How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[Our House]

Juries make rulings. Rulings set precendence. Precendence determines future decisions.

[Our House]

OK, the blackjack (craps, roulette, etc.) argument DOES NOT disprove Mat/Dave/OH's theory at all. As a matter of fact, it strengthens it!

It's this simple:

When you play horribly in a casino game, who gets the money you lose?

When you play horribly in a poker game, who gets the money you lose?

The fact that the house edge guarantees the casino money in the long run is what makes the casino an equivalent of a winning poker player. No one considers a casino owner a gambler, but he's doing the same exact thing that a winning poker player does. He's playing with an edge! OK, I'll admit that skill does not determine his edge, so it's not exactly the same. But that's the point that needs to be driven across to people. If you play at a disadvantage, you will lose over time. That's precisely what EV is based on.

If someone could explain why they consider a casino player a gambler, but not the house, they would also (in the same breath) have explained how poker players can be long term winners.

It's so easy. Soooooo easy.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
does chance determine the result over 50% of the time? How about you mendacious, have over 50% of your results been the product of chance (the distribution of cards) or have most been determined by the actions of the players, yourself included?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this question means. Define "chance" and "results".

For a winning player, chance becomes less and less of a factor over time. A player who wins 1 BB/hr and has a standard deviation of 10 BB/hr will be ahead after 100 hours unless he is running at -1 SD or worse. After 400 hours, he will be ahead unless he is running at -2 SD or worse. Over time, he has to be more and more unlucky to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

"chance" is the random distribution of the cards.
"results" are who wins and how much.

PS - sorry mendacious, I misread your post (it was late) I thought for once you were agreeing with me and I was, I should have known, wrong about that.

I think if you look at the majority of hands you will find that the players actions easily determine more results than chance. First, every hand that does not go to showdown was the result of player actions, not the cards (there is no rule that saye you HAVE to fold 2-7 or call/raise with A-A). Second, when hands do go to showdown, that is a choice of the players. Third, who is at the showdown is detemined by player decisions, not the cards. Fourth, even at the showdown the more skilled player will be in the advantage (he who has the best pre-river hand is there usually because his skills -math AND psychology- tell him he has that hand). And even at the showdown, the underdog only wins less than half the time because, of course, thats why he is the underdog! And finally, the amount of the win (especially significant in tournament poker) has been determined by the players, not the cards.

Refute that, you poker is more chance than skill believers!

Skallagrim

[Skallagrim]

And a little bit more:

1 Wongboy Gets It right !

2 But rutang misunderstands the argument, his statement "and whether or not I fold a hand is determined somewhere around 95% of the time by the cards I'm dealt. so, in a given hand, luck is more than an 80% determiner if I even have a chance to play..." is a testament to his skill, not chance - HE determines which hands to fold, the cards do not REQUIRE it.

3 Babygrand forgot to read the details of the UK Gutshot case; in that case the standard was ANY chance, and the prosecution conceded that poker was probably more skill than chance. The jury actully found "significant skill and significant chance." Whether that was the right standard is being appealed.

4 In the US, judges determine law, juries determine facts. whether poker is more chance than anything else is a question of fact.

Skallagrim

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] 4 In the US, judges determine law, juries determine facts. whether poker is more chance than anything else is a question of fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the first statement and feel that the that the second statement cannot be true. Essentially, you are saying that a jury decides whether an activity is prohibited by law or not. IMHO if any court has allowed a jury to make this determination as a matter of fact, then that court has committed reversible error.

[Mendacious]

I have no opinion on the 50% chance/skill analysis, because it is so poorly defined. The answer depends entirely how you frame the analysis.

I think that a reasonable argument can be made that any wagering that involves skill (such as poker, most sportsbets, blackjack, picking horses, etc.)is ultimately more governed by skill that by chance.


I think what seperates poker from ALL other forms of gambling is that generally, it has by far the greatest amount of wagering AFTER information is received. The ante is relatively small relative to all the other bets, and all of the other bets are done after the player has information, and that does not even take into account the fact that a large percentage of poker has to do with the players actions themselves and not the cards. So, to the extent that ANY wagering is more governed by skill than chance, Poker would have to be that game. I would go so far as to say that the fact that this type of language is in a statute at all makes it almost a no-brainer that poker specifically is being excluded. One of the rules of statutory construction is that it is assumed that language and provisions are intended to have meaning. To the extent that there is a clear carve out for games involving more skill than chance, arguably this HAS to refer to poker.

[Skallagrim]

There is a point of law that lets judges decide facts when there can be no reasonable dispute about the matter. If there can be a dispute about the facts, a jury decides the facts.

When a statute says its a crime to drive "recklessly" a defendant can argue to the jury that he wasnt reckless even if he otherwise admits that he was going 70 in a 25 zone while talking on his cell phone. Not that I would want to be that defendant's lawyer, but he can make the argument.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no opinion on the 50% chance/skill analysis, because it is so poorly defined. The answer depends entirely how you frame the analysis.

I think that a reasonable argument can be made that any wagering that involves skill (such as poker, most sportsbets, blackjack, picking horses, etc.)is ultimately more governed by skill that by chance.


I think what seperates poker from ALL other forms of gambling is that generally, it has by far the greatest amount of wagering AFTER information is received. The ante is relatively small relative to all the other bets, and all of the other bets are done after the player has information, and that does not even take into account the fact that a large percentage of poker has to do with the players actions themselves and not the cards. So, to the extent that ANY wagering is more governed by skill than chance, Poker would have to be that game. I would go so far as to say that the fact that this type of language is in a statute at all makes it almost a no-brainer that poker specifically is being excluded. One of the rules of statutory construction is that it is assumed that language and provisions are intended to have meaning. To the extent that there is a clear carve out for games involving more skill than chance, arguably this HAS to refer to poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

THANKS MENDACIOUS, unless I have misread you again, it seems that you woud vote to acquit the poker player accused of illegal gambling if the judge told you that you had to find poker was more chance than anything else in order to convict. I hope this is a trend! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Mendacious]

I am having great trouble accepting that whether poker is more chance than skill (and therefor lawful or unlawful) is a jury question which will vary from jury to jury.

This violates fundamental principles of law (such as due process). Reckless driving is a mixed question of fact and law. Unless you are saying it depends on how individuals actually PLAY poker, this is unequivocally a question of law.

Also, clearly I would prefer for poker to be legal and think that of all traditional wagering it is the game which involves the most skill (which is why I play). I just think that most of the laws in this area are pretty broad and indifferent about any distinguishing features that poker may have. I STRONGLY agree with other posters that this is principally a lobbying issue.

[badblood44]

I really like this argument.

If you suppose that poker is a competition among skilled players and that the difference is skill between the marginally skilled and exceptionally skilled is still close, of course that will magnify the luck factor.

Hypothetically assume two archers of near exact skill. Who wins a competition in archery? The uncontrolable factors, like the wind, air density, etc. will be super-magnified between two such competitors while minimized between an expert and an amateur. Archery is certainly a skill-based activity, but between two near identical competitors, it could be viewed as a game of luck by an ignorant observer.