myself, or study it, and I didn't mention it originally, so I'll accept your point here.

Roulette is pure chance unless, as you say, you can determine and calculate the speed, motion, etc. of the ball and wheel at the time of release. Even then you only narrow the number of possible results. And, since you have to use banned electronic devices to do this, its cheating in every casino.

Comps can make video poker +EV if you find the right video poker game (pretty hard to do these days). I've never seen this be the case for slots (spose its possible with those special promotion 99% or more payback machines).

My personal opinion is "gambling" is wagering on future events subject to an element of chance and not under the wagerer's control or influence. That makes poker NOT gambling (of course we influence the outcome at poker), but that is just my opinion as to the best way to use the word gambling.

Skallagrim

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is wagering on an unexpected outcome. Of course poker is gambling. Even if you play a +EV game, it is still gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there isnt much in life that isnt gambling - your definition includes the stock market, working on commission, insurance contracts, commodity and real estate trading etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. They are all gambling.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is wagering on an unexpected outcome. Of course poker is gambling. Even if you play a +EV game, it is still gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there isnt much in life that isnt gambling - your definition includes the stock market, working on commission, insurance contracts, commodity and real estate trading etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. They are all gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, working on commission might not be if you can't lose your initial stake but any sort of investment is a gamble and insurance is absolutely a gamble.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is additional info and does not make my post an error.

So you know the answer as to whether Poker is more skill than chance?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[ QUOTE ]

Roulette is pure chance unless, as you say, you can determine and calculate the speed, motion, etc. of the ball and wheel at the time of release. Even then you only narrow the number of possible results. And, since you have to use banned electronic devices to do this, its cheating in every casino.


[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you can get a person to do what the device does. I don't have any more to say on that topic.
[ QUOTE ]

I've never seen this be the case for slots


[/ QUOTE ]
Sit down at penny slot. Play one line. Get free drink. +EV.
[ QUOTE ]

My personal opinion is "gambling" is wagering on future events subject to an element of chance and not under the wagerer's control or influence. That makes poker NOT gambling...

[/ QUOTE ] In poker you wager on three things: the contents of your opponents un-revealed cards, the cards to come, and the behavior of your opponents. The first two you have no control over. The third you have very little control over (ie they are fundamentally inc control of their actions, not you). So by your definition, poker is gambling.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Well Splawndarts, I guess you didnt have the time to provide the definitive statement on how much of poker is skill and how much chance. You should, being an expert witness is a lucrative profession.

And I have yet to sit at a slot and get my free drink with only one spin (please name the casino!) - but you are right about the free drinks if you stop before you have lost the value of them.

But you are quite wrong that poker is gambling under my definition. Note that I said "influence" the outcome. When you make that raise, and depending on the amount of that raise, you are influencing your opponents actions (call, raise or fold), and of course, you influence the outcome EVERY time you (or anyone else) folds before the final card and bet. Poker is, of course, not won by simply what the cards are (which is the chance part we do not influence) but by who remains at the end or has the best hand at the end if more than one remain. Every action influences who that will be. So poker, because the player influences the ultimate outcome of the hand, is not gambling - by my humbly proposed defintion.

The reason I like my defintion is because it nicely illustrates the differences between poker and what most folks think of when they hear the word gambling (Slots, Roulette and Dice).

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Skall,

[ QUOTE ]

My personal opinion is "gambling" is wagering on future events subject to an element of chance and not under the wagerer's control or influence. That makes poker NOT gambling (of course we influence the outcome at poker), but that is just my opinion as to the best way to use the word gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Using this definition poker would indeed not be gambling and the obvious forms would be. The only thing it would exclude that most would consider gambling would be things like competitions. So if we're playing basketball, darts, bowling, playstation, or whatever and I bet you that I will win, most would consider that gambling but you wouldn't.

I personally would as well, though I could see not doing so.

edit: also office pools (March Madness, The Oscars, and so on) would be in some grey area - you aren't under control of which team/nominee actually win, but you win based on how accurately you pick them.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Well Jared, by my proposed definition (which I have to admit I stole from the New Hamsphire Criminal Law definition of gambling) the first group you mention would not be gambling, and I think most people really dont consider it gambling when they bet $10 on which of them shoots the better score on the next round of golf. They consider it gambling when they bet on whether Tiger Woods or some other golfer shoots the best round at some pro tournament though.

But office pools and the like, thats gambling because although there may be some skill in making the right picks, you, unless you are somehow participating in the event, do not influence who gets the oscar, or wins the game, etc...

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well Splawndarts, I guess you didnt have the time to provide the definitive statement on how much of poker is skill and how much chance. You should, being an expert witness is a lucrative profession.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't provide it, because it's been answered so many times before that there's nothing more to say. But if you really don't know, read a stats textbook, track the results of your individual poker hands (or sessions, if you want to cut down your book keeping), calculate the expected value & standard deviation, apply the central limit theorem, and the question is answered in the form of a normal distribution of what range of results you can expect for a given number of trials. The location of the mean of the distribution represents skill relative to your opponents minus vig, the width represents the impact of luck.

If you feel compelled to offer me a "lucrative profession" explaining the obvious to you, I guess I'm not going to stop you.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

No need to be demeaning - what you have proposed is a method of determining how much of any one person's results is due to chance v. skill. that may be obvious but it is also unimportant to any one other than that player. I thought the question was more theoretical (which it would be in any Court case), i.e. "how much of ALL poker results are due to a players actions and how much of ALL poker results are due to the cards?" Has anyone done that kind of analysis? I suspect it would be a pretty daunting task. Maybe the question is how much of an average players results are skill? But then we have to determine what is an average player.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No need to be demeaning - what you have proposed is a method of determining how much of any one person's results is due to chance v. skill. that may be obvious but it is also unimportant to any one other than that player. I thought the question was more theoretical (which it would be in any Court case), i.e. "how much of ALL poker results are due to a players actions and how much of ALL poker results are due to the cards?"

[/ QUOTE ] In that case, you simply repeat the analysis for multiple people, and produce a distribution for their individual means and standard devs. Not to hard, but time consuming. However, in practice there's no need to do this - simply sample a small population, figure out the range of standard deviations for individual hands by player, and then figure that everyone's going to fall somewhere in that range.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

I think you would need to control for a few more variables then that to be sure you had a representative sample, but other wise a plausible equation. Are you aware of any one who has done this?

Oh and PS - telling me that the above method of analysis is "explaining the obvious" tells me you assuredly have all the hubris needed to be a good expert witness. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Read the first few chapters of Small Stakes Holdem. The definitive answer to your very question is answered there.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offence to Ed (and I love his book), I hardly think he definitively answers the question for every intelligent person on the planet. Although if you can say why it does I would like to hear it.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Anyone here own a dictionary? This isn't that hard unless you make it hard.

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

Maude Flanders: "Neddy doesn't believe in insurance, he considers it a form of gambling"

Re: Is poker gambling?
 

yes