[ike]

[ QUOTE ]


Which is that ONLY IN GAMES OF SKILL CAN A PLAYER GUARANTEE THAT HE WILL QUICKLY LOSE. If for some strange reason he wanted to. Why didn't I think of that? Because of course it is true. You can't guarantee that you will lose in slot machines or keno or roulette or craps just by playing badly.(I'm not counting the artificial plays of betting red and black or pass and don't pass at the same time. Nor am I talking about folding every hand in poker. I'm talking about playing very badly.) Only in games of skill, does horrible play mean a quick demise. (Although there are exceptions such as sports betting).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is total bunk.

So if you added a little trash bucket as part of the roulette board and you could opt to just throw your chips in the garbage, it would be a game of skill? What about blackjack? You can definitely play terrible blackjack on purpose and lose almost every hand. Or maybe your argument is that blackjack is a game of skill? It seems hard to call something a game of skill, where skill is measured as ability to maximize EV, if the highest EV decision available is to not play it (I know you can win at blackjack by counting, for sake of argument lets say its internet blackjack). I'm pretty sure there are endless examples of games, real or hypothetical, that don't feel like they should count as games of skill where you can lose consistently on purpose.

I'm having a harder time coming up with games of skill where you can't lose consistently on purpose. I actually don't think there are any. If playing badly didn't make you lose, it wouldn't be a game of skill. In chess, and surely lots of other games of skill, no matter how badly you play you'll need some cooperation from your opponent to ever lose, but thats not a real counterexample.

I guess what I'm saying is that being able to lose on purpose is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a game to be a game of skill. I think you do have to show that you can play meaningfully well (for instance, better than another person who is also making an informed, good faith effort to play well) for it to be a game of skill. All that being able to lose on purpose proves is that the game involves decisions, some of which are better or worse than others.

But juries are full of stupid people who don't understand logic, so in court your argument would probably be quite strong.

EDIT: I read through the responses and I guess the consensus is that this argument says blackjack is a game of skill and thus not a counter example. Whatever, even if blackjack is a game of skill, there has to be some point along the continuum where it goes from game of skill to game with some decisions that you can make incorrectly if you really want to but that doesn't actually involve any skill. But the latter game would still fit your criteria for skill games, so I think they are insufficient criteria.