[Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?

[klownage]

Poker is absolutely gambling.

The problem with the term gambling is that the general public usually associates the word gambling to games where you cannot gain an any edge in, let alone a significant one. (i.e. dice, slots, etc.)

Poker is gambling, but smart gamblers can earn positive expected returns in the long run.

[tw0please]

do YOU know what "risk of ruin" is?

if any player has a probability of winning < 1 there is a positive risk of ruin over a finite number of events. that does not mean it's a losing game for _everybody_. i could have a 99% chance of winning in any game and i would be a losing player by your definition. the only case in which "everyone is going to go busto eventually" is a game in which players risk 100% of their bankrolls 100% of the time.

[tw0please]

i'm not trying to start [censored] but you clearly do not know the difference between "a losing game" and "a game in which there is a chance of losing"

[corsakh]

[ QUOTE ]
do YOU know what "risk of ruin" is?

if any player has a probability of winning < 1 there is a positive risk of ruin over a finite number of events. that does not mean it's a losing game for _everybody_. i could have a 99% chance of winning in any game and i would be a losing player by your definition. the only case in which "everyone is going to go busto eventually" is a game in which players risk 100% of their bankrolls 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing the point.

In most other games, say golf, your chance of ruin is effectively 0 because even if you go down a hundred times in a row, you can stand up a hundred and one.

In poker the hundredth time is going to kill your roll. Busto, no more pokah. Sure you can take a stake. But we are talking about the limited nature of funds available in this world.

However, its a stretch, but we can extrapolate the term "bankroll" from poker into the term "physical fitness" in athletic sports to some extent. Do you need proof to say that Michael Jordan is a loosing play in a long run or you can come to this conclusion yourself? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

And this is exactly what I am talking about in poker. With proper bankroll management and the right state of mind we can delay the inevitable for a very long time, but someday somewhen the dice is going to roll 6 a bazillion number of times in a row and you go busto. Simple? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[corsakh]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not trying to start [censored] but you clearly do not know the difference between "a losing game" and "a game in which there is a chance of losing"

[/ QUOTE ]

"a game in which there is a chance of losing" is an inevitably "loosing game" with scarce resources on an infinite scale. If you had resources to come back, it would not. But if they are finite - busto time.

[corsakh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats right. Everyone is going to go busto eventually. Its not really an opinion, just secondary school math. But most people will never see it in their lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know much about math. I was never very good at it quite frankly. I knew this, so I went to law school and became a lawyer instead. In law school they teach you all sorts of cool details about evidence, and how to come to certain conclusions based on that evidence.
Based on the evidence you've given, I conclude you're a moron. How's that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Grats. Second person I muted.

[tw0please]

Corsakh I see what you're getting at but if you make the small assumption that a poker player will only ever put a certain % of himself on the line at once, rather than a fixed amount, then poker becomes a game of winners as well as losers. The way you're seeing it, there's no difference between a game in which you can gamble and win 25% of the time and a game where you win 75% of the time, whereas I see one of those as a winning game and the other as a losing game.

[corsakh]

Of course there is a big difference. In the first case, you need to get "lucky" to win money on any particular range of hands, in the second - you need to get "lucky" to loose. By term lucky I mean going against the odds. But it does not change a thing about the mechanics of the system. Saying that "75%" players cant loose is essentially the same as saying that "25%" players cant win. The difference between those two is there is no ceiling for winning, but there is ground 0 for loosing.

[seth14]

"wagering money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods"

Actually your outcome is not uncertain by definition, it is just not always certain and on occasion it is.

[flipdeadshot22]

corsakh,

Please tell my you're levelling; if not, then wow