Is poker gambling?

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a few links to past "Is Poker Gambling?" threads (they pop up regularly):

Is Poker Gambling?
Another one
Yet another

The short answer is yes. You'll get a lot of people who say no, but they're just arguing semantics and trying to rewrite the definition of "gambling". There's always RoR in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one thing in life where there's not RoR in some sense.

When lay people talk about whether poker is gambling, they mean, does an element of chance prevail theoretically? Although they never state this as such, that's what they mean. And the answer is, for the skilled poker player who has an edge, in the long run, no, poker is not gambling. If you argue that there's RoR in poker, well there's the same in putting your money in an insured bank. The bank could go broke via a national crisis, China could blow up our country when you're on vacation, etc. There's always RoR, no matter how minute. If you ask me my RoR with my BR playing the stakes I do, it's probably around 1/20,000. So it's gambling? I have a better chance of winning some lotteries than going broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the same applies to roulette, craps, (-EV) blackjack and any number of games that are without dispute gambling. In roulette in theory luck does not win out - you will lose a portion of the money you put on the table in the long run.

Why doesn't the same logic apply to -EV games that you are using for +EV games?

[Anton Narki]

Maybe someone mentioned that in an earlier thread,
but:
poker is gambling, if and only if all players got the same playing skill.
otherwise, it is an optimization problem where the most skilled player will have the maximum expected win.

[Poker Plan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is poker gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]


What is it with this community, that people can't just give a basic, helpful answer to someone without being derogatory? Does this really make you feel better?

[questions]

If it makes you feel worse, then it probably achieved what it was intended to do. (unfortunately)

[questions]

If it were sheer chance, how does that explain Brunson or Hachem or Negreneau's continued success at winning??? Is there an element of chance? Yes, of course. But skill at knowing what to do, when to do it, against whom to play a strategy, for what stakes, etc. - THAT is skill.

[ryan1]

I think most people under estimate the amount of skill and knowledge required to win at poker

[Skallagrim]

You all do realize that this is much more an argument over how to define the term "gambling" than an argument over what is poker. Poker is a game of skill and luck - how much of each is a matter of debate.

The fact that playing with significant skill can turn it into the only +EV game in the casino makes it different from ALL other casino games.

Games such as slots, craps and roulette have virtually no skill (a betting system is not the same as playing the game with skill). Games like blackjack have some skill, but it is never enough to overcome the math that gives the house the edge.

Should the term gambling apply equally to poker, blackjack and slots? Thats a language question. For more on this read some Wittgenstein [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Skallagrim

[Rollos]

Gambling is wagering on an unexpected outcome. Of course poker is gambling. Even if you play a +EV game, it is still gambling.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
You all do realize that this is much more an argument over how to define the term "gambling" than an argument over what is poker. Poker is a game of skill and luck - how much of each is a matter of debate.

The fact that playing with significant skill can turn it into the only +EV game in the casino makes it different from ALL other casino games.

Games such as slots, craps and roulette have virtually no skill (a betting system is not the same as playing the game with skill). Games like blackjack have some skill, but it is never enough to overcome the math that gives the house the edge.


[/ QUOTE ]

Error Alert!

The amount of luck vs. skill in poker is not really up for debate. The bounds of how well someone can run over a long period in various games are pretty well explored, as is the expected variance average winners encounter. Much of this info is in 2+2 books if you're curious.

And there are at least 2 other beatable games in the average casino - +EV blackjack is everywhere (the difficulty is to get them to let you keep playing) and the sportsbook is an obvious one as numerous people have proven they can beat it over the long haul. The racebook is potentially vulnerable as well.

Roulette has been legally beaten in the past, but the laws have since changed. It might be possible to do again in the future if you could find a person with the rather bizarre talent for accurately estimating embedding theorem predictors in their head. That would be a pretty special find though.

You are correct about craps and slots, although there are definitely slots that can be beaten when comps are factored in.

[MATT111]

We should really define what "gambling" means before we decide if poker is gambling or not.
It`s pretty hard to objectively define it w/o making the term meaningless. The best approach imo is to just look what legislation defines as such.