How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[MiltonFriedman]

That a monkey can play craps as well as anyone does not mean that games it cannot play are "skill" games.

Sit a monkey at a video poker machine and it will make "mistakes", but ultimately will do just as well as a mistake free player IF the game has a negative trend.

For a game to be predominantly skill, skill must be sufficient to beat the rake or time charges for playing, not just other players. After all, the game is NOT about how many hands you win or play, but how much money you win from play.

[Babygrand]

As much of a fan I am of yours, I still think this is, at best, a weak argument. If I were to play blackjack poorly, I would lose money a lot quicker than if I were to play perfectly. And there is no doubt to whether blackjack is gambling or not. It could easily be argued that there is as much skill in poker as there is in sports betting. I know people that make a living off of both.

I think as a famous poker player you are in the spotlight right now. Your guidance and words of wisdom are heard by all. However, this case has no bearing on whether there is an element of skill involved. The lottery and horse racing do not have any skill whatsoever and they are legal. LOBBYING IS THE ONLY KEY. None of your arguments really matter. If the population started placing millions of dollars in wagers on their own golfing ability, politicians would crack down on it. That is the way it is.

Good thing in our country we can buy our own rights. And we will. Thousands of players should organize a playing session outside the capitol on their laptops. Then they will have to deal with the issue at hand.

[Skallagrim]

As a pratical matter, I agree with Milton. But as a legal matter (and I dont defend that this is the law, just note that it is), whether you actually can or cannot win money at the game over time is irrelevant. Its whether chance determines the outcome (winner) anytime (in some states), sometimes (in some states), or most of the time (in most states).

[whangarei]

Not a bad argument to show that skill is a major element of poker. I recall one poster in the Leg. forum had a similar idea about a week ago. However, as others have said, this demonstration of skill could also be applied to blackjack. So, more is needed, because the key difference between poker vs. blackjack and other casino games, IMO, is that only in poker can a skillful player win long term.

[David Sklansky]

"Sit a monkey at a video poker machine and it will make "mistakes", but ultimately will do just as well as a mistake free player IF the game has a negative trend."

If the machine was 100.1% vs optimal play the Sklansky argument is very analogous.

Are you saying that 99% machines are not games of skill but 101% are?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Would showing a single game of skill where Mat is incorrect be enough to disprove The Sklansky Poker Skill Argument? If so I hereby lay claim to be the first to disprove your theorum.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. We are talking about arguments to persuade juries. Not logic theorems. The point of the argument is to show that games where luck seems to predominate can still be games of much skill. Because that fact is masked by the close equality of skill among practitioners. But even if it takes a long time for great skill to show, the necessity of skill can also be demonstrated by pointing out how quickly lack of skill shows.

[E.Z.]

..

[daedalus]

Sklansky's "Fundamental Theorum of Losing"....I love it.

Won't sell a single book but might save poker.

[ericicecream]

I don't think this theory works as a stand-alone argument for the simple fact that there are other casino games that can't be beaten long-term, but if you played them poorly you would lose quicker (blackjack, video poker).

But as an addition to other theories it could certainly add to the overall argument.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
For a game to be predominantly skill, skill must be sufficient to beat the rake or time charges for playing, not just other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Why?