Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

I certainly hope those tourney/harvard donks fail.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

I thought NL poker was just a game which rewards aggression and putting your opponent to a decision for all their chips ...

Along with G-bucks, is there more to the game?

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

You folks should also explore the legislation forum for more detailed discussions of this issue.

That said, there are 2 points I would like to make:

1) Pretty much everyone agrees that poker is a game in which skill makes a difference. And a lot of the arguments you guys have proposed are correct, but thats all they prove. Blackjack is also a game in which skill makes a difference.

2) What is required by most state laws to exempt poker from being labelled "illegal gambling" is to show that poker is MORE SKILL THAN CHANCE. In other words, how much does skill make a difference?

I have been arguing this point for quite a long time:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...p;vc=1&nt=9

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=1&fpart=2

The cliff note version of my argument is that you first have to decide haw to deteermine skill v. chance. The best way to do that is look at results. Results that come from player actions are skill based, results that come from the turn of the cards are chance based.

The beauty of this argument is that it means ALL hands that dont go to showdown have to be deemed skill based. Thats usually over 1/2 the hands in a normal game right there.
The rest we can also argue over, to the point where I conclude that only hands that can be said to be the result of chance are those that go to showdown and are won by the player who was the underdog when the money went in. Obviously that exists in poker, and just as obviously it accounts for less than 1/2 the results, so poker is MOSTLY SKILL.

PS, Howard uses this argument in the article, but I thought of it first.

Skallagrim

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

I have a subscription to the online WSJ. Some of the posted responses to the article are hilarious. Here is a sampling:

[ QUOTE ]

"The game is clearly luck.

The betting strategy may involve skill if the game involves people around a table where the ability to bluff and read other players should improve the results. Online betting pretty much eliminates this...

There is almost no skill involved

Craig Rodby"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

"There is a trivial amount of skill necessary. You need to know the rules so you don't try for 4 of a kind when you hold a full house.

But once you have all the skill there is you are at the mercy of luck. And the odds are against you. Over time you will loose and the host will win.

Samuel Gravina"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

" I have 4 college degrees, and have played poker for 40 (forty) years.

It is an indisputable fact, that on any given session, the recognized best players in the world will lose...

...Conclusion: Unless you are super-intelligent, and have a CONSIDERABLE amount of money, (or getting lucky in the begining of your gambling career), and decide to devote the rest of your life to gambling.......STAY
AWAY FROM GAMBLING."

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

Skall, i really enjoy your posts, esp in legis.

The objective of a poker player is to win other participants money. The skill of poker is in betting/calling/raising/checking PROFITABLY. To do this, players must develop an sound expectation of opponent's future behavior based on how the opponent will value
1. the distributed/expected cards
2. his ability to exert betting influence over you

The skill to being profitably is assesing how an opponent values both his cards and his influence, then determining if your cards and actions will lead him to overvalue his holdings and/or his "influence expecation"

Also, while you may have posted the Lederer argument first, saying you were first to think of it is not only impossible to determine, but absurd [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Keep up the good posting.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a subscription to the online WSJ. Some of the posted responses to the article are hilarious. Here is a sampling:

[ QUOTE ]

"The game is clearly luck.

The betting strategy may involve skill if the game involves people around a table where the ability to bluff and read other players should improve the results. Online betting pretty much eliminates this...

There is almost no skill involved

Craig Rodby"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

"There is a trivial amount of skill necessary. You need to know the rules so you don't try for 4 of a kind when you hold a full house.

But once you have all the skill there is you are at the mercy of luck. And the odds are against you. Over time you will loose and the host will win.

Samuel Gravina"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

" I have 4 college degrees, and have played poker for 40 (forty) years.

It is an indisputable fact, that on any given session, the recognized best players in the world will lose...

...Conclusion: Unless you are super-intelligent, and have a CONSIDERABLE amount of money, (or getting lucky in the begining of your gambling career), and decide to devote the rest of your life to gambling.......STAY
AWAY FROM GAMBLING."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely I'm not the only one that wants to throw up. These must be written by the same kind of person who's all day writing letters to Penthouse.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]
Skall, i really enjoy your posts, esp in legis.

The objective of a poker player is to win other participants money. The skill of poker is in betting/calling/raising/checking PROFITABLY. To do this, players must develop an sound expectation of opponent's future behavior based on how the opponent will value
1. the distributed/expected cards
2. his ability to exert betting influence over you

The skill to being profitably is assesing how an opponent values both his cards and his influence, then determining if your cards and actions will lead him to overvalue his holdings and/or his "influence expecation"

Also, while you may have posted the Lederer argument first, saying you were first to think of it is not only impossible to determine, but absurd [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Keep up the good posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the kind words Salazar. A major reason I make these posts is to "try out" these arguments before making them elsewhere. It helps to get the (intelligent) feedback, and I thank you for your replies.

And you are right, I can only prove that I POSTED the argument first. But I will let you in on a little secret - I emailed the argument direcly to the PPA administration about 2 weeks ago (when the first post about the Harvard meeting came up on here). I was emailed back with the assurance that the PPA board would see my email. Now I see PPA board member Lederer making essentially the same argument.

I care more about the arguments success than I do about my getting the credit. But I do have enough ego to want the credit acknowledged, especially if it succeeds.

Would be nice to have an obit that says "the lawyer who saved legal poker." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Skallagrim

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

I'd rather see them prove that stars is rigged

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

I'd quite like people to believe poker is another form of roulette. Come gamble at my table, I'll tell yer jokes!