[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a problem with gambling, not poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. Poker isn't gambling? You win every single time you play?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you understand. Why bait him?

[/ QUOTE ]

While his style could be better, he has an important point. Poker is gambling. It *may* be gambling with a long term edge, but its still gambling. If you have a gambling problem and an insufficient bankroll, poker can cause its share of financial difficulties.

[/ QUOTE ]

For sure, some folks treat it as pure gambling. I think we all know that gambling theory is an important component of poker, and we're also all well aware that poker doesn't exactly fit the definition of gambling - it's on the edge. Some pros and authorities flatly state that it's not, others insist that it is. The truth is that it depends on the definition, and as with most definitions, there are many shades of meaning. So it depends.

Both of the dogmatic positions miss the point: that it doesn't really matter how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether God can create a problem that he cannot solve.

So I wonder about the motivation behind that needlessly provocative statement that adds no value. Meanwhile, the original poster asks an interesting question.