Is poker gambling?

[IFoldPktOnes]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry to be a nit but I have a problem with this conception. The problem is that nothing is guaranteed. Quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle show that nothing can have a probability of 1 nor 0.

[/ QUOTE ]
For a real particle the probability of the particle to occupy any place must equal 1, the probability of the particle not to occupy any place must equal 0.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[poloplayer909]

Poker is a casino game, and its gambling.

[Eagle Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a casino game, and its gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]
In using the term casino game, I meant a game of chance in which you play the house and most definitely have the worst of it. For instance, when I tell my family I'm going to the casino to play in a poker tournament they respond with "the house always wins." They don't understand that term in that retrospect.
[ QUOTE ]
How do you explain to your family that the vast majority of people loser money at poker?
How do you explain that nearly every single one of those players believes that they are good enough to win?
How do you differentiate yourself from them?


[/ QUOTE ]
I have no argument for the first one because it is true. I also agree that most of those people think they are good. When I first started playing, I thought that I was good because I had big sunglasses and a good poker face. LOL As rediculous as that sounds, thats the way a majority of the population and even most players think about poker. The problem lies in the lack of education people have about the game. To the uninitiated, it does look like a simple card game where the luckiest person will always prevail. I have tried to explain that although this may be particularly true on any given night, see how they do over a period of 5 or 10 years. I have also attempted to show my family that I've help to pay my way through college by playing poker. My dad refuses to acknowledge that although I'm flashing the numbers right in his face. Who knows...
However, I think I've found the answer to my question. I agree that poker is gambling. Trading on the stock market is gambling. Driving in my car or flying in an airplane is gambling. The term gambling has a negative connotation because of its association with crime, sin, and addiction. However we gamble everyday and every decision we make is a calculated risk, just as in poker.

[Unknown Soldier]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that poker is gambling. Trading on the stock market is gambling. Driving in my car or flying in an airplane is gambling. The term gambling has a negative connotation because of its association with crime, sin, and addiction. However we gamble everyday and every decision we make is a calculated risk, just as in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said sir.

[Gonso]

This discussion always goes awry when people start ignoring the actual definition of "gambling" and start creating their own.

[Talmage]

[ QUOTE ]
Just my opinion, but I would consider "gambling" to be doing some sort of -EV activity that's meant to increase variance, in the hopes of getting lucky in the short run. Investing in the stock market or owning a business isn't gambling because (assuming you do it right) it's +EV. Insurance is -EV, but it's not gambling because the point is to reduce variance, not increase it.


[/ QUOTE ]


I think the high variance in poker means that it is a form of gambling. Since the net result of a given session can be positive or negative, and wildly so, poker is gambling regardless of the EV. Someone who plays the game show Deal or No Deal isn't gambling because the net result is strictly positive despite the high variance (winning 1 cent vs. 1 million dollars). Similarly, if I tell you to roll some dice for free and thats how many thousands of dollars I'll give you out of the goodness of my heart, I'm not gambling because my net result will always be negative. I would define gambling as high variance activity in which the result of any session could be positive or negative.

[mudbuddha]

yes absolutely

[Unknown Soldier]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone who plays the game show Deal or No Deal isn't gambling because the net result is strictly positive despite the high variance (winning 1 cent vs. 1 million dollars). Similarly, if I tell you to roll some dice for free and thats how many thousands of dollars I'll give you out of the goodness of my heart, I'm not gambling because my net result will always be negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are gambling on deal or no deal. Let's say that you have the 1 cent box and the million dollar box left (doesn't matter which two this is just an example). The deal will be less then your EV ($500,000.005) I'm not sure how much it will be as I don't watch it. But let's say it's 400,000. Now you're risking $399,999.99 to win $1,000,000 on an even money shot. Let's put it another way. At that point in time you have 400,000. That's a fact. You could walk away. But you could "gamble" it and either win $600,000 or lose 399,999.99. See?

In regards to your die rolling analogy. You're right, that's not gambling, but not for the reason you gave. It's not gambling because you don't stand to win anything. You're not risking anything because you aren't going to win. The fact that your result will always be negative is incidental.

[Unknown Soldier]

[ QUOTE ]
I would define gambling as high variance activity in which the result of any session could be positive or negative.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a property of gambling. Not the definition.

[tepgn]

In most countries you're not allowed to payout cash prizes for a poker tournament unless you have a gambling license, same goes for a backgammon tournament. But you are allowed to payout cash prizes for a chess tournament or a bridge tournament.

I would assume that in poker and backgammon events that make you win or lose are not totally under human control and hence gambling, you can play a world class game and still lose, but if you play world class chess and bridge against an average field you will win.