Proving poker is a skill-game the psychology way

[shamus]

[ QUOTE ]
To the people who pushed this bill that is the point. I am not refering to Frist. To these people it doesn't matter if it is a company or a person who studied the game. Gambling is ruining the lives of too many people and the winners like us are a part of the ruining. Our opinion won't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to agree. The experiment would be interesting, certainly, and may well show that skill is more important. But it still wouldn't prove poker is not "a game based on chance" -- perhaps even to many of those who know the game, never mind those who wrote & will enforce the UIGEA.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The nation doesn't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps but they can't deny proof.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure they can. They do it all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.


According to my dictionary, gambling is betting money on an uncertain outcome. Poker is gambling, end of discussion. Trying to convince someone morally opposed to gambling that there is a difference between poker and slots is like trying to convince a Prohibitionist that there is a difference between red wine and gin because a glass of red wine has health benefits.

There is one way, and one way only, that online gambling will be legal in this country. That is the same way that Prohibition was ended. The opposition must be convinced that making it illegal won't stop it, and that they are better off regulating and taxing it than letting it continue underground.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
average out things (to reduce luck skewing results)

[/ QUOTE ] Wait, do you mean to compensate for suckouts, etc? If poker is a game of skill, doesn't this HURT our argument? We need to show that REGARDLESS of luck, the skillful win in poker, thus making it a valid game in which to compete and enhance skills--money simply being a necessary component in the game's structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't hurt the argument at all. There is no contradiction in recognizing that luck prevails short-term but skill prevails long-term. It's just the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this would be nice but the challange won't end when you prove skill wins. It will then turn into the skilled fleecing money from those who have no idea it is a skill game. To the people who pushed this bill that is the point. I am not refering to Frist. To these people it doesn't matter if it is a company or a person who studied the game. Gambling is ruining the lives of too many people and the winners like us are a part of the ruining. Our opinion won't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that is the point at all of the people who pushed this bill. I don't think they even believe there can be any long term winners in poker. "Only the house wins" is a very popular opinion. They are motivated by what they perceive to be moral opposition to gambling.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the people who pushed this bill that is the point. I am not refering to Frist. To these people it doesn't matter if it is a company or a person who studied the game. Gambling is ruining the lives of too many people and the winners like us are a part of the ruining. Our opinion won't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to agree. The experiment would be interesting, certainly, and may well show that skill is more important. But it still wouldn't prove poker is not "a game based on chance" -- perhaps even to many of those who know the game, never mind those who wrote & will enforce the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not holding out hope my average Southern Baptist neighbor will ever realize this, but most everything is based on chance. Read "Fooled by Randomness", a highly acclaimed book, whose author asserts that the outcome of most business ventures are the product of chance. Not to mention things like the insurance industry, stock markets, etc. So, the experiment is not designed to prove poker is not a game based on chance, because clearly it is. But it is also based on skill, and skill is the dominant factor long term.

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
There is one way, and one way only, that online gambling will be legal in this country. That is the same way that Prohibition was ended. The opposition must be convinced that making it illegal won't stop it, and that they are better off regulating and taxing it than letting it continue underground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever hear of the war on drugs?

I think its pretty clear that drug use cannot be stopped by being illegal. And the government, drug users, and society as a whole would all be better off with it being legal, taxed, and regulated. Yet the "war" goes on.

Rationality goes out the window with the morality police when they believe something to be evil, wrong, or immoral.

[MJL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
average out things (to reduce luck skewing results)

[/ QUOTE ] Wait, do you mean to compensate for suckouts, etc? If poker is a game of skill, doesn't this HURT our argument? We need to show that REGARDLESS of luck, the skillful win in poker, thus making it a valid game in which to compete and enhance skills--money simply being a necessary component in the game's structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't hurt the argument at all. There is no contradiction in recognizing that luck prevails short-term but skill prevails long-term. It's just the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this would be nice but the challange won't end when you prove skill wins. It will then turn into the skilled fleecing money from those who have no idea it is a skill game. To the people who pushed this bill that is the point. I am not refering to Frist. To these people it doesn't matter if it is a company or a person who studied the game. Gambling is ruining the lives of too many people and the winners like us are a part of the ruining. Our opinion won't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that is the point at all of the people who pushed this bill. I don't think they even believe there can be any long term winners in poker. "Only the house wins" is a very popular opinion. They are motivated by what they perceive to be moral opposition to gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

My point is proving skill is important will not change thier direction. A mock conversation would look like this.

Player: So you see the skilled use probability and will have the advantage in the long run.

Anit gambler: I still doubt it's true. It's likey theses numbers are manipulated. Let's say the are true. What you are saying is if I play poker with no expierence I will eventually lose my money to a skilled player like you?

Player: Yes. (Because any other response proves their point)

Anti gambler: Thus millions of unsophisticated players are victims of your game and will lose. This is better than giving their money to the casino in what way?

[ichthyologist]

[ QUOTE ]
Anti gambler: Thus millions of unsophisticated players are victims of your game and will lose. This is better than giving their money to the casino in what way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Player: Because they can learn and become skilled players themselves if they want to -- nothing is stopping them. A casino cannot be beaten in the long run no matter what.

(Not that I think any argument will stop the "Poker = gambling = wrong" crowd.)

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that is the point at all of the people who pushed this bill. I don't think they even believe there can be any long term winners in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]Why do you think this? Is there anything in the bill or that Frist has said that would make you think that the problem he has with gambling is that he's afraid no one is winning money at poker? I haven't gotten that at all. Rather what they keep repeating is something that is very true: there WILL be long time LOSERS, and big ones at that. It doesn't make a lick of difference that someone was able to save up and buy a fancy sports car with their winnings; they are concerned about the guy who lost his house, his savings, and ruined his life (and maybe others) gambling it away on the internet.

The REAL argument here is not whether people can become winners at poker or if it's a skill game. Rather it is whether people should be aloud to put themselves at risk of losing a great deal of money in an activity that feeds on adiction just so a few of us poker players can have a little fun and/or make a little/lot of money.

That is a hard battle to fight, and proving that people can be winners at the game does nothing for us, I'm afraid, as much as I would like for it to be true.

[Popinjay]

It's hubris to say that proving something like this wouldn't help. Y'all just don't care enough.

[dibbs]

What would be accomplished by proving to the nation this is a game of skill?