|
|
#71
08-13-2007, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
[ QUOTE ]
Of course its gambling, calculated, but still gambling. And don't we kid ourselves, poker would be a loosing game for everyone even if there was no rake. Due to the limits of our bankrolls, risk or ruin is always > 0, no matter the size of the roll or the player's edge. Its only a matter of time. [/ QUOTE ] Nah, one player would end up with the money, and have no one to play. Therefore, not everyone would be broke. 
|
|
#72
08-13-2007, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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- [/ QUOTE ] No. Once you reach $500,000, you move down to .50/1.00. And once you reach $250,000 you move down to .25/.50. Thus, you will never, ever, ever go broke. You might, in billions and billions of years, find yourself playing a very unsatisfying .000001/.000002 game though. [/ QUOTE ] There's some pretty bad math in this discussion. If you have $1,000,000 and play 1/2 LH with a winrate/standard deviation ratio of .1, you will never ever go broke, even with infinite trials. Yes, at any given time your chances of going broke will be finite while you have infinite trials left, but since the chances reduce over trials as you win, they can be summed (basic high-school math), and if you sum all your chances of going broke together they will still add up to a negligibly small number.
|
|
#73
08-22-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
I'm going to resurrect this thread because I have some more questions:
Is there any way to gauge the "gambling factor" of a game/wager? What makes poker a game of skill? Does the fact that poker is a game of skill change anything? Do tournaments have less of a "gambling factor" than cash games? What are ways to get around poker as gambling? (to make it NOT gambling) Are free-rolls gambling? Are tournaments that are "free with purchase" gambling? Are poker leagues gambling when the game is freezeout tournament and everyone pays dues up-front? Thanks
|
|
#74
08-23-2007, 12:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way to gauge the "gambling factor" of a game/wager? [/ QUOTE ] I think you are asking, can we measure the extent to which the outcome of a game involves chance? Interesting question. If roulette/lotto is 100% chance, poker is much less because the bets are made on the actions of other players as well as the chance of the cards. A player has no control over the ball motion in roulette or lotto, but has some control in poker by deciding to bet-size based on one's hand and the opponents' actions. Poker is at most 50% chance, and probably a much smaller number. Note, "gambling" and "skill" are mutually exclusive terms. [ QUOTE ] What makes poker a game of skill? [/ QUOTE ] the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: all of these factors allow some players to consistently achieve better results at poker than others. [ QUOTE ] Does the fact that poker is a game of skill change anything? [/ QUOTE ] It means that it is possible to beat the rake in the long run, while there is no such expectation in games of pure chance such as roulette (unless one assumes "skill" in predicting random future outcomes). [ QUOTE ] Do tournaments have less of a "gambling factor" than cash games? [/ QUOTE ] No. [ QUOTE ] What are ways to get around poker as gambling? (to make it NOT gambling) [/ QUOTE ] Poker for stakes is gambling. Period. [ QUOTE ] Are free-rolls gambling? [/ QUOTE ] No, because "gambling" means the risking of a stake -- money or something of value. In a freeroll, there is no stake. [ QUOTE ] Are tournaments that are "free with purchase" gambling? [/ QUOTE ] Technically, no, because the purchase is for some other good which is not being risked on the tournament outcome. [ QUOTE ] Are poker leagues gambling when the game is freezeout tournament and everyone pays dues up-front? [/ QUOTE ] Yes.
|
|
#75
08-23-2007, 01:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
[ QUOTE ]
What are ways to get around poker as gambling? (to make it NOT gambling) Poker for stakes is gambling. Period. [/ QUOTE ] In addition, playing for stakes is the way to go broke just like betting your bankroll on blackjack. Thanks for the informative responses on my thread. -LuxuryMaster
|
|
#76
08-23-2007, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 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- [/ QUOTE ] No. Once you reach $500,000, you move down to .50/1.00. And once you reach $250,000 you move down to .25/.50. Thus, you will never, ever, ever go broke. You might, in billions and billions of years, find yourself playing a very unsatisfying .000001/.000002 game though. [/ QUOTE ] There's some pretty bad math in this discussion. If you have $1,000,000 and play 1/2 LH with a winrate/standard deviation ratio of .1, you will never ever go broke, even with infinite trials. Yes, at any given time your chances of going broke will be finite while you have infinite trials left, but since the chances reduce over trials as you win, they can be summed (basic high-school math), and if you sum all your chances of going broke together they will still add up to a negligibly small number. [/ QUOTE ] I still stand by what I said. You even admit that you always have a finite chance of going broke. If you play for an infinite amount of time you WILL bust out eventually because like I said, you will eventually hit a losing streak so bad it will bust you even if it takes you losing 500,000 straight hands. The mistake you are making is thinking about infinity as "just a really big number", rather than an eternity playing poker hands. I dont care how much you are up or what your edge in the game is, if it takes 10^500 years for that losing streak to happen, infinity will still ensure it. Of course at this point the discussion becomes purely a mind exercise as the numbers involved are beyond the grasp of mere laymen like myself.
|
|
#77
08-23-2007, 02:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
[ QUOTE ]
Not to burst your bubble, but even getting when you get your money in as a 95% favorite, you are still gambling. Poker is gambling. It is a form of gambling that gives the opportunity for players with sound knowledge of the game and who make mathematically correct plays the ability to become long-term winners. If one gambles by playing the lottery or roulette - over the long-term, they will be losers because of the inherent disadvantage in the game. Poker allows players to gamble their money with a much higher possibiliy of ROI than the lottery or other, house-favored casino games. [/ QUOTE ] If that's gambling then everything you do from brushing your teeth to driving to work is gambling since everything you do has an inherent risk and a reward.
|
|
#79
08-23-2007, 02:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Is there any way to gauge the "gambling factor" of a game/wager? [/ QUOTE ] I think you are asking, can we measure the extent to which the outcome of a game involves chance? Interesting question. If roulette/lotto is 100% chance, poker is much less because the bets are made on the actions of other players as well as the chance of the cards. A player has no control over the ball motion in roulette or lotto, but has some control in poker by deciding to bet-size based on one's hand and the opponents' actions. Poker is at most 50% chance, and probably a much smaller number. Note, "gambling" and "skill" are mutually exclusive terms. [ QUOTE ] What makes poker a game of skill? [/ QUOTE ] the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: all of these factors allow some players to consistently achieve better results at poker than others. [ QUOTE ] Does the fact that poker is a game of skill change anything? [/ QUOTE ] It means that it is possible to beat the rake in the long run, while there is no such expectation in games of pure chance such as roulette (unless one assumes "skill" in predicting random future outcomes). [ QUOTE ] Do tournaments have less of a "gambling factor" than cash games? [/ QUOTE ] No. [ QUOTE ] What are ways to get around poker as gambling? (to make it NOT gambling) [/ QUOTE ] Poker for stakes is gambling. Period. [ QUOTE ] Are free-rolls gambling? [/ QUOTE ] No, because "gambling" means the risking of a stake -- money or something of value. In a freeroll, there is no stake. [ QUOTE ] Are tournaments that are "free with purchase" gambling? [/ QUOTE ] Technically, no, because the purchase is for some other good which is not being risked on the tournament outcome. [ QUOTE ] Are poker leagues gambling when the game is freezeout tournament and everyone pays dues up-front? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [/ QUOTE ] Would you consider roulette to be gambling for the house, as well as the player? Neither one of them is using any skill to determine the outcome, but rather its the nature of the game that determines edge. I think this is a necessary part of any definition of gambling. The edge matters. This doesnt mean poker ISNT gambling, but its something to consider. Perhaps its some imperfect combination of edge, skill, and 'how long the long run is' or something like that.
|
|
#80
08-23-2007, 04:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [Article] Is Playing Poker ReallyGambling?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Of course its gambling, calculated, but still gambling. And don't we kid ourselves, poker would be a loosing game for everyone even if there was no rake. Due to the limits of our bankrolls, risk or ruin is always > 0, no matter the size of the roll or the player's edge. Its only a matter of time. [/ QUOTE ] Nah, one player would end up with the money, and have no one to play. Therefore, not everyone would be broke. [/ QUOTE ] Then this person will go play blackjack and lose all his money there. Hence I highly doubt your theory [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
