Re: How My Son\'s Insight May Have Saved Poker
OK, the blackjack (craps, roulette, etc.) argument DOES NOT disprove Mat/Dave/OH's theory at all. As a matter of fact, it strengthens it!
It's this simple:
When you play horribly in a casino game, who gets the money you lose?
When you play horribly in a poker game, who gets the money you lose?
The fact that the house edge guarantees the casino money in the long run is what makes the casino an equivalent of a winning poker player. No one considers a casino owner a gambler, but he's doing the same exact thing that a winning poker player does. He's playing with an edge! OK, I'll admit that skill does not determine his edge, so it's not exactly the same. But that's the point that needs to be driven across to people. If you play at a disadvantage, you will lose over time. That's precisely what EV is based on.
If someone could explain why they consider a casino player a gambler, but not the house, they would also (in the same breath) have explained how poker players can be long term winners.
It's so easy. Soooooo easy.
|