OK so how would you go about showing poker is a game of skill?

[Azalin]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, got it:

- Find the person who requires proof that poker is a skill game.
- Offer to take his money to a 6 max 2/4 NL table using the strategy of FOLDING every single hand.
- Mathematically show them how this strategy will 100% cause him to lose at a rate of 12.5 PTBB/100.

This is irrefutable evidence that playing badly will lose you money. Now, you can PROVE that the people he's playing against will WIN money by NOT playing as badly as he does. He can't deny that his $100 per 100 hands will be spread out among the other 5 players at the table, correct?

Similarly, offer him a strategy of CALLING every single bet and then OPEN-FOLDING on the river. See if he'd like to use the mathematics on that one to manage his money.

Alter this strategy by offering to use ONE hand (maybe pocket 3s) as his "showdown" hand. Mathematically show him how that won't win either. This would prove how various degrees of skill (or lack thereof) exist.

People who play badly will lose money. People can win that money by playing LESS badly. It's so simple that a monkey could understand it (which is good considering all the monkeys we have running our country).

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice sir

[daedalus]

Doyle Brunson has won over $1 Million every year for the last 50 years playing poker. Nuff said....game of skill. Go figure the probability of that happening in a game of chance.

[Babygrand]

Ya might wanna check your sources on that one.

[morphball]

I think the Frist Act is a little more sinister than many of us hope. I hope this isn't overly repetitive, but a couple posts here, I think, are incorrect. I do not mean to single any one out. Btw, I think poker is a game of skill, but will be treated as gambling under the terms of the act.

[ QUOTE ]
This should be really simple, I have no idea why they've had so much trouble doing this.

First you demonstrate a +EV bet. Use the coinflip example. "If I'm offered a bet where I am paid $1.50 if a coin lands heads and I pay another $1 if the coin lands tails it's obviously a good bet for me. My expected return on each flip is $0.25."


[/ QUOTE ]

This by itself does not accomplish anything. Setting odds in favor of one player does not make the game one of skill. Otherwise, couldn't casinos say that roulette is a game of skill because they are good at setting odds in their favor?

[ QUOTE ]
Then demonstrate how betting in poker works on exactly the same principle, except instead of relying on a coinflip the variables are 1) the deck and 2) your opponent(s). Since you have to assign values to the likelihood of your opponents' actions and since this will affect your monetary expectation poker is therefore a game of skill. You could further mention that you also have to machinate the series of actions that will produce the highest yield based on your assumptions, and, frankly, most people are terrible at doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, a casino is skilled at getting people to place bad bets, and so is a skilled poker player (especially in NL games). What is the difference? And, I think it leads into refuting this argument as well...

[ QUOTE ]
get someone's database who has grinded one level for a long time and perform statistical analysis on it. what is the percent chance that this person could be a winner after 100K hands or something if poker was not a game of skill. that would be able to prove with reasonable statistical certainty that skill was involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something akin to the law of large numbers I guess, but you are simply saying if I consistently get my opponents to make bad wagers, I expect to win. Can you see the DOJ's argument? "Your honor, this is no different than roulette."

[ QUOTE ]
What's odd to me is that people can perceive derivatives trading as a skill game whereas poker a game of luck. I guess something involving Fortune 500 companies or market indexes gets respect whereas a casino card game does not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ray Zee hit the nail on the head, actually. And for a reason that is actually tied into the text of Frist's bill.

Aaron Brown (who posts here) wrote <u>The Poker Face of Wall Street</u>, and in his book, I think he did a thoroughly convincing job of arguing that poker and trading are beasts of the same nature. I think Uncle Sam knows this too, because the Frist Act specifically exempts trading from the act's scope...

[ QUOTE ]

(1 ) BET OR WAGER.

.....


(E) does not include-
(i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the purchase or sale of securities (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of that Act);
(ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act;
(iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;
(iv) any other transaction that
(I) is excluded or exempt from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act; or
(II) is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws under section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section 28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
(v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;
(vi) any contract for insurance;


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any one disagrees with the fact that skillful traders make money even though the market is supposed to behave randomly. So if trading is a "game of skill," why did Senator Frist see the need to exempt trading from the statute's reach, when the statute covers only "games of chance"?

[Skallagrim]

I see you have access to the actual text of the UIGEA. So perhaps you will note the provision that explicitly states that act does not expand what types of gambling were lawful or unlawful under prior law. This provision is far more important as to what transactions are actully covered by the UIGEA and which one are not (are not, IMO, equals all poker transactions from states where playing poker is not illegal).

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
I see you have access to the actual text of the UIGEA. So perhaps you will note the provision that explicitly states that act does not expand what types of gambling were lawful or unlawful under prior law. This provision is far more important as to what transactions are actully covered by the UIGEA and which one are not (are not, IMO, equals all poker transactions from states where playing poker is not illegal).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you really know your stuff. Since you know this better than me, could you please tell why there are underground poker clubs in most (if not all) big cities (that get raided by the police too) if poker is legal.

Thanks.

[RonMexico]

[ QUOTE ]
Bring the person you want to convince to a big bookstore and show him the gigantic selection of instructional poker books and point out the strategy elements in them. Compare them to the chess books and the craps books and point out that while poker is still gambling it can be played 'properly' and that poker lies somewhere between a game of pure skill like chess and simple luck like craps.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is variance in chess. Some small element of luck is involved, even among top players. Of course, the ratio of luck/skill between the two games does not compare.

[Skallagrim]

I do know my stuff, but perhaps I wasnt as clear in a quick reply as I should have been. I did not mean to imply playing poker is legal in all states, BUT IT IS IN SOME (Cal., NH, Minn. and quite a few others). RUNNING A POKER ROOM FOR PROFIT is either illegal or regulated in almost all states (Missouri has an exception). Also, laws against running a B&amp;M poker room often are written so that they do not apply to the internet. Sorry for the brevity, but I get tired of repeating this.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
I do know my stuff, but perhaps I wasnt as clear in a quick reply as I should have been. I did not mean to imply playing poker is legal in all states, BUT IT IS IN SOME (Cal., NH, Minn. and quite a few others). RUNNING A POKER ROOM FOR PROFIT is either illegal or regulated in almost all states (Missouri has an exception). Also, laws against running a B&amp;M poker room often are written so that they do not apply to the internet. Sorry for the brevity, but I get tired of repeating this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since I live in Missouri and do not know as much as you know about this, I would like to know about the exception in Missouri. I do know that the MOSUPCT has ruled that poker is a game of skill, but I thought that only licensed casinos can operate poker for profit.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
I do know my stuff, but perhaps I wasnt as clear in a quick reply as I should have been. I did not mean to imply playing poker is legal in all states, BUT IT IS IN SOME (Cal., NH, Minn. and quite a few others). RUNNING A POKER ROOM FOR PROFIT is either illegal or regulated in almost all states (Missouri has an exception). Also, laws against running a B&amp;M poker room often are written so that they do not apply to the internet. Sorry for the brevity, but I get tired of repeating this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you are clueless.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/