Is poker gambling?

[mak15]

yes

[vm1124]

in the short run luck can be a huge factor in poker, even more than skill, but in the very very long run luck is not a factor.

[goforall]

Before to decide if poker is gambling, you have to define these Term. Lets define it as a game where the the winner is not the best player seperate the person who had luck. In the short run this is it, but on the long run the player who playes better Poker as his opponents will be the winner.

[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.

[quitefishy]

Yes, but it's all about definitions.

I think the meaning of the word gambling is not just "wagering money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money or material goods" as e.g. Wikipedia defines it. With this definition, most of our economic activities would be gambling.

In addition to this definition, "gambling" usually refers to some "abnormal risky activies", i.e. situations where the outcome is uncertain AND the stakes are very high considering what would be considered as normal business / investing by the very same person defining the activity as gambling.

In this sense poker would be gambling when you play with an insufficient bankroll. The definition, however, does not answer the original question.

As I see it, the word gambling, in the meaning it's used by the general audience, usually also refers to playing a game where the outcome is so uncertain, that most people would consider it a game of luck.

As such, poker is gambling. But there are good and bad gamblers, not just lucky and unlucky ones. Since everyone should be as lucky as everyone else in the long run, skill will prevail.

The failure to understand that gambling may also involve a certain amount of skill is why the word "gambling" means different things to different people.

btw: The stock market is of course very similar to poker it's just somewhat "easier" than poker, since the winner / loser ratio is not 1 but somewhat bigger due to economic growth in the long run (in a world where alternative investments are not considered and investments are compared to having you money under your pillow). "Unskilled stock market investors" use this to their advantage by choosing how long a "game" will last (by e.g. keeping their stocks and waiting for an upswing). By reducing the amount of "games" (i.e. making very long 10-15 year investments well diversified) the overall economic growth will usually generate positive returns. In poker the skill factor will dominate much faster since you are able to play (or have to play) many hands in a relatively short period of time. This is why most stock-market investors are small winners while most poker players are small loosers.

[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.

[Sparta45]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between poker and the stock market is that poker is a game of incomplete information, and picking stocks is (in an ethical business environment) analysis with complete information.

There is an element of luck in investing (9/11 happens) but that is "external" to the picking of individual assets, balancing portfolios etc. The element of luck is intrinsic to poker.

Poker is gambling, investing isnt (again in perfect, ethical capital markets).

[/ QUOTE ]

Picking stocks even in a perfectly ethical environment (which we don't have by the way), but even if it was, we still don't have complete information. If we had complete information then everybody would have stock market returns like Warren Buffet.

[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.

[BeDoHave]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between poker and the stock market is that poker is a game of incomplete information, and picking stocks is (in an ethical business environment) analysis with complete information.

There is an element of luck in investing (9/11 happens) but that is "external" to the picking of individual assets, balancing portfolios etc. The element of luck is intrinsic to poker.

Poker is gambling, investing isnt (again in perfect, ethical capital markets).

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're making both points. I agree with the 50% of what you said that said poker is the same as the stock market.

Picking stocks is also about incomplete information. If you knew what the weather would be like a week from today, I'm sure you could make much more intelligent stock picks today. Same with 9/11. Same with a CEO resigning. Same with a product scandal in the news. However, seasoned investors and market managers always seem to make more $ picking stocks than those people that pick stocks "at random" (how a lot of people actually "invest").

The element of luck is only intrinsic in the short term. This goes for poker as well as the stock market. Much like your success picking one stock to buy for one day (then sell) would also involve a ton of luck.

[Wardfish]

To answer this question properly you need to define what you mean by gambling.

A reasonable definition could be “to participate in a venture where the outcome is uncertain, but could be favourable or adverse.” This could also be defined as taking a risk.

The level of skill involved has little bearing on the risk, only on the balance of risk/reward.

Risk-taking covers a broad spectrum of events including getting out of bed in a morning or placing a bet on a sporting event. It could be argued that because the outcome is not certain, these activities are gambles, irrespective of the probability of an adverse outcome.

Because poker is a game of incomplete information, as in my opinion is investing in stocks, you need to make a calculated assessment of the risk/reward (EV) and decide your actions from this.

IS RISK-TAKING GAMBLING ?

Its not really a worthwhile argument. The only reason to have the argument, as far as I can see, is due to the stigma associated with being a ‘gambler’. If a professional poker player is seeking to persuade someone that what he does for a living isn’t a degenerate activity he could define gambling in whatever way suits this end. He could point out the similarities poker has with other ‘legitimate’ business activities such as investing in stocks or real estate.

Poker needs the element of uncertainty, so that bad players can be persuaded that they are good players. Without this there would be far fewer bad players.

You either take the view that RISK-TAKING is GAMBLING, or you don’t.

What’s in a name?