Is poker gambling?

[Rosencrantz1]

It is a mistake to think that poker isn't gambling.

Why do you think gambling and skill are mutually exclusive?

Poker is ABSOLUTELY gambling. For everyone. Always. But just because it's gambling doesn't mean that there isn't skill, or that a skillful player can't be a consistent winner. There are many gambling games that involve far less skill -- or no skill. Poker, on the other hand, involves a high level of skill. But this doesn't mean that luck isn't part of the equation and it doesn't mean that it isn't gambling.


A skillful player will make many, many +EV moves while playing poker. Sometimes, he will still lose pots that he is favored to win -- bad luck. But, on average, over the long term, a +EV move will make him money.

[AlanBostick]

Poker is a game of skill. And, poker is a gambling game.

Knowing when to drive the betting hard because you're getting an overlay on every dollar you put into the pot is a skill. You're still gambling on whether or not you will have the best hand at the showdown.

[Pog0]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a game of skill. And, poker is a gambling game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any event of which the outcome is not predetermined and there's money on the line is gambling.

Playing chess isn't gambling because you aren't risking money.

If you play chess for money, you are gambling though. No matter how much better you are than your opponent.

There's no question that poker is gambling. Any argument against this fact is based in a misuse of the concept of gambling.

As long as there's an element of chance involved and a wager on the line, the thing in question is gambling, whether there's skill involved or not.

[Merovingian]

[ QUOTE ]
Any event of which the outcome is not predetermined and there's money on the line is gambling.

Playing chess isn't gambling because you aren't risking money.

If you play chess for money, you are gambling though. No matter how much better you are than your opponent.

There's no question that poker is gambling. Any argument against this fact is based in a misuse of the concept of gambling.

As long as there's an element of chance involved and a wager on the line, the thing in question is gambling, whether there's skill involved or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, poker is technically gambling, however, I think the whole issue comes from the fact that the skill element of poker is actually derived from the 'gambling' element of it. It's almost a contradiction in itself and somewhat obscure.

[candyman718]

The problem becomes, you can have too broad a definition of gambling. If I am playing the World Champion at chess, just because we are betting on it doesn't make it gambling. And why does 'betting' become the key factor. Aren't you gambling every time you get into a car or ask a girl out. All of life is risk taking for rewards.

[Merovingian]

On the contrary, I certainly don't think luck and skill are mutually exclusive traits in a game. My theory is that an amount of each is in all games, be it chess or dice. I do however, think that there are various and distinct amounts of each in the games. All games having a unique ratio of one to the other.

I mean to say, at what ratio of skill:luck does a game become one of skill or chance.

Sure, Poker certainly has elements of chance, and as you said there is also high level of skill. I am going past that it 'just has both', I am ascertaining wether one is more prevalent than the other. Also, if you can conclude that one is more apparent than the other, how much more does it have to be in order to make the particular game either chance or skill based?

You are saying poker is just a game of chance, that has elements of skill, I agree, however, surely one trait is dominant. If we can establish one as a dominant trait, how much more prevalent than the other does it have to be in order to associate the game with it?

[Merovingian]

The dealing of the cards and which ones will appear in your hand is 100% luck, however, the betting process would be almost 100% skill, as the amount you 'choose' to bet (or not bet) will have a direct result on how successful a player is, and unlike games such as roulette, the amount you bet can change the outcome. There is also the other aspect to the game of reading other players via tells etc.

The question could be is the aspect of the cards, or the aspects of bet decision and opponent analysis more integral to poker?

[RagnarPirate]

What luck is involved in chess?

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
What luck is involved in chess?

[/ QUOTE ]

The other guy could collapse dead.

Poker is a calculated risk. Yes, there is skill involved in recognizing advantages, but once the money's in, it's all upto the cards.

[Merovingian]

[ QUOTE ]
What luck is involved in chess?

[/ QUOTE ]
*Which color you are allocated.
*Which opponent you will face.
*Wether your opponent implements a strategy you are familiar with or not.
*As dano2769 said, your opponent could drop dead during a game.

There is an element of luck in all games, just more in some than others. The amount of luck and skill in each game is, however, unique; some possessing more of one than the other. Chess for example has a high amount of skill compared to luck, where as dice has a high amount of luck compared to skill. Both have an element of it though.