Is poker gambling?

[mypokerpeers]

Well poker is only gambling when money is involved. If those legislators think its not a game of skill tell them to put thier money up where there talk is.

However sadly luck or skill is not the reason this legislation is here. The reason is because all these people spent billions of dollars to make the dessert and oasis. They do not want poeple staying home to gamble. They want you in thier hotels, and ultimately losing your money in thier casino's. Cause if the internet was around 40 years ago in the form it is today. Vegas would be a ghost town.

Another thing is that all these people see a website like pokerplayersalliance.org and they say "I aint donating to those pros". Well if you say that your uneducated. This money doesnt go to some pros bankroll. It goes to help fight for US to have the right to sit in our homes and play poker. Or if you say "Phil Ivey got enought money he doesnt need mine". Then here's ya sign cause all the pros you see on tv and these websites dont have the money to match up with this HUGE powerfull offline casinos. It also doesnt help that the offline casino's are grouping together.

Will we see Fulltilt and Pokerstars fight together for one cause?

[ixDragons]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m a noob feel free to flame. Here’s my opinion.

There is an element of chance in every thing. Boxing, racing, basketball etc.?

If you lose in chess you either made a mistake, or your opponent is better. Period. No one lost a chess match because they played black. If you’re better you’ll win. If you’re equal you’ll stalemate.

If you lose in boxing someone made a mistake (judges or ref) or your opponent is better. Period. If your ill/hurt don’t fight.

The stock market is not gambling; there are many things that influence the outcome (value) of a stock, up to and including people (supply and demand). You (or someone) can influence supply and demand legally (marketing) and illegally (Enron).

Gambling has an element of randomness and not just being unpredictable, but also uncontrollable.

Roulette is gambling*; neither the house nor the player influences the outcome of the ball. Same with craps, same with blackjack**, and the same with poker. You the player cannot without cheating influence the cards, ball, or dice.

Poker is a form of gambling that includes skill, because YOU determine when, and how much you risk (unlike craps, roulette, etc.). I’m in the CO w/ QQ and I make it 5xBB. Button (Villain) re-raises, SB folds, BB folds I call. Flop 7 2 Q. I bet the pot (11.5xBB). Villain pushes. I call villain turns over K7o. Turn K. River K. While shopping for a new monitor, I KNOW the villain sucks. I should win here MOST of the time. Or I could have folded and not GAMBLED at all. You cannot fold after you bet in roulette, craps, or blackjack. You cannot bet so much, the house just pays you off, to avoid busting.



*Technically roulette and craps and all casino games played against the house are not gambling either, because the house doesn’t pay out according to the odds. So no matter how much you win you “loose”.

**If you could count the cards unerringly you wouldn’t be gambling playing blackjack, but the edge is very small.

[ImprovinNewbie]

sklanksy says yes

[knife420]

poker is gambling, just gambling that allows the better to maximize expectation

[Merovingian]

[ QUOTE ]
If you lose in boxing someone made a mistake (judges or ref) or your opponent is better. Period. If your ill/hurt don’t fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a bad call by the ref/judge in any way controllable by a boxer? It is 100% luck to get a bad call for or against you in a match.

If a boxer comes down with a mild cold the day before a match in which they are being paid $10 million just to step into the ring, do you really think they are going to pull out? This would be *unlucky* and the fighter is unlikely to perform to the best of his ability.

[ QUOTE ]
The stock market is not gambling; there are many things that influence the outcome (value) of a stock, up to and including people (supply and demand). You (or someone) can influence supply and demand legally (marketing) and illegally (Enron).

[/ QUOTE ]

The average individual trader cannot influence the price of a stock unless they have hundreds of millions of dollars (often billions). In fact you can influence the outcome of things more easily in poker. If you were to go all-in at a time when you thought someone had a weak hand, your chances of influencing the outcome (forcing them to fold) are high.

There is no point in talking about influencing something illegally because you could use the same argument with poker and rigged decks. If you had a rigged deck or a paid off dealer, you can be almost certain that you will win. Comparing illegal actions doesn't compare the examples at all.

If you were to incorporate illegal actions, then every game in the world contains no luck what so ever including games like dice. Dice is obviously a game of chance, however, you can rig the dice with weights so they fall a certain way, therefore eliminating the element of luck. It doesn't make dice a game of skill or one not classified as gambling because you are not palying it the intended way.

[ QUOTE ]

If you lose in chess you either made a mistake, or your opponent is better. Period. No one lost a chess match because they played black. If you’re better you’ll win. If you’re equal you’ll stalemate.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say *no one* has lost a game because they played black? I'm assuming you haven't witnessed every game that has ever been played and know the reasons for why each and every player lost [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Black and white require alternate strategies, maybe a player had practiced offensive white strategies a lot more thoroughly than they did the defensive black strategies and wasn't able to play their best game.

If the better player always wins, how can a player rated 1200 ever beat someone rated 1400? It happens.

The fact that you even mention the word "mistake" implies luck is involved. If there was no luck what so ever in these games, how can anyone make a mistake? The better player would always win no matter what if no luck was involved.

[ QUOTE ]

Poker is a form of gambling that includes skill, because YOU determine when, and how much you risk (unlike craps, roulette, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the first half of that statement, that poker is a form of gambling that involves skill. The second half is contradictory however, you determine how much you risk in roulette and craps as well don't you? you decide how much you risk by how much you bet each round. The difference is, the outcomes in poker on which you wager amounts are not constant and can be influenced and understood/read.
[ QUOTE ]

Technically roulette and craps and all casino games played against the house are not gambling either, because the house doesn’t pay out according to the odds. So no matter how much you win you “loose”.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you are trying to say exactly here. Of course roulette and craps are gambling, regardless of the odds. The fact that the house wins more often than the player just means the player needs more luck to win.

[mattnxtc]

In the short term there is a ton of luck involved in poker an some skill....in the long term theres tons of skill in poker and some luck

[GeeseHoward]

Your investing your money in a long term investment. If you invested wise you will get a return over a long period of time.

Stock Market and Poker isn't that much different.

Be realistic, be a drinker - Oliver Cross (http://eDrinker.com)

[dtan05]

A key difference between stocks and poker is that poker is zero sum.

[quitefishy]

[ QUOTE ]
A key difference between stocks and poker is that poker is zero sum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely. And in addition, due to the stock market not being a zero sum game (at least in nominal values) many investors "play" the stock market as a single (or a few) long term investment(s), where they are only looking for long term profits. This is like playing poker against opponents who are slightly worse than you, and only playing until you have won say 10 % of your bankroll. With a well diversified portfolio it might take longer to achieve the 10 % on the stock market than in poker, but on the other hand you are not forced to sit down at a game all the time. In fact, the slower pace of the stock market (for a long term investor) should make it easier for an investor (only looking for a nominal profit) to make and maintain his investment.

Of course in theory the stock market itself is also very close to a zero sum game, if we consider lost profits being equal to actual losses. This is, however, not how most private investors look at it.

[Boris Yeltzen]

Poker is definitely NOT gambling!
If you read more poker books and watch more episodes of WPT/WSOP than the opponents at your table, you will win. Therefore, poker is not gambling.