[Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?

[Daddys_Visa]

The statement that all players will eventually go broke depends on two assumptions:

1.) That each player plays for an infinite amount of time.
2.) There is an infinite stream of money coming into the poker world.

If these are satisfied, every player will eventually bust out at some point. The stakes they wager each hand and their present bankroll are irrelevant.

Say you had $1,000,000 and only played 1/2 limit holdem, you would eventually hit a losing streak so bad that you would lose it all. Since you are playing for an infinite amount of time this is inevitable.

Now obviously our poker playing lifetimes do not satisfy condition #1 and never will, so this is really just an academic discussion.

-Daddys_Visa-

[Johnny Hughes]

When a layman asks, I always say, "Poker is not gambling the way I play it." For the expert, no-limit, Texas Hold 'em players, they are the house with a house edge just like running a dice table. Would you say running a dice table is gambling when you are a cinch winner over a short range of time? Would you say being a bookmaker with a tremendous edge is gambling?

The gamblers called businessmen have always looked down on the businessmen called gamblers. Those people called gamblers or professional gamblers are the ones who always take the best of it. They are not gambling. If they book enough action within their bankroll, they are cinch winners. It is that way for poker players at all levels. I don't have any gamble in me. I wouldn't flip you for fifty cents. I do like to bet on those damn race horses every now and again. Then I am gambling, taking the worst of it, and not expecting to win. Poker is recreational gambling for most people. But for the top players, it is not really a gamble. For them, it is about self-control, self-efficacy.

[SNGplayer24]

Personally I dont think of poker as gambling, but as more of an investment. If we know our true ROI, had could anyone consider it not an investment and a gamble? Isn't a small business owner taking more of a gamble when they have no idea if their investment will pan out? What about real estate investors, and those generally new to the field. Theres no guarentee that the market is going to good when the house goes for sale, and they may run into bigger issues. All in all the term gambling should be referenced to casino games and other endeavors that are not +EV

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
When a layman asks, I always say, "Poker is not gambling the way I play it." For the expert, no-limit, Texas Hold 'em players, they are the house with a house edge just like running a dice table. Would you say running a dice table is gambling when you are a cinch winner over a short range of time? Would you say being a bookmaker with a tremendous edge is gambling?

The gamblers called businessmen have always looked down on the businessmen called gamblers. Those people called gamblers or professional gamblers are the ones who always take the best of it. They are not gambling. If they book enough action within their bankroll, they are cinch winners. It is that way for poker players at all levels. I don't have any gamble in me. I wouldn't flip you for fifty cents. I do like to bet on those damn race horses every now and again. Then I am gambling, taking the worst of it, and not expecting to win. Poker is recreational gambling for most people. But for the top players, it is not really a gamble. For them, it is about self-control, self-efficacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that people are confusing two different ideas in this thread and labelling them both gambling.

The first concept is gambling.
The second concept is taking a chance or risk.

You can play with the definition, if you want, but gambling, essentially, is wagering on the outcome of an uncertain event. By this definition, or any other reasonable definition of gambling, poker is gambling.

However, if you are a winning player, playing on adequate bankroll for your stakes, and are a winner because you consistently have an edge in the games you play, then you can argue that you are not taking a chance because over time you will make money.

But you are still gambling.

Is the house gambling with its customers when it sets up a roulette wheel? Of course. Is it (assuming it has adequate capitalization, and will have large enough pool of costomers) taking a chance? Of course not, the math guarratees that it will make money.

I don't see why this is confusing to people.

Gambling with a postive expectation is still gambling. Given the right circumstances (adequate bankroll, adequate number of trials) it is not a risk. I suppose one could say you are gambling but not taking a gamble. Therein lies the confusion, I suppose.

--Zetack

Edit: To the folks who say that poker is not gambling, I would offer up this thought. If poker is not gambling because over time you have a positive expectation, then the only time you are gambling is when you take 1-1 odds on 50% outcomes, or you are are planning on engaging in an inadequate number of trials on some wager.

So, suppose I put up a dollar and one cents against a dollar on a single flip of a coin. By the above peoples reckoning, I'm gambling. Suppose instead we agree to flip the coing three trillion times. According to the above reasoning, I'm no longer gambling, as it is now certain that I'm going to lose money and I just need to keep receiving free credit card offers until the Sun blows up so I can keep up the -EV wagering.

This hypothetical is nonsense of course. It's gambling either way, whether it's one flip or three trillion flips.

[Skallagrim]

If gambling is wagering on an uncertain outcome, virtually every thing we do, and certainly every game we play for money, including professional sports, is gambling. If the outcome were certain, why play the game?

Gambling in a more technical (and legal) sense, is wagering on an outcome OVER WHICH YOU HAVE NO INFLUENCE OR CONTROL, or insufficient control to positively affect the outcome.

By this more precise definition, poker is not gambling because in poker the player influences the outcome of the hand by influencing the actions of the other players (your bet or raise induces a fold), and controlling their own actions (folding, and hence losing less money than another player who was not smart enough to fold).

Of course chance is an important factor in poker, but the lesson of thousands of players and millions of hands is that chance does not determine by itself who wins and loses at poker, the decisions of the players is the more important factor. And the decisions of the players are not "chance."

Blackjack has an element of skill, but in blackjack that element of skill cannot overcome the math/probabilities - no matter how good you play, you are always subject to the next card (even card counters, they just play long enough for the chance to even out). The element of folding is what places poker just above blackjack in the range of chance v. skill precisely because it is a way to overcome the chance element completely.

Skallagrim

[JulioYalil]

this has been discussed way too many times b4 so please think of something new. the answer is YES, yes it is. but u can call it wagering if u'd like.
good luck in ur future gambling w/ cards.

[LuxuryMaster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When a layman asks, I always say, "Poker is not gambling the way I play it." For the expert, no-limit, Texas Hold 'em players, they are the house with a house edge just like running a dice table. Would you say running a dice table is gambling when you are a cinch winner over a short range of time? Would you say being a bookmaker with a tremendous edge is gambling?

The gamblers called businessmen have always looked down on the businessmen called gamblers. Those people called gamblers or professional gamblers are the ones who always take the best of it. They are not gambling. If they book enough action within their bankroll, they are cinch winners. It is that way for poker players at all levels. I don't have any gamble in me. I wouldn't flip you for fifty cents. I do like to bet on those damn race horses every now and again. Then I am gambling, taking the worst of it, and not expecting to win. Poker is recreational gambling for most people. But for the top players, it is not really a gamble. For them, it is about self-control, self-efficacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that people are confusing two different ideas in this thread and labelling them both gambling.

The first concept is gambling.
The second concept is taking a chance or risk.

You can play with the definition, if you want, but gambling, essentially, is wagering on the outcome of an uncertain event. By this definition, or any other reasonable definition of gambling, poker is gambling.

However, if you are a winning player, playing on adequate bankroll for your stakes, and are a winner because you consistently have an edge in the games you play, then you can argue that you are not taking a chance because over time you will make money.

But you are still gambling.

Is the house gambling with its customers when it sets up a roulette wheel? Of course. Is it (assuming it has adequate capitalization, and will have large enough pool of costomers) taking a chance? Of course not, the math guarratees that it will make money.

I don't see why this is confusing to people.

Gambling with a postive expectation is still gambling. Given the right circumstances (adequate bankroll, adequate number of trials) it is not a risk. I suppose one could say you are gambling but not taking a gamble. Therein lies the confusion, I suppose.

--Zetack

Edit: To the folks who say that poker is not gambling, I would offer up this thought. If poker is not gambling because over time you have a positive expectation, then the only time you are gambling is when you take 1-1 odds on 50% outcomes, or you are are planning on engaging in an inadequate number of trials on some wager.

So, suppose I put up a dollar and one cents against a dollar on a single flip of a coin. By the above peoples reckoning, I'm gambling. Suppose instead we agree to flip the coing three trillion times. According to the above reasoning, I'm no longer gambling, as it is now certain that I'm going to lose money and I just need to keep receiving free credit card offers until the Sun blows up so I can keep up the -EV wagering.

This hypothetical is nonsense of course. It's gambling either way, whether it's one flip or three trillion flips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the replies on my little article. I found you to be the one who actually perceived the point I was trying to get at. I don't deny the fact that you are risking your money even though you are in favorable odds when playing good poker because you never know what will come. However, think about it. Given the two circumstances (proper bankroll and favored odds +@ discipline) in a long term, I don't see how it can be uncertain outcome. Basically the whole point of this post was to contradict the definition of gambling based on the mathematical proof on my head.

There is a term in economics called "opportunity cost" which is the amount of profit you lose by doing things because you can't do two things simultaneously. The opportunity cost becomes positive. For example, you are a lawyer who makes $200 hr for customer and you waste one hour of your job eating lunch. that is -$200 opportunity cost. Also, if you take a favorite chance say 90%(uncertain odd) on customer visit during your lunch hour, you gain a average profit very close to 90% of $200 in a long run. Lastly, if you don't take this chance, you gain nothing. Can you say this lawyer is gambling his time on uncertain outcome?

-LuxuryMaster
-Blogspot: luxurymaster.blogspot.com

[LuxuryMaster]

[ QUOTE ]
If gambling is wagering on an uncertain outcome, virtually every thing we do, and certainly every game we play for money, including professional sports, is gambling. If the outcome were certain, why play the game?

Gambling in a more technical (and legal) sense, is wagering on an outcome OVER WHICH YOU HAVE NO INFLUENCE OR CONTROL, or insufficient control to positively affect the outcome.

By this more precise definition, poker is not gambling because in poker the player influences the outcome of the hand by influencing the actions of the other players (your bet or raise induces a fold), and controlling their own actions (folding, and hence losing less money than another player who was not smart enough to fold).

Of course chance is an important factor in poker, but the lesson of thousands of players and millions of hands is that chance does not determine by itself who wins and loses at poker, the decisions of the players is the more important factor. And the decisions of the players are not "chance."

Blackjack has an element of skill, but in blackjack that element of skill cannot overcome the math/probabilities - no matter how good you play, you are always subject to the next card (even card counters, they just play long enough for the chance to even out). The element of folding is what places poker just above blackjack in the range of chance v. skill precisely because it is a way to overcome the chance element completely.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Skallagrim - Thanks for the collaborative comment. How many of you think that paying tuition bill for school is gambling? You never know that you will end up making a lot of money when you graduate which is uncertain outcome. However, if you are smart and determined you will gain a lot more when you graduate. At the same time, if you don't have sufficient enough bankroll to invest yourself into the school that is also stupid too because you won't be able to buy or do anything else because you don't pay other things (rent, car payment, and etc.) then you go broke. Will you blame your odds when you get broke this way?

-LuxuryMaster
-Blogspot: luxurymaster.blogspot.com

[LuxuryMaster]

True, there is no guarantee on the future market. However, good business owners will generate profit because they are aware of things that bad business owners. The profit different might not be significant on short run but significant in the long run.

-LuxuryMaster
-Blog: luxurymaster.blogspot.com

[LuxuryMaster]

I said over $200/hr so $1000/hr is inclusive

-LuxuryMaster
-blog: luxurymaster.blogspot.com