How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[MoolahMuerte]

How in the hell does this save us from those states where gambling is illegal per se? Thanks but no thanks - there has to be some nationwide clarification on this or the funding mechanisms will be DOA. Sklansky - i love your books (small stakes hold em is my bible) - but this issue is not about skill versus no skill - cause states can just enact legislation like la and wa.

[JOHNY CA$H]

And that is why we buy your books, Sir.

[David Sklansky]

I'm only addressing the issue regarding the fact that pros can have losing weeks even though there is great skill involved. I have no idea how much that helps the overall fight.

[MoolahMuerte]

Gotcha - myself trying to work through the issues as to the possibility for some general exemption for the majority of us to play online - and it seems a dark picture at least in the short term.

But for you guys - good news - i have more down time to buy and read your books.

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]


Which is that ONLY IN GAMES OF SKILL CAN A PLAYER GUARANTEE THAT HE WILL QUICKLY LOSE. If for some strange reason he wanted to. Why didn't I think of that? Because of course it is true. You can't guarantee that you will lose in slot machines or keno or roulette or craps just by playing badly.(I'm not counting the artificial plays of betting red and black or pass and don't pass at the same time. Nor am I talking about folding every hand in poker. I'm talking about playing very badly.) Only in games of skill, does horrible play mean a quick demise. (Although there are exceptions such as sports betting).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is total bunk.

So if you added a little trash bucket as part of the roulette board and you could opt to just throw your chips in the garbage, it would be a game of skill? What about blackjack? You can definitely play terrible blackjack on purpose and lose almost every hand. Or maybe your argument is that blackjack is a game of skill? It seems hard to call something a game of skill, where skill is measured as ability to maximize EV, if the highest EV decision available is to not play it (I know you can win at blackjack by counting, for sake of argument lets say its internet blackjack). I'm pretty sure there are endless examples of games, real or hypothetical, that don't feel like they should count as games of skill where you can lose consistently on purpose.

I'm having a harder time coming up with games of skill where you can't lose consistently on purpose. I actually don't think there are any. If playing badly didn't make you lose, it wouldn't be a game of skill. In chess, and surely lots of other games of skill, no matter how badly you play you'll need some cooperation from your opponent to ever lose, but thats not a real counterexample.

I guess what I'm saying is that being able to lose on purpose is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a game to be a game of skill. I think you do have to show that you can play meaningfully well (for instance, better than another person who is also making an informed, good faith effort to play well) for it to be a game of skill. All that being able to lose on purpose proves is that the game involves decisions, some of which are better or worse than others.

But juries are full of stupid people who don't understand logic, so in court your argument would probably be quite strong.

EDIT: I read through the responses and I guess the consensus is that this argument says blackjack is a game of skill and thus not a counter example. Whatever, even if blackjack is a game of skill, there has to be some point along the continuum where it goes from game of skill to game with some decisions that you can make incorrectly if you really want to but that doesn't actually involve any skill. But the latter game would still fit your criteria for skill games, so I think they are insufficient criteria.

[E.Z.]

the only defense that is not a game of skill would be in a heads up NL sit and go. perhaps o doyles turbo..lol ( 1 minutes blinds)

Joe 7-11 manager ( who doesn't know the rules to poker)
vs
the top pro

Joe stalls so the blinds go up every hand or 2 but
goes all in preflop no matter what evey hand.

at what point does the pro finally get a hand he wants to call with?? hand 3, 6?? since a pocket pair for the pro odds wise is 17-1 longshot ( and 2's and 3's would likely be coin flips) it's safe to say that when the pro calls he could very well only be 60% favorite. in some cases higher, some cases even an underdog.

the pro will win this hand more than not but he has donked off perhaps a few hundred in blinds if he didn't find a good hand early. so he still has to win another hand and can't afford to fold many before calling.

in this format Joe sit and Go (who thought they invited him to trade baseball cards) would win what %? it would depend on what cards the pro would be willing to take a stand with. my guess is Joe would win 40% or more??

[WhoIam]

If I were in front of a jury, I would draw an analogy to sports. Everyone is aware that highly-ranked teams sometimes lose to lower-ranked teams, but this doesn't mean that rankings and records are based simply on luck. A batter has x% chance (on average) of getting a hit and a quarterback has x% chance of completing a pass. The actual stats for games will sometimes be much higher or lower than this. While Rex Grossman will sometimes have a better day than Peyton Manning, this doesn't mean that both quarterbacks are equally skilled or that football is a game of luck.

[MiltonFriedman]

No, David. I am saying that the argument fails because it confuses people. (I think that Plato's cave story had something along the same lines.)

I am illustrating that the argument for demonstrating "skill" fails. It is an analogy which applies only when the rake/hold/payout conditions are favorable.

If you try and define skill by reference to winning or losing, you are bringing into question the definition of "winning or losing". For most poker players, playing itself is "winning", and entertainment is the payout. The financial outcome attendent to "skill" misses the point. A player who enjoys the game is 'winning", whehter or not he makes money at it.

Building a political argument on "skill/winning" defined as winning money is foolish. Entertainment/television built poker's popularity, popularity can equate to potential political clout. Arguments based upon deliberately losing, aside from their other flaws, are never going to "save" anything.

[onoble]

Does this mean Netteller will pay me my monies?

[ongo30]

In my opinion, no one has made a good enough argument to disprover this theory. Blackjack is a game of skill, so that point doesn't exist.

I could name a hundred games where this holds true, and I haven't heard anyone name 1 game of skill that you couldn't lose right away if you wanted to.

That being said... This whole argument probably won't do a thing to convince officials of this fact. Any argument will help none the less.