Is poker gambling?

[Merovingian]

With that theory, everything would be considered gambling, which is probably not far from the truth, but for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't make sense. When is an outcome of a game ever certain? and when is something of value, be it pride/glory, a trophy, money etc., not at stake?

Both elements are apparent in all games, so why is one game gambling and another one of skill?

Surely the amount of skill *is* relevant, if it weren't you would have to group a game of dice in with a game of chess.

[Merovingian]

Both are very similar. In both you are making decisions and predicting what something is going to do in the future. With stocks, a trader studies the companies and analyses managerial aspects and future prospects etc. and buys stock betting that it will either go up or down. In poker, a player will analyze his players looking for tells, analyzing their wagered amounts during various betting rounds and comparing the data to their own hands strength, finally betting on what will happen.

Both the stock prices and the cards that are dealt are random occurrences technically, however, in both stock trading and poker, players can develop a good idea of what will happen.

Both stock trading and poker are based around making educated guesses, analyzing the data in front of you and predicting what will happen.

There are elements of chance in both, but a great deal of skill is required to succeed consistently.

[Scottery]

There obv is gambling in it but id say it was more a skill game.

[RagnarPirate]

Both stock trading and skilled poker playing are exercises of value judgement. A successful investor finds a greater value in a stock than the current sale price. A successful poker player finds greater value in his hands than the price offered by his opponents and the pot. Poker is the equivalent of a specialized market for investing.

[RagnarPirate]

What luck is involved in chess?

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
What luck is involved in chess?

[/ QUOTE ]

The other guy could collapse dead.

Poker is a calculated risk. Yes, there is skill involved in recognizing advantages, but once the money's in, it's all upto the cards.

[suited42]

Regarding an earlier post comparing poker and stock investing. Poker and "playing" the stock market are not that different. In fact, in both poker and stocks there is tremendous variance in the short-term but results are predictable in the long run. The market has averaged steady positive returns over the last several decades. As such, a long term investor with a time horizon of at least 5-10 years would have most likely made a strong profit. However, the day to day value of the stock or stock index would have been quite unpredictable. Up one day, down the next.... No matter how solid the poker player, they will experience quite a bit of profit/loss variance day to day; much like the day-to-day swings seen by an individual stock. However, over the long run a good company and solid poker player will yield profits. Both are gambling. Having reasonable certainty that the investment will yield a positive return in the long run or that you are a winning poker player does not change that fact.

[Merovingian]

[ QUOTE ]
What luck is involved in chess?

[/ QUOTE ]
*Which color you are allocated.
*Which opponent you will face.
*Wether your opponent implements a strategy you are familiar with or not.
*As dano2769 said, your opponent could drop dead during a game.

There is an element of luck in all games, just more in some than others. The amount of luck and skill in each game is, however, unique; some possessing more of one than the other. Chess for example has a high amount of skill compared to luck, where as dice has a high amount of luck compared to skill. Both have an element of it though.

[Sparta45]

Poker is a game that involves a lot of skill. And yes, it is still gambling.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
With that theory, everything would be considered gambling, which is probably not far from the truth, but for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't make sense. When is an outcome of a game ever certain? and when is something of value, be it pride/glory, a trophy, money etc., not at stake?

Both elements are apparent in all games, so why is one game gambling and another one of skill?

Surely the amount of skill *is* relevant, if it weren't you would have to group a game of dice in with a game of chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be thinking along one dimension only. Like this:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Low Skill poker chess High Skill
Low Certainty-------|-------|----&gt;High Certainty
Gambling Not Gambling

I say this is more realistic:

High
Stakes
^ poker chess
| ^ ^
| | |
| | |
| | |
|------------|--------------|-------&gt;High Certainty
Low Stakes High Skill
Low Certainty
Low Skill
</pre><hr />
Where the amount of "gamble" is the distance from the origin and can be anywhere along the separate vertical lines for poker or chess. So nonzero stakes are required for gambling to occur and whether or not there is anything at stake is separate from the amount of skill involved.