[Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Many people have perception that gambling is bad for you. Well, I agree in a sense. Image gambling 1/10 of your bankroll with a dice. If you roll 1-4 you double your money, if you roll 5-6, you lose your money. You are getting 2/3 (~67%) odd on your money. Now, imagine gambling your whole bankroll with a dice. If you roll 1-3 you double your money, if you roll 4-6, you lose your money. Would you call both cases a gamble?

Wikipedia defines gambling as

"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"

Based on the definition, both of the activities described above are gambling. It is true that you are betting your money on uncertain outcome. However, what if you have a better chance of winning even slightly? Imagine having a favor over 1,000,000 dice rolls. Can you imagine how many times you can double your backroll?

Poker is a game of intellectual guessing - You can never see what the other players are holding. However, there are certain factors to be observed - Odd, amount to bet, tendency of player, betting pattern, the amount of time an opponent take on certain hand, facial expression, shoulder level, eyes movement, the way they talk, and much more! Skilled players make these critical observations and use it on their favor in order to generate the maximum amount of profits. Can you understand the advantages you gain from perceiving these factors? I take these factors as an additional add to win my games. Just like the dice example above, if you have an extra winning number, your profit will enhance significantly in long-term. It is also true that you can lose the money even with these perfect observation skills. However, in a long term, professional players will generate tremendous income from these edge.

This is exactly why I call Poker a skill game and can be a profession. I really get disgusted from people saying Poker is gamble so you should quit. How can one really lecture others without knowing what they are talking about. We see people working on Mcdonald's drive through and make $5 hr vs people working on a law firm making over $200/hr. What do you think is their difference?
Education is my prior investment in my life at this moment. It is just not the schools but becoming an sophiscated and intellecture individual takes a lot of dedication and work. This is exactly why I still go to the school and work as a software enginner although I can afford to live my way just by playing Poker 3-4 hours a day.

Some people just don't say it and just look Poker players with their sunglasses on. This is exactly why I don't share my poker stories with an unintellectual inmates in real life. For the people who heard my deep Poker story in person, you deserve to be an intellectual individual, at least on my own perspective!

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Not to burst your bubble, but even getting when you get your money in as a 95% favorite, you are still gambling.

Poker is gambling. It is a form of gambling that gives the opportunity for players with sound knowledge of the game and who make mathematically correct plays the ability to become long-term winners.

If one gambles by playing the lottery or roulette - over the long-term, they will be losers because of the inherent disadvantage in the game.

Poker allows players to gamble their money with a much higher possibiliy of ROI than the lottery or other, house-favored casino games.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Hmm.. not so sure - gambling implies taking a risk.
If I play 10 hands vs Phil Ivey I have a decent (<50% for sure but still decent) chance of coming out ahead. If I was given the amount of Phil's roll (say by Bill Gates) and played at stakes where the BB was 1/10th of that amount, Phil is gambling.


If I sat down at a $200 table and played Phil over 100,000 hands, Philp isn't gambling in any meaningful sense of the word...(he is wasting his valuable time, but that's another issue).

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Actually poker is a scam in most cases right now due to the high rake fees imposed at most sites. What i'm saying is after all the rake is paid only the sites are really winning.

And its true.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Is driving a car, with the intention of living, gambling?

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Yes.

Poker is gambling.

Idiot.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Stocks, bonds & derivatives, ftw?

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is driving a car, with the intention of living, gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point.

The way you are labeling poker gambling can apply to almsot everything we do day in and day out.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

op are u by any chance perfume from tft?

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Is the second post from the guy that wrote the rake is the real winner - there is no one that can win over the long run article?

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

poker is gambling, and everyone hugely overestimates the edge even big winners have over other players

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

2/3 * 1 + 1/3 * -1 = 1/3 on your money.

Regarding the main question, the issue to me is one of semantics. When people say gamble they often take it to mean (in part) 'a game in which you expect to eventually lose', even though it's meaning really implies risk but says nothing about EV.

Regards, Punter

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

i want to hear more about the article of why u cant win in the long run because of the rake. anyone have a link?

i like to call texas holdem and other forms of poker, "educated gambling" or "selective pai gow".

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]

However, there are certain factors to be observed - Odd, amount to bet, tendency of player, betting pattern, the amount of time an opponent take on certain hand, facial expression, shoulder level, eyes movement, the way they talk, and much more!...It is also true that you can lose the money even with these perfect observation skills. However, in a long term, professional players will generate tremendous income from these edge.


[/ QUOTE ]
What's this talk about observations and tells? Don't you know poker is meant to be played online?

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Actually poker is a scam in most cases right now due to the high rake fees imposed at most sites. What i'm saying is after all the rake is paid only the sites are really winning.

And its true.

[/ QUOTE ]

your a moron, i beat the rake just fine.... maybe your just a [censored] player..

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

i really dont understand the significance of calling poker a "skill game." as if it makes it more healthy. poker and cards in general are legal in california because they are considered "skill games" and are some how partitioned from gambling. i really dont understand the distinction. are skill games those that require you to process info and make a critical decision? certainly you do this in blackjack, taking a -ev, so is blackjack a skill game or a gambling game? obviously its both, unless you want to redefine skill games as those where you make a decision and can have +ev. but then the gambling distinction is one of ev, not decision making.

anyway, back to op. yes poker is gambling because youre winning or losing money based on random events (ie the shuffle of cards). same is true with dice. just dont try to claim that its not gambling because its a skill game, because then you sound like an intellecture retarted moran.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Theres a rake?

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Probably get flamed for quoting Gary Carson but I remember this quote from a long time ago in RGP:

You bet money on the turn of a card. That's gambling.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

It all depends on the definition of "gambling." When most people consider gambling, they only see an act of wagering money on something with an uncertain outcome. If you have any chance to lose your money, its gambling. But is it really gambling if you take an edge over and over and over again? If you flip a coin that somehow comes up heads 51% of the time and bet x amt of money on heads over a million times, is that really gambling? You know for a fact that you will be a winner. That's not gambling, that's just being smart. If you know beyond all doubt that you will be a winner, is that gambling? That's all poker is to winning players, taking advantage of +EV situations over and over again. Done correctly over enough trials, you will win. Is that really "gambling"?

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

This is why there is recreational poker for fun and gambling. Then there is professional playing which requires a lot of practice to be good enough to take advantage of those who plays recreationaly. I consider this higher form of poker call business. You don't see the pros getting drunk do you? It's because this is their "business" to entertain those who play for fun.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
people working on a law firm making over $200/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please introduce me to these people....we get charged five times that!

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
poker is gambling, and everyone hugely overestimates the edge even big winners have over other players

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Poker is a game of both skill and luck and a game of incomplete information. If there were no luck involved, there would't be very many games, as the poorer players wouldn't play. If I played chess against a Grand Master, he'd win 100% of the time because there is no luck involved and we can see each other's moves.

But one can gamble with the best of it. That's why there are professional poker players, professional blackjack players, professional sports bettors, but not professional craps shooters or professional coin tossers.

You can explain to doubters that poker is indeed a game that involves luck and that is why you don't win 100% of the hands you play nor 100% of the sessions you play. But that it is also a game of skill and your skill level allows you to overcome the luck factor and be a winning player.

Good luck!

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Of course its gambling, calculated, but still gambling.

And don't we kid ourselves, poker would be a loosing game for everyone even if there was no rake. Due to the limits of our bankrolls, risk or ruin is always > 0, no matter the size of the roll or the player's edge. Its only a matter of time.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

I don't know anybody who wins money at craps, slot machines, or three card poker.

I know lots of people, including myself, who win money playing poker.

I don't know anybody who wins money playing poker, *AND* wins money playing craps, slot machines, or three card poker.

There ya go.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]

And don't we kid ourselves, poker would be a loosing game for everyone even if there was no rake. Due to the limits of our bankrolls, risk or ruin is always > 0, no matter the size of the roll or the player's edge. Its only a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

nonsense, total nonsense.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Do you understand what "risk of ruin" means? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand what "risk of ruin" means? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The risk of ruin is always there of course, I took your post to mean everyone is going to go busto at some point. I disagree with this and if I read it wrong I apologize.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Thats right. Everyone is going to go busto eventually. Its not really an opinion, just secondary school math. But most people will never see it in their lifetime.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thats right. Everyone is going to go busto eventually. Its not really an opinion, just secondary school math. But most people will never see it in their lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know much about math. I was never very good at it quite frankly. I knew this, so I went to law school and became a lawyer instead. In law school they teach you all sorts of cool details about evidence, and how to come to certain conclusions based on that evidence.
Based on the evidence you've given, I conclude you're a moron. How's that?

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Poker is absolutely gambling.

The problem with the term gambling is that the general public usually associates the word gambling to games where you cannot gain an any edge in, let alone a significant one. (i.e. dice, slots, etc.)

Poker is gambling, but smart gamblers can earn positive expected returns in the long run.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

do YOU know what "risk of ruin" is?

if any player has a probability of winning < 1 there is a positive risk of ruin over a finite number of events. that does not mean it's a losing game for _everybody_. i could have a 99% chance of winning in any game and i would be a losing player by your definition. the only case in which "everyone is going to go busto eventually" is a game in which players risk 100% of their bankrolls 100% of the time.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

i'm not trying to start [censored] but you clearly do not know the difference between "a losing game" and "a game in which there is a chance of losing"

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
do YOU know what "risk of ruin" is?

if any player has a probability of winning < 1 there is a positive risk of ruin over a finite number of events. that does not mean it's a losing game for _everybody_. i could have a 99% chance of winning in any game and i would be a losing player by your definition. the only case in which "everyone is going to go busto eventually" is a game in which players risk 100% of their bankrolls 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing the point.

In most other games, say golf, your chance of ruin is effectively 0 because even if you go down a hundred times in a row, you can stand up a hundred and one.

In poker the hundredth time is going to kill your roll. Busto, no more pokah. Sure you can take a stake. But we are talking about the limited nature of funds available in this world.

However, its a stretch, but we can extrapolate the term "bankroll" from poker into the term "physical fitness" in athletic sports to some extent. Do you need proof to say that Michael Jordan is a loosing play in a long run or you can come to this conclusion yourself? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

And this is exactly what I am talking about in poker. With proper bankroll management and the right state of mind we can delay the inevitable for a very long time, but someday somewhen the dice is going to roll 6 a bazillion number of times in a row and you go busto. Simple? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not trying to start [censored] but you clearly do not know the difference between "a losing game" and "a game in which there is a chance of losing"

[/ QUOTE ]

"a game in which there is a chance of losing" is an inevitably "loosing game" with scarce resources on an infinite scale. If you had resources to come back, it would not. But if they are finite - busto time.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats right. Everyone is going to go busto eventually. Its not really an opinion, just secondary school math. But most people will never see it in their lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know much about math. I was never very good at it quite frankly. I knew this, so I went to law school and became a lawyer instead. In law school they teach you all sorts of cool details about evidence, and how to come to certain conclusions based on that evidence.
Based on the evidence you've given, I conclude you're a moron. How's that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Grats. Second person I muted.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Corsakh I see what you're getting at but if you make the small assumption that a poker player will only ever put a certain % of himself on the line at once, rather than a fixed amount, then poker becomes a game of winners as well as losers. The way you're seeing it, there's no difference between a game in which you can gamble and win 25% of the time and a game where you win 75% of the time, whereas I see one of those as a winning game and the other as a losing game.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

Of course there is a big difference. In the first case, you need to get "lucky" to win money on any particular range of hands, in the second - you need to get "lucky" to loose. By term lucky I mean going against the odds. But it does not change a thing about the mechanics of the system. Saying that "75%" players cant loose is essentially the same as saying that "25%" players cant win. The difference between those two is there is no ceiling for winning, but there is ground 0 for loosing.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

"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"

Actually your outcome is not uncertain by definition, it is just not always certain and on occasion it is.

Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
 

corsakh,

Please tell my you're levelling; if not, then wow