Is poker gambling?

[Daisydog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is wagering on an unexpected outcome. Of course poker is gambling. Even if you play a +EV game, it is still gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there isnt much in life that isnt gambling - your definition includes the stock market, working on commission, insurance contracts, commodity and real estate trading etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that purchasing insurance is gambling (even according to the above definition), then I think you don't understand what insurance is. You are gambling when you don't purchase insurance.

The fundamental difference between insurance and gambling has to do with risk. When you gamble, you increase your risk because you are trading a fixed amount of money for an uncertain outcome (a chance at a profit). When you buy insurance, you are doing just the opposite. You are buying certainty, and transferring the uncertainty to the insurance company. You don't profit from insurance (assuming you have an insurable interest).

Gambling increases your risk, insurance decreases your risk.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you would need to control for a few more variables then that to be sure you had a representative sample, but other wise a plausible equation. Are you aware of any one who has done this?


[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to recall there's a table in either poker essays I or II that would be built from that kind of data across multiple games, at least for winning players. SSHE has a discussion of how adopting their strategies alters variance (increases it, in their case) so they probably have some data.

I do not believe anyone's explored the losing player case because poker books usually politely assume their readers are winners. My speculation from experience would be that losers play a high variance style to hide their losses, but I couldn't prove it.

In addition, I believe there was some academic research outside the gambling press, but I don't know the details. I bet Slansky or Mason knows though.

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]


My personal opinion is "gambling" is wagering on future events subject to an element of chance and not under the wagerer's control or influence.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Skallagrim,

I don't know if you remember me, but we used to have some discussions on the HP board. Glad to see you again and a belated welcome to the board.

Anyway I'd like to know if you and/or the state of N.H. consider parimutuel betting a form of gambling. I believe your answer will rely on the your definitions of "control" and "outcome'. Looking forward to your reply.

[ill rich]

to those who say poker isn't gambling:

if you're offered 4 to 1 on your money on the flip of a coin and you take this bet, are you gambling?

[PantsOnFire]

Well there sure have been a lot of opinions in this post. I think by the strict sense of the definition of gambling, poker has to be considered gambling.

However, I think the intent of the person gambling is an important consideration. For example, I am not playing poker to hit a jackpot, become a millionaire or even make money for that matter. I do expect that as my skill improves my results will be that I show a profit over the long term. I would certainly quit poker if I was constantly replenishing my bankroll.

I think the real gamblers are the ones who play games where they are hoping for the big payoff. These are usually the -EV games which take a little from everybody and can thus offer a big jackpot every once and awhile to keep on taking a little off of everybody.

The worst aspect of gambling is the person who makes one bet for more than he can afford in the hope of making lots of money. I don't see that happening in poker unless some guy deposits $1000 and plays in a %1000 SnG. Most poker players don't gamble like that.

I equate poker to playing the stock market. If you know nothing, then you probably need to get lucky to make any money. However, over time, as you develop skill, you just need to be better than the other people who are playing the same game as you are.

[MFpoker]

Living is gambling and poker is life.

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is wagering on an unexpected outcome. Of course poker is gambling. Even if you play a +EV game, it is still gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there isnt much in life that isnt gambling - your definition includes the stock market, working on commission, insurance contracts, commodity and real estate trading etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that purchasing insurance is gambling (even according to the above definition), then I think you don't understand what insurance is. You are gambling when you don't purchase insurance.

The fundamental difference between insurance and gambling has to do with risk. When you gamble, you increase your risk because you are trading a fixed amount of money for an uncertain outcome (a chance at a profit). When you buy insurance, you are doing just the opposite. You are buying certainty, and transferring the uncertainty to the insurance company. You don't profit from insurance (assuming you have an insurable interest).

Gambling increases your risk, insurance decreases your risk.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's not about increasing or decreasing risk.

Gambling is wagering something of value on an undetermined event. Buying insurance is gambling that something bad is going to happen to you. The insurance company is betting it doesn't.

[ill rich]

buying insurance isn't gambling, it's being smart.

you're purchasing an insurance policy, so you're getting goods and services for your money.

[Daisydog]

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is wagering something of value on an undetermined event. Buying insurance is gambling that something bad is going to happen to you. The insurance company is betting it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

In gambling, your financial outcome is dependent on the undetermined event.

When you buy insurance, the financial outcome is the same whether or not the undetermined event occurs. That's the whole point of insurance. If your house gets destroyed, the insurance company indemnifies you, bringing you back to the same financial position you would have been in if the house hadn't been destroyed. Once you buy insurance, you don't care what the outcome of the undetermined event is because it has no impact on you (from a financial perspective, anyway).

In contrast, when you DON'T buy insurance, then your financial position is dependent on the undetermined event, just like it is in gambling. Without insurance, you will be in a much different financial position if your house gets destroyed compared to if it doesn't get destroyed.

When you don't buy insurance, you are wagering the value of your house on the undetermined event (whether or not is will be destroyed). When you buy insurance, you are not.

Insurance exists for people who don't want to gamble. Instead, you transfer the "gamble" to the insurance company.

[HSB]

You have a very idealized image of insurance.

Ten people put up money. If a certain something happens, they get more money back. If it doesn't then they lose the money.

Are they playing roulette or buying car insurance?