Is poker gambling?

[Skallagrim]

Splawndarts wrote "I rather suspect you've whipped out the postmodern business because you don't like the answer to this question with respect to the real definition of the word, and you're now stuck because it's hard to argue with the dictionary. That's an annoyingly common move these days, and one that makes you intellectually insufferable. Whether that was your intent, I don't know. "

Sorry there Splawndarts, what is intellectually insufferable is the idea that words have one fixed meaning and thats the end of the story. This will be my last reply to you a) because you have no sense of humor, and b) because you seem incapable of comprehending that words have NO independant meaning other than that which we humans agree to give to them. The meaning of a word is not fixed, it changes over time, changes depending on context, and changes depending on the user and listener involved (contemplate slang words for example). Take the course in linguistic philosphy if you wish to learn more.

My point in this thread is that the word "gambling" USUALLY connotates risking money SOLELY on chance events, and most people consider that an unwise or dangerous thing to do. Most people do not apply the word gambling to the stockmarket, for example, because those events are percieved as predictable to a fair degree, nor to their own individual contests because the participant/bettor is deciding his own fate (influencing the outcome). Both of these concepts are applicable to poker. By making them part of the definition of gambling we exclude poker from the negative/risky/dangerous connotation and help inusre that people see it in a better light than slots, craps, roulette etc.... That will help in keeping or making poker legal.

Nuff said.

Skallagrim

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
...This will be my last reply to you...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me. I for one won't miss you.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
Gonso said "If someone were to say, "the definition of 'gambling' means the exact same as 'talking on a cell phone'. They wouldn't be expressing an opinion, they would be incorrect." Gonso is wrong and needs to read some linguistic philosophy. He should have said "if someone says THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED definition of gambling means the same as talking on a cell phone...." Then he would be right in characterizing that statement as "wrong."

Humpty Dumpty said: "words mean what I want them to mean." He was more insightful on the nature of language and definitions.

The point of my definition is, admittedly, to highlight the diff between poker and other forms of gaming for money. I think that helps the poker cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

If having your own definition to fit an agenda makes you feel smart and important, more power to you. As far as your petty insults go, to me you only come off as a frustrated kid who insists on being right all of the time and 'has to have his little way'.

I'll even let you get the last word...

[Skallagrim]

Ok I will take the last word(s) - saying you are wrong is not a petty insult - if you take it that way ... well lets let others decide who is juvenile and who is not.

I do not insist on being right all the time - the point I have tried to make is that the question that started this thread is not a yes or no/right or wrong question. It is a matter of interpertation and meaning.

I dont have to have my way, I simply repeat that to define gambling in a way that would seperate poker from things like slots is good for poker. So everyone who wants to advance the acceptability and legality of poker should consider and advance the definition I have proposed or maybe propose a better one! If you have a different agenda so be it - but this is a poker forum.

Boy are you guys are touchy.

[Edenfield99]

Poker is gambling, especially in the UK following the Gutshot case of last month.

[hockeyplayer33]

The answer is yes. But to the OP, you mentioned something about roulett. Actually its one of the top three games at the casino that has the least house advantage. I have lots of friends who lost at the casino, but picked up a 100 or so playing roulett. Remember you don't just have to have the ball land on the number but also, land on a color, or a number, and the color of that number. They also post how many times the ball lands on what number, and color, therefore increasing the probability of the ball landing on that color etc... eventhough it is totaly random. I think the three games that had the least house advantage was roulett, bacarat, and craps. Poker wasn't in there because you don't play poker against the house, you play against other people obviously.

[Anton Narki]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

accordingly, if i offer you a bet that no green elephant will enter your room in the next minutes, it's gambling, too?

My definition of gambling is:
Flipping a coin where every participating player has a negative to zero average expected win.
(like slot machines, insurances and poker with equally skilled players)

[xPeru]

Lol at this thread. First time I visit this Forum, so I have to put up my 2c ...

Whether playing poker is gambling or not depends on how much you play. This is because the game has an uncertain outcome over the short run and a certain outcome over the long run. The outcome over the long run is determined by the skill of the player. Let me start with an analogy:

You decide to bet on the toss of a fair coin. You win $1 if it's heads, your opponent wins $1 if it's tails. After the toss you will have staked $1 and have either $2 or $0. The outcome is uncertain either +100% or -100%, so this is gambling. Now you play the game 50 million times, now there's no gamble, because the coin will land 50% heads and 50% tails to within a miniscule percentage of error. We could play this game using a computer simulation, but we wouldn't because we know that we will neither win nor lose money.

Over a short run, variance causes poker players to win or lose. Over the long run, skill or its absence causes wins and losses.

What sample size is sufficient to get rid of the effects of variance? In NLHE, the rarest hands, pairs each get dealt on average 1/221 hands. To be statistically siginificant we need a sample size of c1000. So in 221,000 hands you will get each of the 169 starting hands at least 1000 times. Over this sample you can be 95% confident that your results reflect your ability and not luck. You increase this confidence level the more hands you play.

A regular online pro should be knocking out c35k hands per month, so in 6 months he will have 95% eradicated variance. Over 5 years variance will be irrelevant = no uncertainty in outcome.

For the amateur it's gambling because they don't play enough to remove uncertainty from the outcome.

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[6471849653]

It's both gambling and a skill game. If it's over 50% gambling over a long run like one year (a tax year) then it rates to be gambling.

At limit holdem that long run, if played at least part time, is a couple of months with a win rate like one big bet per hour per table. While at nl holdem with a similar marginal win rate the long run is easily one year and even more and additionally the game type can change for one reason or the other and one will start losing, while at limit holdem that is not too big of a problem.

At nl holdem one can easily lose like five extra huge pots to some long shot when one should have lost just one, and counting all that money together it can be months of profits, in cases over one year's profits. And things can easily go worse.

When playing other skill games the long run is often shorter, and so they are considered skill games, while when playing or betting on sports the long run is generally again too long for it to be considered a game of skill, even if it's tennis, that's still gambling. Though not that playing those games are considered gambling when one is a professional. The same is true when one is considered a professional poker player. If one is not, then it's gambling.

I think there are enough stats and math to prove that limit holdem is not gambling. So, it's something I expect to happen, that may again make limit holdem the main game. Though I am just speculating but it could happen.

[Poker Plan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are enough stats and math to prove that limit holdem is not gambling. So, it's something I expect to happen, that may again make limit holdem the main game. Though I am just speculating but it could happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two bottles of whatever you're on, please! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]