From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

Harvard University, Howard Lederer and other "poker powers" have set out to prove that poker is a game of skill, not chance. This debate has implications for the ban on using credit cards to fund games of chance. The article also added some interesting points of history:

1) The word "poker" has French origins (that's too bad) Poquer = to bet.
2) The is a case in CA that held poker is a skill game and that case from 1989 kept our casinos open. Other states disagree.

Also worth noting is that some statistical heavyweights are throwing their computers into the ring on this debate. There are now MILLIONS of computerized hand histories available for analysis. Stephen Leavitt, (sp?) author of Freakonomics, (and one really smart dude) is looking to mine that data to determine what makes poker players winners or losers. Others are attempting to do the same thing.

With this much data, I believe some of these guys will be able to quantify, to the extent possibly, poker success and failure. The last time some one did this to a card game was card counting at blackjack. And look at what happened to blackjack. As soon as card counting became general information, the game was changed and for the worse. If these statisticians are successful at parsing out rules for success and failure and making that information cheaply available, will poker follow the same fate as blackjack? Will the game HAVE to be changed, for the worse, the same way blackjack had to be changed to "save" it? Your views?

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

let's hope they stick to LHE.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

my first language is french...
Never heard of "poquer"
It's a spanish word.
It is not in my french dictionary
how accurate is this post?

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]
let's hope they stick to LHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the first time you made me chuckle.

SALA-HAR-HAR-HAR

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]
my first language is french...
Never heard of "poquer"
It's a spanish word.
It is not in my french dictionary
how accurate is this post?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a similar article about the origins, and he's right about "poquer" being French. Probably an archaic term or proper name that didn't find it's way into the dictionary...

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

it's 'toadly' French. True story.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

Poquer comes from "poque her", which was originated in Louisiana as their version of "SIIHP". As card players started taking it in the hoop at the tables, "poker" became the commonly used name. google it.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]

There are now BILLIONS of computerized hand histories available for analysis


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]
If these statisticians are successful at parsing out rules for success and failure and making that information cheaply available

[/ QUOTE ]


Already done somehwat. In different books.

Stoxtrader does something even closer to this in his latest book. It is cheaply available.
But poker is a different game than blackjack.
Everyone on the planet could read Stox's book and the games could still be good.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

I remember the freakanomics guy trying to collect databases at least 2 years ago online...

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

anybody have the full article?

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

Yes, he has been soliciting poker hands for a long time. http://www.pokernomics.com/index.htm

This was from May 3.

http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/

Those of you who’ve been reading this blog for a while, and especially those of you who play poker, may remember a research project called Pokernomics, which is meant to determine what makes a person a good (or bad) poker player.

Lately, the question has become more than an academic one. As explained in this morning’s Wall Street Journal:

The skill debate has been a preoccupation in poker circles since September, when Congress barred the use of credit cards for online wagers. Horse racing and stock trading were exempt, but otherwise the new law hit any “game predominantly subject to chance.” Included among such games was poker, which is increasingly played on Internet sites hosting players from all over the world.

There has since been a strong pushback from a group called the Poker Players Alliance, which recently held an exploratory conference at the Harvard Faculty Club — replete with Harvard faculty like law professor Charles Nesson, who hopes to, as he puts it, “legitimate poker.”

The article, written by Neil King Jr., is a very interesting one — although I do wish it explained the real dynamics of the online poker debate, which, as I understand it, primarily concern the lack of taxation and regulation. The luck vs. skill thing, in other words, is more of a fancy fig leaf than anything.

Anyhow, the article is well worth a read, even if you don’t know a thing about poker. In fact, the article assumes that you may not know a thing about poker:

Poker is at heart a betting game in which players compete against one another for a growing pot of money. Players win either by getting the others to fold their cards or by having the best hand, ranked according to a hierarchy.

(If I were a betting man, I would bet that those sentences were added or requested by King’s editor.)

King’s article also links to the blog written by Annie Duke, a poker champion and, let’s not forget, a rock-paper-scissors champion, too. Duke offers a simple but compelling argument (attributed to David Sklansky and Duke’s brother Howard Lederer) for poker as a game of skill and not purely chance.

The gist is this: forget about winning at poker, and think for a moment about losing. Is it possible to intentionally lose a poker game?

The answer is yes, of course. Is it possible, meanwhile, to intentionally lose a game like Baccarat or roulette or craps?

No, it’s not — which means that you have no control over the outcome, which means that they are entirely games of chance. And which means, in Duke’s argument, that poker, therefore, is not.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]
The gist is this: forget about winning at poker, and think for a moment about losing. Is it possible to intentionally lose a poker game?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very strong argument because it goes into the heart of the game, which is not what cards you get, but how you bet when you get them.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

there are some blackjack and video-poker games that can't be beaten in the long-term even with advantage play.
Yet it is still extremely easy to intentionally lose at these games.
A 'skilled' player simply loses less, that's all.

But since playing perfect strategy can't beat the game either i'm not sure if that makes these games-of-skill or not.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

And actually, that is the argument I prefer. Lots of hands end WITHOUT a showing of hole cards. How is winning those hands a game of chance?

And one argument not from the article. Why is it that the pro's consistently place better in the poker tournaments than the amateurs? If made subject to statistical testing, the only answer would be skill.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

Obviously it is skill or no one could make a living off of it, they and everyone else would be breakeven (ignoring rake).

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

Would love to see Howard Lederer issue an open challenge to anyone that doesn't believe Poker involves skill.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]
will poker follow the same fate as blackjack? Will the game HAVE to be changed, for the worse, the same way blackjack had to be changed to "save" it? Your views?

[/ QUOTE ]

nay, bj is against the house, bro.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would love to see Howard Lederer issue an open challenge to anyone that doesn't believe Poker involves skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the Stu Ungar biography there is mention of Billy Baxter fighting a court battle with reguard to the amount of taxes withheld from his tournament winnings. He sued and said he should not be taxed at the same rate as a lottery winner, but rather a professional (doctor, lawyer etc.). According to Cardplayer, the appeals court judge said, "I find the government's argument ludicrous, I wish you had some money and could sit down and play poker with Mr. Baxter."

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously it is skill or no one could make a living off of it, they and everyone else would be breakeven (ignoring rake).

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not necessarily the case. does the house require skill when they spread roulette?

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!

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

The good news Jack - your reposts are a riot. The bad news - these people vote. I'll be in LV Mom's Day Weekend - hangin' in the MGM.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously it is skill or no one could make a living off of it, they and everyone else would be breakeven (ignoring rake).

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because the average is breakeven doesn't mean most people (or even ANYONE) will be breakeven.

If you held a winner-take-all tournament where everyone had 0 EV, the winner would be the lucky pro for the day.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

The legal ramifications of the skill v. luck debate is interesting.

In Canada and Ireland (and probably other places I don't know of) there is no tax on poker income because it is lumped with games of chance for taxation purposes.

In the U.S., it was a big fight to get it treated as a game of skill so there would be less tax on poker income.

Kinda funny.

Re: From today\'s Wall Street Journal
 

I agree. Us stewpid peepole could reed it and still no get it.