Gambling or Poker?
 

Let's pretend.....let's pretend you have $200 to live with. When I say live with I mean this is the last money you will ever get in your entire life. The catch? The only way you can possibly make more money is to use that $200 playing online poker. You can make as much money as possible but only playing poker online. What would you do?

The reason I bring this up is to talk about the fine line between gambling and playing poker.

I strongly feel that many more players would be winning players if they practiced proper bankroll management, and avoided playing while tilting.

The trend seems to be to move up too fast.

Let's say they have tripled their bankroll from $100 to $300. They move up thinking if they lose the winnings, they will stop and move back down to start over and build again.

This is the crucial moment that defines you as a poker player, or simply another gambler.

Once most players have moved up, they have a hard time moving down.

If you treat your bankroll like it's life and death, there is no way to avoid proper bankroll management.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

I'm sorry man but I don't get it.

First you create an impossible hypothetical situation then generalize that even though it's a pretend world all good gamblers have to pretend that their bankroll money is life or death?

(IN THE REAL WORLD)

A good gambler would gamble with only money he is willing to lose whether it is lost while one learns the nuances of the game or whether it's lost by an unavoidable yet brutally long bad run of cards and suckouts. A smart professional player can support himself outside of poker but chooses to gamble because he can afford it, he or she realizes that poker is gambling and nothing besides.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

^^^^^^ sounds about right to me.

nh.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry man but I don't get it.

First you create an impossible hypothetical situation then generalize that even though it's a pretend world all good gamblers have to pretend that their bankroll money is life or death?

(IN THE REAL WORLD)

A good gambler would gamble with only money he is willing to lose whether it is lost while one learns the nuances of the game or whether it's lost by an unavoidable yet brutally long bad run of cards and suckouts. A smart professional player can support himself outside of poker but chooses to gamble because he can afford it, he or she realizes that poker is gambling and nothing besides.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good gambler you say??? WTF are you talking about dude? For a professional poker player, it's only gambling if they are playing outside of their bankroll. So you're trying to say that all professionals realize that poker is gambling but nothing more? Jeez with all those posts you have I would have expected better...

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

let me chime in with a little tidbit of useless knowledge.

poker = gambling.

this is true for pro's as well. the gamble aspect lies in the fact that even a pro can get taken by a donk over a short period of time, hence the idea of gambling.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

Okay..obviously this is over the head of most of you who CAN'T STOP THINKING ABOUT THE SHORT TERM. If you don't understand, don't reply.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

To quote the famous Mike McD: "If you're too careful, your whole life can become a [censored]' grind."

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

I like tacos.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

to quote joey knish: "from time to time, everyone goes bust."

to the op, one of the reasons you may be getting douchebaggy responses is because the oringinal post is foolish. just an idea.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like tacos.

[/ QUOTE ]

you too?

i just had some kfc, it was pretty damn good.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

You say the post is foolish? You know what's funny about this? 4 different people have replied so far....I bet at least 3/4 of you are losing players.

Now MAYBE you three are the exception....if so, fine. But you probably know the number of players that actually turn a profit are EXTREMELY low....making my post exactly the opposite of foolish

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

By the title I thought you meant if you only had $200 left and you had to either play poker or gamble on table games/sports what would you do.. THAT would have been a good question, yours just confused me.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

youre right, i am a losing player. i am actually losing right now as a matter of fact.

albeit, your post is still confusing.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

I am not a losing player, I will destroy you if you need proof.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a losing player, I will destroy you if you need proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, yes, YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111

an e-pissing contest!!!!

i would like to see this destroying.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

Some (harsh) considerations for you Butcho,

You've stated what everyone (except perhaps new posters like yourself) here already knows and talks about daily. Do note that "knows" doesn't necessarily mean "follows".

Second, poker is gambling. Yes we have all read the long run speeches (except perhaps new posters like yourself), but it does not change the nature of the game. Ask yourself the following question: Are you guaranteed to always be a winning player? Do note that a guarantee is not the same thing as a 95% shot, nor the same thing as a 99.9% shot or any other number. Also, even while playing winning poker there are no guarantees to finish above zero after you've been playing your whole life. That's the nature of the game and that's why it's gambling.

"So you're trying to say that all professionals realize that poker is gambling but nothing more?" Yep. There you go. There's some interesting and scaring stuff about standard deviation and the nature of downswings/losses on this forum. Make sure to read it when you come across it.

Also, another reason you didn't get the responses you wanted is because besides just stating the obvious you also didn't ask any questions or encourage any discussion. Also, you were very quick to turn into a douchebag in your replies. Not always a good strategy.

Hope this helps.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

some real sane words from fabian here for you OP.

you should call him a douchebag too.

simply put, POKER IS GAMBLING!!!!!!

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
simply put, POKER IS GAMBLING!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the OP might have the misconception that gambling with a positive EV isn't gambling because you have an expectation to win in the long run. Which, of course, he's wrong about. We're still wagering on uncertain outcomes...we're just betting with the best of it.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

My entire point of the post was to say that I think there are many more winning players out there who are losing so far overall.

When I say poker is not gambling, I look at it like this....

Poker is a game that some play for a living. Nobody plays craps, slots or other actual casino games for as a career. So if Chip Reese has made his living playing poker for over thirty years; how can you call that gambling?

I would agree that for most it is gambling. For a good player to allow for variance, and actually figure out they are a winning player, they must have a proper bankroll. Most likely there is a large group of players out there, who if they had better patience, would be on the plus side of the balance sheet.

Also, sorry if I sounded like a dick, I realize this post is pretty weak, but I was bored as hell so.....

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody plays craps, slots or other actual casino games for as a career.

[/ QUOTE ]

not to beat a dead horse here, but i dont know about that. something tells me that there are people who play blackjack as a career, isnt that what raymer did when he was in college, or some such thing?

doesnt sklansky have a book on gambling for a living? i havent looked at it, but i am sure this covers all forms of gambling.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

The 2+2 authors have stated that poker is gambling.

The fact that you are +EV doesn't take away from the fact that the outcome is uncertain. It's still gambling.


I can play poker full-time as my sole-source of income for 30 years. and I can show a profit for each and every year I played. Hell, I could show a profit for each and every month I ever played.
And it would STILL be gambling.
It just happens to be gambling with a positive expectation.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My entire point of the post was to say that I think there are many more winning players out there who are losing so far overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning players that lose overall? This is contradictory in itself. Do you see why? (sorry to use that catch phrase for the 10 millionth time, It seemed appropriate though...)

[ QUOTE ]
When I say poker is not gambling, I look at it like this....

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say poker is not gambling, you are missing the [censored] point and maybe you outta re-examine your misguided understanding of the word. ANYTIME you wager on an outcome that is not a 100% certainty it is considered gambling. Get it?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, sorry if I sounded like a dick, I realize this post is pretty weak, but I was bored as hell so.....

[/ QUOTE ]

You were bored so you decided to match wits with a bunch of experienced people who know what the hell they're talking about? All the time defending your own nonsense with incoherent [censored]?

Your post was neither interesting or provocative.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My entire point of the post was to say that I think there are many more winning players out there who are losing so far overall.

When I say poker is not gambling, I look at it like this....

Poker is a game that some play for a living. Nobody plays craps, slots or other actual casino games for as a career. So if Chip Reese has made his living playing poker for over thirty years; how can you call that gambling?

I would agree that for most it is gambling. For a good player to allow for variance, and actually figure out they are a winning player, they must have a proper bankroll. Most likely there is a large group of players out there, who if they had better patience, would be on the plus side of the balance sheet.

Also, sorry if I sounded like a dick, I realize this post is pretty weak, but I was bored as hell so.....

[/ QUOTE ]

gam·ble
v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles
v. intr.

1. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
2. To play a game of chance for stakes.
3. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.


Also, it's uncool to take shots at people who appear to know more than you do.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

this is for you butcho22

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is for you butcho22

[/ QUOTE ]


bwahabhbahhbahbahbahbhbahbwwhbahahhab!!!!!!!!!!!!1 1111111

i love the baby in the microwave that was awesome.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

This is an issue of "Ego Management", rather than "Bankroll Management".

Ian

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

Butcho,

Glad to see a more humble approach to posting. I see what you're saying and we've all had similar thoughts about how safe poker can/will/should/might feel in terms of a steady nice income. Like I wrote earlier though, there are no guarantees, even for good and even for great players. Especially the way poker has evolved in the last few years (moving online) has resulted in an even more volatile game (larger swings, results wise). Lower winrates and higher standard deviations. Stuff like that. So I do agree with you about that, many players who think they're winners might be losers on a good run.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
For a professional poker player, it's only gambling if they are playing outside of their bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is in fact gambling. Reread (or probably read for the first time in your case) Small Stakes Holdem, by Ed Miller, or Theory of Poker, by Sklansky, for an explanation as to why.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

Butcho, please consider that if everyone on this board disagrees with you there may be a chance you are wrong.

Poker is gambling. Even if you play a +EV game you are still gambling. This is an important distinction which Miller Sklansky and Malmuth really drove home in SSH and that most posters here accept. And this isn't important just from a semantics perspective, it's also important to accept from a strategy perspective. Perhaps that's why you're getting such a strong response.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

NYTimes article today on the slight downturn in the poker-fad.

It mentions Phil Gordon giving a speech before a bunch of stock-traders and evidently Gordon subscribes to the idea that if it's +EV it doesn't really count as gambling somehow.


From the article:

"I am not a professional gambler — I have never gambled a day in my life," said Mr. Gordon, who became a full-time poker player several years ago after he made about $2 million exercising stock options earned as a high-tech entrepreneur. "What I am is very similar to what you do. I'm a strategic investor."

"All I'm trying to do is get my money in and invest as often as I possibly can," he told his audience. "Every time I put $100 into the pot I expect to take $100 or more out."

The gambler reinvented as investor, shrewdly calculating expected values and other statistical realities, is one face of contemporary poker, and Mr. Gordon is an advocate of the game's new business-minded mantra.



NY Times article

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

$2 million, thats it?

i have already thought that he was some big tymer dot-com guy. i always thought that he made somewhere in the neighborhood of at least $100 mil in the web. Certainly not a mesly little 2 million.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Every time I put $100 into the pot I expect to take $100 or more out."


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly he didn't factor in tilt...

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

It's pretty obvious you guys are pretty focused on me understanding that poker is gambling. Okay, fine. If you want to break it down to 2+2=4, i'll bite. Poker=gambling.

I still think, and would like your opinion on the idea that there are many players out there who could be turning a profit, or could have turned a profit, had they had more patience and LESS gamble in them.

I don't want to hear from you who are going to say that, "all the great players have gamble in them"

All those great players who have gone broke trying to move up are the exception, and many, many more have failed along the way.

The situation in my post represents playing with the mindset of complete focus and patience. If you only had that $200, you would NEVER enter a $20sng. But if you know that even if you lose this $200 you can come up with more cash to play with, you will be much more likely to enter that $20 sng which is obviously poor bankroll management.

I think that all these stories of people like Freddy Deeb going broke numerous time AND FINALLY making it, are very bad for the general playing public to take much stock in.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to break it down to 2+2=4

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooh, punny.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The situation in my post represents playing with the mindset of complete focus and patience. If you only had that $200, you would NEVER enter a $20sng. But if you know that even if you lose this $200 you can come up with more cash to play with, you will be much more likely to enter that $20 sng which is obviously poor bankroll management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the "obvious" here? If I can come up with more cash to play with in the low-probability case I dump $200 in $20SNGs, why is that poor bankroll management? Your "obvious" claim relies on *your* internal definition of bankroll. Put into precise language what bankroll is, and you'll gain great insight into why different people have a MUCH greater risk tolerance than you espouse as wise-- their BR def'n is simply wider/different than yours.
Example: My online-poker balance is about $1500, but if I lost all of it, I would be willing to send a few hundred from checking to reload. What, exactly, is my bankroll? If I lose $1500, I am *not* busto, since I can reload without damage to my lifestyle.

If I have evidence to support a belief that $20 SNGs are the most profitable poker opportunity for me, I simply cannot see how playing them is poor bankroll management, even with $200. Besides, if I lose $100, I can then reevaluate, and play $10SNGs. This makes the effective BR bigger in buyin or big-bet terms- I would have to lose 15 buyins to lose the $200 this way, not just 10. Again, nothing "obvious" here about $20 SNGs being too rich for $200.
-Curtis

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I still think, and would like your opinion on the idea that there are many players out there who could be turning a profit, or could have turned a profit, had they had more patience and LESS gamble in them.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is the point you are trying to make you have succeeded simply by writing it. it is correct by definition.

Barron

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

Okay butcho, I'll bite.

I'd play $5 NL SNG with that $200 bankroll and would feel pretty safe. I'd do this until I hit $400 and then move up to $10 but would drop back down to $5 at $300. I'd continue to move up in this fashion as my bankroll warranted. But I'd avoid moving up to a level where the competition was to tough for my ability.

But I'd realize that I'd always have a risk of ruin that was something greater than 0%. There is no way to avoid that.

Have you heard of the Peter Principle. That is why I think a lot of strong players end up losing their bankroll.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

Butcho, there's another thing you are not factoring in and that's risk vs. return.

You could invest in T bills and if you held them to maturity your risk of losing any of your principle would be close to zero. But you might only earn 4 - 5% and barely keep up with inflation.

Or, you could invest in an S & P index fund and expect much higher returns on average but you would take the chance of losing some of your principle if the market drops.

Or, you could invest in your own business and take a decent chance of going bankrupt. But there's also a chance you might end up like Bill Gates.

-----------------------

In poker you could continue to play 1/2 limit Holdem with a 3BB/100 earn rate and a $10,000 bankroll.

Or you might have taken more risk and moved up whenever your bankroll hit 300BB and now you're earning 1.5BB/100 at 15/30, you have a $60,000 bankroll and you're a much stronger player from the experience. Or you may have gone bust and now are struggling to get a poker bankroll to start over again.

It's an individual choice based on risk tolerance. But there is a risk associated with being too conservative. That's the risk of missing opportunities to earn more and learn more.

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The situation in my post represents playing with the mindset of complete focus and patience. If you only had that $200, you would NEVER enter a $20sng. But if you know that even if you lose this $200 you can come up with more cash to play with, you will be much more likely to enter that $20 sng which is obviously poor bankroll management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the "obvious" here? If I can come up with more cash to play with in the low-probability case I dump $200 in $20SNGs, why is that poor bankroll management? Your "obvious" claim relies on *your* internal definition of bankroll. Put into precise language what bankroll is, and you'll gain great insight into why different people have a MUCH greater risk tolerance than you espouse as wise-- their BR def'n is simply wider/different than yours.
Example: My online-poker balance is about $1500, but if I lost all of it, I would be willing to send a few hundred from checking to reload. What, exactly, is my bankroll? If I lose $1500, I am *not* busto, since I can reload without damage to my lifestyle.

If I have evidence to support a belief that $20 SNGs are the most profitable poker opportunity for me, I simply cannot see how playing them is poor bankroll management, even with $200. Besides, if I lose $100, I can then reevaluate, and play $10SNGs. This makes the effective BR bigger in buyin or big-bet terms- I would have to lose 15 buyins to lose the $200 this way, not just 10. Again, nothing "obvious" here about $20 SNGs being too rich for $200.
-Curtis

[/ QUOTE ]


First of all, thank you for providing a perfect example of my exact point.

When you say you can just "reload", that is exactly what I mean. Too many players think this way. You don't think playing $20 sng's with a $200 bankroll is a bad thing? Get real....

Re: Gambling or Poker?
 

Define bankroll. $200 in my Party account? $200 online? $200 to my name? I feel no need to defend my online as if it is my last, because I can easily shift money around. I also feel no need to keep 1000 BB online for the limit I play-- if I hit a nasty downswing, I can move some of the profits I previously withdrew to checking back online. If you define bankroll as whatever you have online, you're missing the point about resources available to a player.
I personally play more live than online, so I need more of my poker money in checking than at Neteller or Party. Since it's all part of my BR, I see no problem at all in playing $20 SNGs with the $200 I have left at Party. Having to reload often is an effect of my money management, which you appear blind to. I play 1/2 online and 6/12 live, so I need MUCH more bankroll offline than online. The only penalty I suffer for the risk-of-ruin from $200 online roll playing 1/2 is waiting a few days for a checking-to-Neteller reload. Why is this bad?
(note I'm not this extreme in reality, but I see nothing really wrong with it-- I keep about $1000 online and $2000 live bankroll, and I'm more likely to bust the $2000 than the $1000)