Will it ever be possible to prove skill?

[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.

[Skallagrim]

There is never a case in which it is +EV for a blackjack player to deviate from the "proper" strategy (which includes the count). Because psychology is a factor in poker, deviations that are not +EV as a matter of pure mathematical probability can still be +EV given the opponents.

I guess I have to respect that your interest in poker is very small. But I still think your cutting off your nose to spite your face here. Legal online poker can only help create a better atmosphere for possible legal online sportsbetting down the road. IMHO saying all or nothing at this time pretty much insures we end up with...nothing.

Skallagrim

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
There is never a case in which it is +EV for a blackjack player to deviate from the "proper" strategy (which includes the count). Because psychology is a factor in poker, deviations that are not +EV as a matter of pure mathematical probability can still be +EV given the opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I question the utility in trying to distinguish poker from counting cards in blackjack. I believe the average person will just get confused. Afterall, consider some similarities between the games. The poker player varies his bet depending on the advantage he thinks he has. In a no-limit game, the poker player can vary his bet to any amount. In blackjack, the player varies his bet (again any amount) according to what he believes his advantage is(depending on the composition of the remaining cards in the deck). Both are relying on probabilities of winning.

Likewise, a counting blackjack player can vary his play depending on his own cards, and the cards of his opponent--the dealer. Thus, a counter may end up doing some very strange looking plays like splitting tens (something you never do in basic strategy), or hitting a hard 17.

There is a wide range of skill levels in blackjack and poker both. Some poker players are better than others. This same thing is true in blackjack. A highly sophisticated card counter will have a higher advantage than someone implementing a simple +1/-1 count strategy. Thus some card counters will be better than others.

Finally, in both games, the more "skilled" players can and will (in the long run) be winners.

Perhaps the difference you are trying to highlight is that in no-limit holdem poker the majority of hands are not determined by "showdown". And, the only way the outcome could be dependent on chance (i.e. the cards) is if there is a showdown. Thus, something else is determining the outcome--namely the skillful (or not so skillful) checking, calling, betting, raising, and psychological banter of the players. Is this the main point you are driving at? If it is, I can agree with you that it is a fairly significant difference. However, I am not confident that the average person would see this as a significant difference in light of the similarities between the games, along with the preconceived prejudices people have.

On a slightly different note, there is also the consideration of how we define outcome. I see two possibilities:

Outcome:
1. The winner and loser of a particular hand (thus, each hand is weighted equally); or
2. The overall money won or lost in a particular hand. (Thus, one big hand can be equivelent to ten smaller hands).

I think the definition of "outcome" can greatly affect how this matter is discussed. Is there anything in the UIGEA (or other legal citations) that would give us help in defining the word, "outcome"?

[Skallagrim]

I very much appreciate your well though out repsonse JlkRusty, thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

I have to disagree though about the average person and blackjack, I think the difference between blackjack and poker is obvious to most and can be summed up by simply pointing out that you cant get the house to fold no matter what you do. Also, very few of the general public even know that such a thing as mathematically best strategy exists, and most have only heard of card counting as some illegal way of knowing the cards. Honest. So I cant agree that they will doubt poker is a skill just because you can argue perfect blackJack involves some similar skills.

You are spot on about the main point, and I think it is precisely the kind of argument that average people can get with a little work because it doesnt involve complex math or theories. People already understand cards and decisions.

I also should point out that the argument is phrased to show poker is more skill than chance because thats what most laws require you prove if you want it legal. Its easy to prove poker has some element of skill: "Doyle Brunson." But to prove its MOSTLY skill you have to do more than show that some consistent winners (or losers - see Sklansky's son's argument) exist.

And the argument is phrased in Hands (except where tournaments are concerned) because thats also how it mostly likely will be viewed in court: one hand is unrealistic, so is an infinite number, so a "fair" number of hands is what I ask to consider. And the law doesnt specify skill as winning the most money, it specifies skill as "winning" the game - at least one court has already ruled that changing the amount of a bet is not a skill (of course that ruling had nothing to do with whether raising in poker inolved skill - it was about betting on video poker).

So thats where I am coming from with the phrasing of this argument, its one that has to work in Court. If it works, poker is not gambling, and thus internet poker is perfectly legal, in over 1/2 the states. And because of that, the UIGEA would not apply to poker players in those states.

I mentioned before, either here or elsewhere, a guy in North Carolina raising this issue right now. He is Howard Fierman, and you can read about his case at:

http://www.trianglepokerjournal.com/

Look to the left under "NC poker and the Law."

This guy is one of the great unsung heros of Poker in my opinion. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Skallagrim