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

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Heads up gun fights are a game of skill. Russian roulette is a game of chance. Should gun fights now be legalized since they are a game of skill?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good logic.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heads up gun fights are a game of skill. Russian roulette is a game of chance. Should gun fights now be legalized since they are a game of skill?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, poker is a gun fight. The lottery is russian roulette. Seems like russian roulette is more likely to be legalized.

Lots of good thoughts in this thread. Anything impacted by chance with something at risk is gambling. That applies to both poker and investing in the stock market. Any skill based game or sport has some element of chance. I tell my people that I view poker as investing, not gambling.

[sdfsdf]

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.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Easier said that done, perhaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

is there really anyone who doesn't think there is a skill element in poker? i thought the ruling in the recent british case was totally reasonable - there is significant luck and significant luck. (it was just stupid that under british law that makes it a luck game).

if you really needed to prove it one way would be tell the courts: we're picking these 10 guys, and we're going to track their results for 3 months. then after three months they'd show up with 150k hands and all be way ahead and you get a statistician to say that if these are actually breakeven players the odds of this happening is 1/100000000000000000000000.

[The Bryce]

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."

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.

[LuckyDevil]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Hand them a copy of Theory of Poker and tell them to read it.

[Jason Strasser (strassa2)]

I think the problem is that the courts are trying to decide whether poker is a game of skill or luck. Obviously it is a skill game that involves luck. I've never understood what exactly they are trying to decide. Chess is a game involving all skill and no luck, while baccarat involves all luck and no skill, and poker is in between--along with things like betting on horses.

[Phil123]

Pretty easy really have 2 tables of player deal exactly the same cards to the players on both tables in the same position have the same flops, turns and rivers. Play for say one hour and compare the chip stacks between the players on each table. If player A on table 1 has bust but player A on table 2 has doubled his stack this would prove that player A on table 2 is more skilful, if he is more skilful then there is skill involved. You could use more tables to demonstrate different skill levels and the results they achieved. I would have the cards generated by computer for ease of dealing the same cards to the different tables.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
If player A on table 1 has bust but player A on table 2 has doubled his stack this would prove that player A on table 2 is more skilful

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't exactly accurate due to the way their opponents act. One guy is at a table full of tight players while the other is at a loose table it will impact the winnings dramatically. You can't use an example involving random events (the other players) to prove skill based on one example

Using math and EV is really the best way.

[DoGMaTiCMD]

If skill is a factor it seems very reasonable to consider it a game of skill, since luck is a universal factor. You can't rightfully say poker is gambling because of the element of luck, and then say he stock market isnt. maybe a horrible and irrelevan example, but there are examples out there that I'm sure you could think up.

Both elements are present and strong in poker, how can a person disinguish between gambling and he opposite when both are true? Who decides what is predominant or not? It comes down to morality. If those 60 year old polititians liked playing poker online, they wouldn't be forcing their morals on others through government, or letting others do so. It's rediculous, really.