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

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Money is involved so it's gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The gambling known as business looks with severe disfavor on the business known as gambling." -- Ambrose Bierce

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Money is involved so it's gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The gambling known as business looks with severe disfavor on the business known as gambling." -- Ambrose Bierce

[/ QUOTE ]

"Gambling is the child of avarice, but the parent of prodigality." [C.C. Colton]

[Skallagrim]

This is actually a very important question because MOST states do not consider games that involve MORE skill than luck to be gambling. So if Poker is more skill than luck IT IS NOT GAMBLING UNDER THE LEGAL DEFINTION OF GAMBLING CURRENTLY IN PLACE IN MOST US STATES. And that means its perfectly lawful in those states for you to play it. And that means the UIGEA doesnt apply to poker in those states.

See this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=1#Post8903067

And forget about the argument in general about what is or isnt gambling as that term is normally used or whats plusEV or anything else. The key is that this question MAKES AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DIFFERNECE. If we can prove poker is more skill than luck then poker is definitely legal in almost all of the US states (some specifically ban poker, some require there be no luck, one Vermont, makes wagering on ANY game illegal).

I will give one example, the one I know best: in my state of New Hampshire, gambling is a crime. If I were to play an online slot machine, I have committed a crime. But my state defines gambling in a very limited way. It says gambing is wagering something of value on a future event over which the person has "NO CONTROL OR INFLUENCE." There is no question that the way we play poker influences the outcome of the game, and so when I play poker at my home or online I know I am not committing a crime. And thus I also know it would be quite legal, even under the UIGEA, for my bank in NH to fund my poker play.

Now, as I said, the NH defeintion of gambling is one of the best for poker players, most state definitions of gambling require that the game be more skill than luck. If you live in one of those states then proving that poker is more skill than luck is ESSENTIAL to your play being legal.

So, everyone who has a thought on how to prove this KEEP POSTING, your thoughts could make an important advancement in keeping/making poker legal.

This is also true just as a matter of common attitudes. People see gambling as an evil becasue they view it as risking real money on just luck. There is indeed luck in everything (to some degree or other - even in chess who gets to go first and thus has a slight advatage is decided by luck, usually a coin flip). But people dont generally look down on stock investing, or starting a business, or playing chess or bridge or golf or tennis for money PRECISELY BECAUSE they see that the skill of the player/investor is ALSO an important factor, usually a MORE important factor.

When we get the general public to see that poker is more like playing golf for money than rolling the craps dice, it will be soooooooo much easier to get Poker accepted as something that SHOULD be legal. Indeed, IMHO, thats the most important thing we have to do.

Skallagrim

[pokerbratwurst]

Well, to show that poker is both a game of skill and an enjoyable pastime worthy of legal protection, I suggest arranging two poker games for influential House & Senate committee members.

In the first game, let the legislators play in a medium stakes cash game with some amiable well, spoken top professionals. To prove poker is skill, let the professionals play their "A" game.

In the second game, let the legislators play in a high stakes cash game with some amiable, well spoken top poker lobbyists. To prove poker is an enjoyable pastime that should be legal for all citizens to enjoy, have the lobbyists tank.

[sadlaws]

An easy way to explain that poker is a game of skill would be to do an analogy with money investment.

You invest your money when you have the best of it and you try to minimize your losses when you don't.

I invite people to complete my comparison...

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
In the first game, let the legislators play in a medium stakes cash game with some amiable well, spoken top professionals. To prove poker is skill, let the professionals play their "A" game.

In the second game, let the legislators play in a high stakes cash game with some amiable, well spoken top poker lobbyists. To prove poker is an enjoyable pastime that should be legal for all citizens to enjoy, have the lobbyists tank.

[/ QUOTE ]

vnh [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[viper930]

arguing that poker isnt gambling would be ridiculous and anyone who actually thinks that is lying to himself.

sadly, there's no good argument except for results and results can never become proof because the sample size is always finite.

this is the same reasoning as researchers not being able to "prove" that tobacco directly cause lung cancer no matter how high the % of their results turn up positive.

[Our House]

OK, got it:

- Find the person who requires proof that poker is a skill game.
- Offer to take his money to a 6 max 2/4 NL table using the strategy of FOLDING every single hand.
- Mathematically show them how this strategy will 100% cause him to lose at a rate of 12.5 PTBB/100.

This is irrefutable evidence that playing badly will lose you money. Now, you can PROVE that the people he's playing against will WIN money by NOT playing as badly as he does. He can't deny that his $100 per 100 hands will be spread out among the other 5 players at the table, correct?

Similarly, offer him a strategy of CALLING every single bet and then OPEN-FOLDING on the river. See if he'd like to use the mathematics on that one to manage his money.

Alter this strategy by offering to use ONE hand (maybe pocket 3s) as his "showdown" hand. Mathematically show him how that won't win either. This would prove how various degrees of skill (or lack thereof) exist.

People who play badly will lose money. People can win that money by playing LESS badly. It's so simple that a monkey could understand it (which is good considering all the monkeys we have running our country).

Thoughts?

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with poker is that the game involves both skill and short term luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Proving poker is a game of skill only requres someone competent enough to expound the on the mathematics of expected value.

If you are skilled you will always win in the long run against less skilled opponents.

Why someone like Sklansky hasn't written something substantial on this is beyond me.

(Not singling out Sklansky, just someone with a similar background.)

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Easier said that done, perhaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can not have professionals in any endeavor that is not based in some part on skill. There are professional poker players therefore it must be based in part on skill.