Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Hello,

I have posted this before and if you feel it is inappropriate please just delete.


I am writing a research paper on poker, and it will include a couple things about recent legislation.

The thesis will be something like:
"Poker is a skill that can be used as an effective investment vehicle that may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

I have done a lot of searching for the topic. I have found a lot on the legislation, and a lot on the investment. I am going to get a couple players to turn over some of their stats to prove the "investment + return" part. What I need is a good and reputable author that has written something on the subject of "Poker is a skill and not gambling"

Does anyone have anything like this? Many of the sites(bet-the-pot.com, etc) don't really show up on my searches but are still written by reputable players. These guys don't have to be professors, but it has to be written by someone other than me.

Thanks! I am also searching up the couple sklansky threads where he talks about this, but I don't know how or if I can ever cite these things.

Edit: Forgot to add why I am putting this on here. Afterwards I would plan to e-mail this paper(8 pages or so) to my senators and other people in the struggle. I could also post this to people here so they could forward it as well.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

You may want to look into some of the stuff coming out of Harvard Law School. The think tank is called the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society (GPSTS), and is led by a well respected professor their, Charles Nesson. Hope that helps.

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Here is a link from a recent Harvard debate(I have not read it yet it just came up)...

http://gpsts.org/poker-a-game-of-skill/

Poker as a "skill" as been discussed here several times..Do a search...Sklansky had an article that could be of use in a recent Internet Magazine..The article was also discussed in depth in the 2+2 Mag forum

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

I love that link above ... especially Howard Lederer's Proof that Skill predominates over Chance in the game of poker.

Of course, long time readers of this forum will note that the basic proof Howard provides was first posted in this very forum (as Howard acknowledges at the end), apparently by some poster with a weird, Norse sounding screen name. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Bookmark that link folks, this is how we establish poker as a skill game in Court and thus get it out of the status of "illegal" gambling in about 4 out of 5 of the US states.

Skallagrim

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
apparently by some poster with a weird, Norse sounding screen name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very cool. I didn't realize you were that far reaching Skallagrim.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

You really think poker is more chance than skill L-Larry? Perhaps its some other point you disagree with....

If you really think poker is more chance than skill perhaps you also would be willing to post the screen names with the sites you play at...?

Skallagrim

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Yea really exactly what are you doing here with 6k posts?


Thanks everyone, the link provided will help me write a lot(I had a lot of this in mind but since I have a link to a source I can now have a source behind it)

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
You really think poker is more chance than skill L-Larry? Perhaps its some other point you disagree with....

If you really think poker is more chance than skill perhaps you also would be willing to post the screen names with the sites you play at...?



[/ QUOTE ]

And the stakes you play at, times of day, ... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I hadn't heard this argument presented in this form before. Very convincing. Great work Skall [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
apparently by some poster with a weird, Norse sounding screen name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very cool. I didn't realize you were that far reaching Skallagrim.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you search these forums and the Sklansky forums you will find the proof as first put forward by me. Howard took the basic idea and refined it extremely well (with some ideas from Sklansky) and added some additional points that make the argument even stronger. Howard and I discussed his article prior to its publication. I dont mean to take anything away from Howard, he took the basic idea and made it very presentable in a way that was far better than what I had done - it was like I gave it birth but he nurtured it into a beautiful adult.

Anyway, I am proud of this proof (justifiably I think) and appreciate any recognition I get from it. But the article is Howard's - he deserves the credit for the final product.

The more important point is to use it in courts (hopefully succesfully) to establish poker as a legally recognized game of skill. As Senator Kyl of AZ said (yes, that Sen. Kyl), if we do that the UIGEA does not apply to our game in most US states.

Skallagrim

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you really think poker is more chance than skill perhaps you also would be willing to post the screen names with the sites you play at...?


[/ QUOTE ]

HU for bankrolls, eh?

And as long as you are speaking for me, what else do I think?

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Pretty touchy there LL ... Was it too hard to understand the sentences before the one you quoted?

"You really think poker is more chance than skill L-Larry? Perhaps its some other point you disagree with...."

If its not some other point you disagree with, I would imagine that you also think that online poker is rigged, and the world is a really stupid place for not recognizing what an amazing, overpowering intellect you have, and that you think it is really terrible that someone on an internet forum would respond to a snide post with a snide post.

But, as I said, maybe it was some other point you disagree with...

Skallagrim

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

This was a good series of articles.

[ QUOTE ]
http://gpsts.org/poker-a-game-of-skill/


[/ QUOTE ]

I found the juxtaposition of the first article, followed by the following quote by Lederer, to be rather interesting:

"The beauty of the game is any hand can win under the right circumstances. This is a clear distinction from gambling games like sports betting and casino games. The outcome of those games is almost always a definitive result produced by a final score or the conclusion of a random chance event. The winner is determined by who correctly predicted the right outcome"

Doesn't this seem to read as if Howard is lumping in sports betting with casino gambling? Or, at least, that people not predisposed to be on the "pro-" side may read it that way?


Also, I wonder if there will be any linguistic stumblings for most people, on the use of "skill" to mean "anti-skilled"... or, fish and idiots.

But, those are just nitpick points, not a defamation of the general argument.

Nicely done

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty touchy there LL ... Was it too hard to understand the sentences before the one you quoted?

"You really think poker is more chance than skill L-Larry? Perhaps its some other point you disagree with...."

If its not some other point you disagree with, I would imagine that you also think that online poker is rigged, and the world is a really stupid place for not recognizing what an amazing, overpowering intellect you have, and that you think it is really terrible that someone on an internet forum would respond to a snide post with a snide post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'M the touchy one? Maybe you shouldn't imagine tone where there is none.... or make broad leaps in interpretation of statements

But, you're on a roll- let me know what ELSE I really think

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Cool down. You originally wrote "I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise."

I read the OP's premise to be poker is a game of skill. From your first post above, it appears you agree with that premise. It would also appear you agree with that premise or you wouldn't challenge people to play "HU for bankrolls."

So what was it you instinctively disagree with?

And please stop ignoring the "IF"s in my statements.

Skallagrim

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cool down.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am perfectly cool. I wasn't the one who ratcheted up the aggression.


[ QUOTE ]
You originally wrote "I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise."

I read the OP's premise to be poker is a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
or you wouldn't challenge people to play "HU for bankrolls."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what I did? Really?

[ QUOTE ]
So what was it you instinctively disagree with?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'd like YOU to take another crack at what you think I was disagreeing with. Seriously, I think it's important for you to do so. THEN we can discuss what I thought and whether it would be correct.

[ QUOTE ]
And please stop ignoring the "IF"s in my statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had really meant "if" when you used it... your implied tone from the words and challenges that you did initiate on your own, in your replies to me, pretty much indicated what your assumptions were..... don't you agree?

Or was that a wildly unsupportable assumption that I just made?

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

I respond here often, as I am sure you are aware, on the subject of whether poker is a game of chance or a game of skill. It is a subject I believe is extremely important for the future of the game of poker, and so I will take shots at people who claim that poker is a game of chance and who should also know better. A person who has been a member here for over 4 years and has 5K+ posts is not someone I would normally think actually believes poker is a game of chance, and is someone who should know better. But thats what your first post appeared to say. My first post noted that maybe that was not what were trying to say, but IF it was, then you deserved the ribbing.

Peace

Skallagrim

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I respond here often, as I am sure you are aware, on the subject of whether poker is a game of chance or a game of skill. It is a subject I believe is extremely important for the future of the game of poker, and so I will take shots at people who claim that poker is a game of chance and who should also know better. A person who has been a member here for over 4 years and has 5K+ posts is not someone I would normally think actually believes poker is a game of chance, and is someone who should know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if all of the above are true, why exactly would you FIRST assume that I was disagreeing with the statement "poker is a game of skill" ?

This back and forth may seem to be pointless, but I think there's a VERY good point for you to consider, Skall.

Just so we don't waste another step, I think it might be helpful to you to look at my statements and your replies and decide if they were warranted.... and if that's, dare I say it, "instinctively" how you want to come across....


[ QUOTE ]
But thats what your first post appeared to say. My first post noted that maybe that was not what were trying to say, but IF it was, then you deserved the ribbing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a more likely interpretation of your initial reply to me? What your first reply "noted" and what it said (including context and everything else that is normally in conversation) are pretty disparate, don't you agree?

Or, at least you agree that ONE interpretation of what you typed was more likely that another, more inquisitive, interpretation of intent?


Let's start over:

"I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise. "

1) What is the premise that LL is instinctively disagreeing with?

2) Why did he use "instinctively" ?

3) Why is he interested in the final version of the paper by the OP?

4) What motiviations of LL's am I assuming, regarding his statement?


Extra credit if you can summarize my interpretation of what poker is.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

I suspect his disagrees with the "controlled rate of return" part.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Hey, don't you have some chores to do? And is YOUR homework done, young man?

'Git!

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

My final post on this subject Larry, and I am only doing this one because a search reveals that you have made some informative and helpful posts in this forum in the past.

I think YOU need to look back on your original post. Not only me, but also TheProdigy and whangarei read it as a disagreement that poker is a game of skill.

In response, I said maybe that isnt what you meant, but if it is what you meant then "where do you play..." I made a joke of that belief, as did whangarei, because it is, IMO, a laughable belief. And, as I am sure you are aware, it is well known that players who believe the game is decided by chance are, except on the rare occasions they actually get lucky, the easiest players to beat.

I am not going to answer your questions because I dont see the point. If you have some point to make simply make it, dont ask me to guess it. If, as I thought I made clear originally, you were not trying to make the laughed at point, then you can simply say so and the kidding at your expense stops.

Again, Peace.

Skallagrim

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Lottery;

Please stop trolling.

All you did was try to make yourself out to be really smart while avoiding questions and making people guess as to what you meant while twisting their words.

You are hostile and quite useless to this thread. Please in the future refrain from responding in my threads if you have any respect because I feel your attitude is detrimental in the discussion. You need to calm down.


P.S. No point in quoting my post and dissecting the different parts(In BOLD) because I simply don't care.


Skall; Thank you for the link and thank you for the help. I have looked up a couple more articles and things are slowly coming together. I wish I had more time so I could write a really impressive paper, but unfortunately only have next week to write it. I am going to try my best though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] And yes, there are no reasons IMO to reply to LL as his only reason is obviously to troll this thread because if he had something useful he wouldn't have done it in a cryptic way. He was obviously just trying to start a useless argument.


Thanks to everyone else as well! That one site def. helped and I am hoping I can put something nice together!

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to everyone else as well! That one site def. helped and I am hoping I can put something nice together!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That is a very convincing article. Many thanks to Skall for his work in this effort. I hope he gets his due rewards.

Baryy Greenstein on PokerRoad radio took a similar approach to how I viewed the subject. He basically said "Duh, yeah its more skill than luck." Any poker player knows that. It's obvious the more you play the better you get, for example. He said anyone who says differently is just throwing up a smoke screen. But a solid argument like Skall and Lederer and Sklansky have worked on will hopefully help to get the game to be "legally" recognized as a skill game.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lottery;

Please stop trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trolling. I was trying to make a point about how others jump to conclusions, read things into simple statements, and how they may be coming across in a forum... without spoon-feeding them.

If you consider that trolling, I don't. If you want to assume I'm just an idiot with 6k posts, feel free.

[ QUOTE ]
All you did was try to make yourself out to be really smart while avoiding questions and making people guess as to what you meant while twisting their words.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is not what I was trying to do. If that's how it was interpreted, that's both my fault... and theirs. I would say mainly theirs, in this case.

BTW, most of what you're accusing me of, is what I was trying to make Skall aware that he was doing imo.

[ QUOTE ]
You are hostile and quite useless to this thread. Please in the future refrain from responding in my threads if you have any respect because I feel your attitude is detrimental in the discussion. You need to calm down.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I already said, I was never NOT calm. Why do you assume I was angry, because I was willing to debate what people replied to me with?
More directly, I never responded to you, or really anyone else, with any hostility, so if you want to take comments within your thread, not directed at you, personally... that's your call.


[ QUOTE ]
and dissecting the different parts(In BOLD) because I simply don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called marking for emphasis.

Okay, you don't care. Feel free to ignore. Disappointing, because I would have been interested in reading your arguments for your premise.... unless your premise was, as Skall assumed, merely that poker is a game of skill.

In that case, it's been done.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, there are no reasons IMO to reply to LL as his only reason is obviously to troll this thread because if he had something useful he wouldn't have done it in a cryptic way. He was obviously just trying to start a useless argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you truly believe that, including the last part, why do you make unnecessary public statements such as this? I guess you just wanted to show Skall that you were supporting him... ?



Kurn had it correct. Since it seems that a simple statement wasn't clear enough, I'll spell it out for anyone else who gets this far:

My first reaction
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested in seeing the final version of this paper, since I instinctively disagree with the premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

... on reading this-

[ QUOTE ]
The thesis will be something like:
"Poker is a skill that can be used as an effective investment vehicle that may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

[/ QUOTE ]

...was that the main part of what you were going to discuss, seemed incorrect to me. If there had been specific data that I thought were a counterpoint to your argument, I would have added them and not used the word "instinctively".

I didn't have any facts to back up that instinctive reaction, so I would have liked to see what your arguments were to support that thesis.

But, since we trolls don't get final results to review, I guess I'll just have to torture myself, wondering...

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

I will still post it.

The last reply of yours should've been your first reply. There was no need to teach any lessons, just make a good reply. That was your first good reply and I thank you for that.


Now exactly how do you disagree? You think that you can't continue to make returns? I want to hear exactly how you disagree exactly.

I understand that you cannot get an expected return, but over a long run you can expect a return(I think that should make sense). For example, over this year I have had 1 month where I lost money, but since I play many many hands, I have constantly returned winning month after winning month. The thing is, I even push my limits and am always trying to move up and play better players, so I don't even have a big advantage at any level yet. I think next year when I don't move up much from 2/4nl that I will have a lot less variance and better returns.

If you don't think poker is a skill game(long-term) and don't think that you can consitently get a return by playing it, then I do have data(my year of playing) that should help prove otherwise. I have played ~1mill hands and I would assume that is a pretty good sample to help change your mind.

But anyways, if you can be more specific about your problems with the thesis then I will definitely write a paragraph or two with your argument against my thesis as one of my refutations I include in the paper.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The last reply of yours should've been your first reply. There was no need to teach any lessons, just make a good reply.
Now exactly how do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

sigh... I disagree with much of what is contained above, in the edited quote at the top of this specific reply, based on various replies in this disaster.

But, to avoid futher hijack around unrequested and unnoticed lessons, I'm dropping the effort.


[ QUOTE ]
Now exactly how do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm too afraid to reply to this.


[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think poker is a skill game(long-term)

[/ QUOTE ]

NOW I'm on tilt.....
I have never- NEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVERNEVER- ever said that poker is NOT a game of skill.

I have never implied that poker is not a game of skill.

NEVER

The continued responses popping up, that want to attribute this thought to my words, are (it has to be said) being made by people who evidently need to improve their English translation skills..... at least in this thread.
(if your paper, Prodigy, is ONLY about "poker is a skill game", then I retract that previous blanket statement and ask you to remove the unneeded parts of your thesis.)

Therefore, this is NOT part of the current discussion, in any way, shape or form.

If I have to be more clear than this, I'm running over someone's cat.


[ QUOTE ]
I want to hear exactly how you disagree exactly

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Instead, I'm breaking down your "thesis" statement

1) "can be used as an effective investment vehicle "
2) "may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return"
3) "despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

It's YOUR premise- you have to prove all of these things in your paper, or you need to remove the ones you can't.

Do it here, do it there, whatever.

[/rant]

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Its lunch time here and I cant resist breaking my promise.

For someone who harps a lot on english language skills, Larry, wouldn't you agree that the last 2 pages of posts could have been easily avoided by simply stating in your first post "... I instinctively disagree with the premise that there can be a controlled rate of return [or whatever it is you exactly disagree with]."

Or your second post could have been: "Ha, ha guys, its not the skill argument I disagree with its ..."

Good luck on your continued efforts to lure us in to discovering what it is you really think [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

Skallagrim

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

All,

Please let's get this thread back to the original intent from this point forward. I think we're to a point of just going after each other (and how we choose to present or not present things) and I would prefer that it not devolve into more of the same.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Point well taken Berge, my last post was made during a weak moment.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

With apologies to Don Corleone:

"In the interests of the peace we make here today, I forswear my vengence now and in the future"

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.boston.com/ae/games/artic...5/high_stakes/

[/ QUOTE ]

""People who are into poker have a lot of trouble holding on to absolutes. To me, it's a way of thinking liberally and seeing what the world looks like from another person's point of view."

[/ QUOTE ]


Is "holding onto absolutes" supposed to be a desired quality? I prefer the phrasing: "Poker players should reflect the ability to avoid being trapped into 'absolute' thinking"

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I prefer the phrasing: "Poker players should reflect the ability to avoid being trapped into 'absolute' thinking"

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that sucked.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

sobef; TY for link!

LL: I was only talking about the data when I said the skill thing, meaning more "if one thinks it isn't skill" instead of directly at "you."


You seem to want to ignore my middle paragraph and just make responses based on different parts and then ignoring the other parts. I am an investing noob, so maybe I am wrong in my wording, but explain to me how:

"1) "can be used as an effective investment vehicle "
2) "may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return"
3) "despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

How is data providing a couple years, or 1mill hands on a constant upswing overall not kind've helping to prove that it can be used as an effective investment? What I am trying to say, in easier terms, is that you can learn the game and learn it well enough that you can produce consistent and big enough wins in between losses that it is an effective way to produce returns in a long-term upward manner. Did I just state the thesis in wrong investment terms that make it mean something other than what I want it to mean?

I'm also not sure what you can disagree with on the last part. Mainly I am saying that part so I can talk about the legislation against it later. Also, the games are tougher now because of the legislations but the games can still be beat.

I understand you don't like to spell anything out since everyone should be smart enough to decrypt your thoughts, but I would highly appreciate it if instead of listing things you disagree with maybe you list reasons as to why you disagree with these things?

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

[ QUOTE ]
sobef; TY for link!

LL: I was only talking about the data when I said the skill thing, meaning more "if one thinks it isn't skill" instead of directly at "you."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then my apologies for the rant. After supposedly having squashed it, to see that pop back up....


[ QUOTE ]

I am an investing noob, so maybe I am wrong in my wording, but explain to me how:

"1) "can be used as an effective investment vehicle "
2) "may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return"
3) "despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it."

How is data providing a couple years, or 1mill hands on a constant upswing overall not kind've helping to prove that it can be used as an effective investment? What I am trying to say, in easier terms, is that you can learn the game and learn it well enough that you can produce consistent and big enough wins in between losses that it is an effective way to produce returns in a long-term upward manner. Did I just state the thesis in wrong investment terms that make it mean something other than what I want it to mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. That clarifies the positions you are taking, vis a vis your original thesis statement. Including actual data to verify those statements, in your paper, should hopefully take care of your goal.

I'm still not clear if you will be proving your thesis on a general population basis, or just yourself, or a select few?

Part of my instinctive rejection of your exact wording in the thesis was based on you applying those presumption to a large group of players.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also not sure what you can disagree with on the last part. Mainly I am saying that part so I can talk about the legislation against it later. Also, the games are tougher now because of the legislations but the games can still be beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh- that wasn't what I thought you meant by the legislation part.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand you don't like to spell anything out since everyone should be smart enough to decrypt your thoughts

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be really funny, if you knew me. LOL'd at the "decrypt your thoughts" part.

As far as what I was doing in this thread, don't assume that I normally take that path. However, I think that people (in general) don't think enough about what they read and write, especially in snap reactions in electronic communication... and it's getting worse.
But, that's a windmill for another day.

[ QUOTE ]
but I would highly appreciate it if instead of listing things you disagree with maybe you list reasons as to why you disagree with these things?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lost in the earlier word wars was my statement

If there had been specific data that I thought were a counterpoint to your argument, I would have added them and not used the word "instinctively".

I don't have data to say you are wrong. I don't know enough about it to say if you ARE wrong. Reading it initially, it just seemed too narrowly focused to be workable as a provable thesis.

Thus, my initial request to see your completed conclusions, so I could then either be educated or have something more concrete to debate/research.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Thanks for the reply.

Hopefully I can bang out something that is good enough for a general population but with a short time frame and limited knowledge, I doubt I can live up to your standards. (Not meant to be a put down, but you obviously can write/analyze better than me so I am saying it won't be up to those standards).

I of course may change the thesis if I cannot help prove it but really conclusively proving this thesis is hard to do(because some say no amount of data is long enough, I suppose), my main point of the paper is more to help prove that poker is a skill game and can be consistently beat, and the wording may need to be changed to fit this topic.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Great article/proof (IFF the statistics bear out the claims). I have previously had difficulties articulating an argument that would differentiate poker from blackjack - as the decision to stand, hit, double, etc. seems inherently skillful to me.

Not that I have anything against blackjack, but Lederer's definitions would appear to make such distinction, as the vast majority of blackjack hands do go to showdown and involve comparing cards. Intuitively, then blackjack would be a game predominated by chance (the deal of the cards) and poker a game predominated by skill (the decision to exit a hand prior to showdown).

For the record, "predominate," in my mind means something more than 50.00000001% (which is a preponderance, in legal jargon). Not sure what the legal standard would be, but if the statistics show 60-40 or even better, 67-33, then I would feel stronger about meeting the predominate standard. (Maybe it's just the word "dominate" contained in it, but it just seems like a higher standard).

Not sure if this is timely, but there is a TN Attorney General opinion from 2005 dealing with some of the cases and other sources discussing skill versus chance - and going with chance (not a big surprise in TN - bible belt). No real help for your argument, but it may be helpful to know what cases/sources have argued/found against the skill factor.

Not that any of these sources appear to have delved into a deep analysis, but here they are anyway:

http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn....5/OP/OP159.pdf

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Just a quick note on Tennessee gambling law. There, gambling is defined as "risking anything of value for profit whose return is to any degree contingent on chance..." ANY DEGREE being the key words. I will not deny that there is some degree of chance present in poker, and thus poker is illegal under TN law. TN is the only state that uses the "any degree of chance" standard though. Even fishing tournaments are illegal in TN.

However, in Howard's (and my) proof, we deal explicitly with the mistake courts make when analyzing poker, and you see it in this TN AG opinion too: they assume every poker hand must be decided by the cards, and no amount of skill changes the cards. Of course we regular players know that most hands are not decided by the cards, in most hands the final (and other player's) cards ARE NEVER SEEN. The skill acts of folding and betting/bluffing decide those hands. This is the key distinction missed by all courts in finding poker not to be a game of skill, they fail to realize that a poker hand CAN be decided by skill acts, not just cards. No one remembers the hand where everyone folds to a single player, everyone remembers the hand where pocket aces got cracked on the river to cost someone a tournament. "Remember the folded hands" is thus the key to beating this argument.

And its the same thing that distinguishes poker from blackjack. Other than the limited surrender option in some casinos, every blackjack hand must be played to the final card. Hence the cards always decide the winner; though skillful betting and hitting/standing improve your odds (for some folks even to +EV), skill acts never CONTROL whether you win or lose a hand in blackjack.

Skallagrim

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

good call on the "any degree" language. ouch. kind of seems like any sort of equity investment in a business starts to look like gambling. how are adjustible rate mortgages legal in tennessee? how is building a commercial development off the beaten path in the hopes that a big suburban development goes up next door, but such plans are not yet finalized? chance, i'd say has at least a fleeting chance in making such a development work. i generally don't like absurdity arguments but "any degree" is a SILLY standard.

i also note that the "casino game" language in the tennessee constitution can be a difficult concept to overcome, as folks don't understand that card rooms can and do exist without casinos.

Re: Poker as a skill(Need help)
 

Fishing tournaments illegal in Tennessee. I am a bass fisherman, but I do not fish in tournaments. I know that many bass fishing tournaments are held in Tennessee every year. Kentucky Lake and Barkley Lake on the Tennesee-Kentucky border are very popular.
I attended the weigh in of the 1974 BassMasters Classic held on Percy Priest Lake near Nashville, TN. I was a sophmore at Vanderbilt that year. This may be the most ignored gambling law ever.