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

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Professional Roulette Player

Explain to a non-gambler how coining yourself a "winner" or "professional" makes it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as a professional Roulette player - even if he calls himself one. You can't beat the house even with a double down strategy because of the cap on the betting amount and the existence of green and double green colors.

[fnord_too]

Stopped reading after a couple dozen responses, but a good start would be arguing that the state of California considers poker a game of skill. That is a pretty big precedent. Also, one could research whatever their rational was and repeat it.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Professional Roulette Player

Explain to a non-gambler how coining yourself a "winner" or "professional" makes it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as a professional Roulette player - even if he calls himself one. You can't beat the house even with a double down strategy because of the cap on the betting amount and the existence of green and double green colors.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Skallagrim]

Anyone really interested in this topic, check out the article discussed in this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD

[tame_deuces]

Explain the the majority of players who sit down are losing players who might as well hit the slot machines as play poker, and that they are probably relying completely on their 'luck' to win money.

Oh wait, that might not be too smart. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[cmyr]

I think this is a fairly easy question. Create two games of x hands of a limit game (HE, for simplicity), where each hand is played from the same seeded deck.

In game one, apply a random strategy, where at each point in the hand where hero is provided with a decision (fold/call/raise) his action is determined randomly. (or close enough... use seed numbers from your internal clock or roll a die)

In game two, the hands are played by a competent human player.


Even better, you could have Villain employ the random strategy, and Hero is a competent human player.


Then you just need to calculate your St/D and play enough hands to be 99+% confident that Hero is a winner.

[daedalus]

Doyle Brunson has won over $1 Million every year for the last 50 years playing poker. Nuff said....game of skill. Go figure the probability of that happening in a game of chance.

[Babygrand]

Ya might wanna check your sources on that one.

[morphball]

I think the Frist Act is a little more sinister than many of us hope. I hope this isn't overly repetitive, but a couple posts here, I think, are incorrect. I do not mean to single any one out. Btw, I think poker is a game of skill, but will be treated as gambling under the terms of the act.

[ QUOTE ]
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."


[/ QUOTE ]

This by itself does not accomplish anything. Setting odds in favor of one player does not make the game one of skill. Otherwise, couldn't casinos say that roulette is a game of skill because they are good at setting odds in their favor?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, a casino is skilled at getting people to place bad bets, and so is a skilled poker player (especially in NL games). What is the difference? And, I think it leads into refuting this argument as well...

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something akin to the law of large numbers I guess, but you are simply saying if I consistently get my opponents to make bad wagers, I expect to win. Can you see the DOJ's argument? "Your honor, this is no different than roulette."

[ QUOTE ]
What's odd to me is that people can perceive derivatives trading as a skill game whereas poker a game of luck. I guess something involving Fortune 500 companies or market indexes gets respect whereas a casino card game does not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ray Zee hit the nail on the head, actually. And for a reason that is actually tied into the text of Frist's bill.

Aaron Brown (who posts here) wrote <u>The Poker Face of Wall Street</u>, and in his book, I think he did a thoroughly convincing job of arguing that poker and trading are beasts of the same nature. I think Uncle Sam knows this too, because the Frist Act specifically exempts trading from the act's scope...

[ QUOTE ]

(1 ) BET OR WAGER.

.....


(E) does not include-
(i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the purchase or sale of securities (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of that Act);
(ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act;
(iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;
(iv) any other transaction that
(I) is excluded or exempt from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act; or
(II) is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws under section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section 28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
(v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;
(vi) any contract for insurance;


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any one disagrees with the fact that skillful traders make money even though the market is supposed to behave randomly. So if trading is a "game of skill," why did Senator Frist see the need to exempt trading from the statute's reach, when the statute covers only "games of chance"?

[Skallagrim]

I see you have access to the actual text of the UIGEA. So perhaps you will note the provision that explicitly states that act does not expand what types of gambling were lawful or unlawful under prior law. This provision is far more important as to what transactions are actully covered by the UIGEA and which one are not (are not, IMO, equals all poker transactions from states where playing poker is not illegal).