Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-27-2007, 06:19 PM
ill rich ill rich is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: connecticut
Posts: 302
Default Re: Is poker gambling?

to those who say poker isn't gambling:

if you're offered 4 to 1 on your money on the flip of a coin and you take this bet, are you gambling?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-10-2007, 07:04 PM
Anton Narki Anton Narki is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7
Default Re: Is poker gambling?

[ QUOTE ]
to those who say poker isn't gambling:

if you're offered 4 to 1 on your money on the flip of a coin and you take this bet, are you gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

accordingly, if i offer you a bet that no green elephant will enter your room in the next minutes, it's gambling, too?

My definition of gambling is:
Flipping a coin where every participating player has a negative to zero average expected win.
(like slot machines, insurances and poker with equally skilled players)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-11-2007, 01:04 PM
xPeru xPeru is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Peru
Posts: 747
Default Re: Is poker gambling?

Lol at this thread. First time I visit this Forum, so I have to put up my 2c ...

Whether playing poker is gambling or not depends on how much you play. This is because the game has an uncertain outcome over the short run and a certain outcome over the long run. The outcome over the long run is determined by the skill of the player. Let me start with an analogy:

You decide to bet on the toss of a fair coin. You win $1 if it's heads, your opponent wins $1 if it's tails. After the toss you will have staked $1 and have either $2 or $0. The outcome is uncertain either +100% or -100%, so this is gambling. Now you play the game 50 million times, now there's no gamble, because the coin will land 50% heads and 50% tails to within a miniscule percentage of error. We could play this game using a computer simulation, but we wouldn't because we know that we will neither win nor lose money.

Over a short run, variance causes poker players to win or lose. Over the long run, skill or its absence causes wins and losses.

What sample size is sufficient to get rid of the effects of variance? In NLHE, the rarest hands, pairs each get dealt on average 1/221 hands. To be statistically siginificant we need a sample size of c1000. So in 221,000 hands you will get each of the 169 starting hands at least 1000 times. Over this sample you can be 95% confident that your results reflect your ability and not luck. You increase this confidence level the more hands you play.

A regular online pro should be knocking out c35k hands per month, so in 6 months he will have 95% eradicated variance. Over 5 years variance will be irrelevant = no uncertainty in outcome.

For the amateur it's gambling because they don't play enough to remove uncertainty from the outcome.

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.