Will it ever be possible to prove skill?

[MJL]

It seems that this thread shows the challange with proving that poker is a skill game that differs from what most see as "Gambling". There are some who have made good cases that sports betting is also a skill. I don't know if it is true but the fact it can be argued to a point that sounds logical to a lay person is my point. To most the argument of Poker is a game of skill unlike other forms of gambling will fall on deaf ears. If it started to make any headway other forms of gambling would likely organize their own arguments and muddy the water in our fight.

[Skallagrim]

Pessimists...maybe its just me, maybe being a criminal defense attorney who has argued and won more than few "lost causes" makes me overly optomistic about the ability to reason with and convince people. If that truly is the case, well then we might as well give up.

A large portion of the electorate is against online slots - they see it as a dangerous temptation. Polls have shown that this same feeling is not near as strong when the question is just about online POKER - indeed many polls show majority support for online poker. The reason is that many people are becoming aware that poker is different in nature from online slots (the classic pure chance game).

Sportsbetting may well be a exercise in skill, but the possibility of corrupting the sport distinguishes it from poker. Craps, blackjack, video poker, etc.. all have elements of skill, but the skill is obviously limited and chance obviously accounts for the majority of outcomes. And most people put these games (rightly IMHO) in the same category as slots.

Moving poker out of that category in the minds of a majority of americans is what will or will not save online poker.

You guys can bemoan the unchangeable prejudices of the majority of americans and just give up, or you can look at history and how the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and the womens movement, the environmental movemnet, all eventually changed ingrained prejudices and achieved something. I am not giving up.

Skallagrim

[MJL]

Not giving up and understanding the opponents argument for purpose of moving our position forward are quite different. We are not challenging to populous as a whole. If that was the case they wouldn't stop any movement to legalize any gamlbling. Evidence is the amount of slot machines in a casino. The case must be put in front of those who would argue that a sports bettor or expert black jack player will also claim the same skill argument. I just see the skill tactic easy to battle and not so easy to prove to those who are not understanding of the game or who have no interest in hearing it.

[Thremp]

skllagrim,

But you don't understand. Thats against other people's goals as well. If I'm gonna lose sports betting... I'll take poka with me.

[Skallagrim]

The blackjack player will never convince me; no matter how skilled she is in basic strategy and counting, the distribution of the cards will determine the outcome. The best counters know they must play huge amounts of hands to come out ahead, and even then there is no way to counteract a bad streak of cards other than to keep playing and hope the probabilities even out. In poker you can fold more, tighten up and bluff.

The thinking sportbettor has convinced me that he is playing based on skill, but it is other factors that prevent his game from being completely legal and available - the prospect of "fixing" corrupting the sport.

The argument as presented by TruePokerCEo and myself is designed to appeal to the person who has only limited knowledge of poker (until I started reading the responses here I assumed most people who play seriously already knew poker was mostly skill by experience). I have tried it on numerous non-players or beginners and almost all of them seem to get it once you work through the whole argument - all of these people started out by saying "poker is probably mostly chance" but were able to be convinced by doing something they had never seen done before, walking them throught the thinking and decision making process of actually playing good, thinking poker. When done in a friendly and non-dismissive manner, they usually come to see that "yeah, you are right, it does seem that most poker hands are determined by decisions not cards."

You cant change people's minds if you assume you cant from the beginning. And you cant do it by calling them "fools" either. But you CAN reason with (most) people.

Skallagrim

PS to Thremp - 1) its cruel to take others with you just cause you have lost 2) sportsbetting is already legal under highly regulated circumstances (in casinos), no reason it cant be legal online IF its regulated in such a way as to prevent the "fixing" issue. But thats much more complex legislation than simply legalizing poker as a game of skill. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Thremp]

Skalla,

Its not cruelty. I don't support PPA and others causes its against my interests. I play poker as well, but I'd rather have the choice to pursue any advantage gambling that I want.

Also how is blackjack counting any different. Don't fool yourself into thinking poker is not about cards. Running hot beats skill out. Your SD dwarfs WR usually by 20x or more at the biggest levels. Anytime you get it all in with cards to come unless they are drawing dead, its luck. And your first statement about poker makes little sense, unless you're talking about playing a suboptimal game to reduce SD.

[Skallagrim]

Thremp - the PPA is just that, its not the "gambler's alliance." PPA has never opposed legal sportsbetting. If you play poker they are fighting for at least some of your interests. Legalizing just poker now does not mean sportsbetting online will always be illegal.

And I fully understand your second point about long term results in poker. The point isnt whether its best EV long term to tighten up your game and fold and bluff more, the point is that YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO. Thats an exercise in skill. The BJ player cant influence the game's outcome that way - he lives or dies with the cards period.

[Thremp]

Skallagrim,

I disagree about blackjack. There are composition dependent changes, different counts etc. Just as many "options" as a poker player would have in a situation. Just with no game theory to find Nash equilibriums.

The problem with the PPA is that their mission lives and dies with poker. I don't want to waste my time supporting something that captivates maybe 5% of my interests. I'd rather spend my efforts trying to prove that all gambling is the same. If it means disproving their stories about "games of skill" to keep my interests alive. So be it.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
The blackjack player will never convince me; no matter how skilled she is in basic strategy and counting, the distribution of the cards will determine the outcome. The best counters know they must play huge amounts of hands to come out ahead, and even then there is no way to counteract a bad streak of cards other than to keep playing and hope the probabilities even out. In poker you can fold more, tighten up and bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are any number of sources that will quickly convince you that you are wrong about blackjack. For a particularly entertaining read, I recommend the book "Bringing Down the House". That will turn your opinion around fast, and it's a great read, too!