Why does 2+2 call poker gambling?

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Jimbo, poker is undeniably a game that involves BOTH Skill and Luck/Chance.

Your example of AK being beat by AK is countered by the hand where some one bluffs AK out of the pot with 2-7. How can you say luck/chance determined the outcome of that hand?

The key question is whether the luck or the skill is the more important factor. Some hands are decided by luck, some by skill. Same with the amount of the win. But if you really believe MOST results are the product of chance, why do you read these forums? What would be the point of trying to "improve your game" if it was mostly the result of chance anyway?

That is what makes poker different and what makes being a poker pro possible: MOST results in poker are the product of the player's actions, not simply the cards dealt. In my opinion, and in what should be the opinion of anyone who believes poker is entitled to be treated differently from slots and craps, games where the play of the players determine (for the most part) the outcome of the game, are NOT "gambling."

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

*Sigh*. Almost everybody, when talking about the luck component starts talking about when one hand beats another. You have to look at all the hands that were dealt in. My guess is that in a full ring game a very small percentage of hands that win, probably under ten percent, are the same hand that would have won purely by luck, that is if all hands stayed in to the river.

So if 7-2 sucks out on A-A on the river, a lot of people say, see luck won out over skill in that hand. But if somebody folded 3-9 off pre-flop which would have beat them both, the outcome of the hand has been completely changed by the exercize of skill.

And that's the basis of the argument for legalizing poker. But poker is still gambling by most resonable definitions of the word. Fortunately, most state statues that have "anti-gambling" statutes don't simply say "gambing" is illegal, they make a distinction between games of skill and game of chance. (Unfortunately, in my state the appellate courts have ruled that poker is a game of chance not a game of skill). Changing the popular defintions of the word won't have any impact on these state statutes.

And as far as trying to influence public opinion by a distinction between gambling and gaming? C'mon, most folks are going to understand gaming is a form of gambling. You need far more distinct terms. How about jousting, meaning contesting against an opponent for money? Or if you don't want an existing word, Contfomey. "Hey, I hear you're a professinal gambler! Well, no, actually, I'm a professional Contfomer - I play poker and pool for money."

Anyway, I just think thats a long slow process, with little chance of significant success, and I'd rather see poker legalized accross the country in, say, the next decade.

[Lottery Larry]

Maybe there's something in using a word, or argument, that makes it clear:

- Certain forms of gambling, skill has little chance of affecting the outcome and almost no chance of changing a negative situation into a positive one.

- Other forms of gambling, such as our favorite card game, are where skill can change results, which are normally determined by mere odds/probability. You might have to fend off the craps sharpshooting crowd a bit....

I have NO idea what word to use for the second type of gambling, however....

We should also ban the term "luck" and talk about probability instead... but that's probably asking for too big a leap.


Sidebar- Can we reasonably consider stock market trading "gambling", or not (what exactly IS "hedging a market position")? What about insurance policies?

Is creating a new business not "gambling", when supposedly 80% fail in 5 years?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

We should also ban the term "luck" and talk about probability instead... but that's probably asking for too big a leap

We can use the poker term, "variance" or the statistical representation of variance, "standard deviation."

All just semantics to me...

Spock: "It appears random chance has operated in our favor."
McCoy: "You mean we got lucky."
Spock: "I believe I said that."

[Skallagrim]

Its really just all about getting the folks unfamiliar with poker to recognize that its different from the kinds of gambling they are familiar with: lotteries, bingo halls, raffles, slot machines...

The way to start that "discussion" is to stop them and argue with them when they call poker "gambling." We really dont care if we change their words, we really do care that we change their attitudes towards poker. And arguing about whether poker is "gambling" or not, as you can easily see from this thread [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] , is a good way to provide the education needed to provoke the attitude adjustment.

Skallagrim

[whangarei]

I originally thought poker should not be called gambling. I heard Negreneau say that he's not gambling when he plays poker, his opponents are. Just like a gambler playing craps, the house (Negrenau) has the edge. But since most players are gambling in that sense then that may be the appropriate term. "Gaming" is the best term for how I view the game.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Its really just all about getting the folks unfamiliar with poker to recognize that its different from the kinds of gambling they are familiar with: lotteries, bingo halls, raffles, slot machines...

The way to start that "discussion" is to stop them and argue with them when they call poker "gambling." We really dont care if we change their words, we really do care that we change their attitudes towards poker. And arguing about whether poker is "gambling" or not, as you can easily see from this thread [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] , is a good way to provide the education needed to provoke the attitude adjustment.
Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]


At first I thought this was a pretty useless thread.

But Skall makes a very important point that has a good political foundation.

When poker is played well there is very little luck involved.


D$D<--still requires luck to win