Argument: Poker is skill because it matters who you play

[popesc]

All games that are played involve some chance and some skill.

Blackjack, for instance, is a game that is predominately chance. If you follow basic strategy, you can minimize your losses. If you are skillful at card counting, you can even achieve a positive expectation.

Baseball, on the other hand, is a game that is predominately skill. Baseball managers routinely make decisions based on statistics. If a batter hits 80% of balls to left field, a manager will shift the defense. When deciding a pinch hitter, batting average is a major consideration. Also, the best team does not win every baseball game. In fact, rarely (ever?) does a team win 75% of their games.

What is the difference between baseball and blackjack? In blackjack, it doesn't matter what casino you go to. It doesn't matter who the dealer is. Your decisions completely dictate your expectation. In baseball, it matters quite a bit who you are playing. The Yankees have a bankroll that lets them sign all the best players, and they are always a difficult (but not impossible) team to beat because of it.

It this respect, poker is more like baseball than blackjack. I can clean up the home game I attend, but wouldn't want to play in a game with 10 professionals.

Discuss.

[krupatime]

I like this argument.


However people will say it doesn't matter who you play out of ignorance. ..then you go have to show/prove it does.

[RGL]

I think you've nailed it! On first blush, I can't think of an exception.

BTW, it also clarifies why I hated The Deer Hunter.

The last 1/4 of the movie deals with head to head (literally) Russian Roulette contests in which the U.S. participant becomes a champion. It is done in the movie as if it's a wagering event in which two participants are engaging in a contest of wills and skill, when in fact it's purely a matter of chance and luck. This disconnect ruined the movie for me.

I suspect it also underlies how Hollywood usually gets it wrong when it comes to gambling. It portrays gambling as if it's person to person, from baccarat in the original Casino Royale to the multitude of crap games to the way the final hand is played in Cincinnati Kid, when what is depicted is actually luck.

And, as you point out, it's an error made by many in the political, regulatory and judicial systems. Your framing of the issue, IMHO, is the Occam's Razor.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
I like this argument.


However people will say it doesn't matter who you play out of ignorance. ..then you go have to show/prove it does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even the biggest fish in the world won't stay at a table full of nut-peddlers for too long. For many years, I've heard them pass comments complaining and I've seen them quit all kinds of tight games.

I like the OP's argument as well, but it's not completely true.

For instance, there is definitely skill (albeit a very small amount) in both sports betting and horse racing. For horses, it doesn't matter which track takes your bet. For sports, I could see an argument stating that it matters which bookie you use because there are different lines and different amounts of juice...but it's pretty negligible to call a bookie an opponent. In either case, it is the only the conditions that change, not the opponents; making them very similar to other gambling type games.

Also, blackjack can be beaten with supreme counting skill and the edge does vary from casino to casino. Some games are harder to beat than others based on the rules, the cut, and the number of decks. Of course, the dealer doesn't matter (unless you can find dealers who make mistakes and overpay [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

[Our House]

...on the flip side, there are pure gambling games that involve opponents. Street craps is one followed by tossing coins and rock/paper/scissors. We understand that the opposition's skill doesn't matter in those games (meh, I've heard arguments for RPS being all about metagame, but I don't buy them) but will a judge?

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]

For instance, there is definitely skill (albeit a very small amount) in both sports betting and horse racing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pouncing on a minor point that doesn't really address the issue, I think you're wrong here. It takes as much if not more skill and work to be a successful sports bettor/horse handicapper as it does to be a successful poker player.

[popesc]

I address the skill factor inherent in some games of chance in my original post
[ QUOTE ]
If you are skillful at card counting, you can even achieve a positive expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even games that are predominantly change involve some skill. My argument is that since your opponent plays a huge part in your expectation, skill is the predominant factor in poker.

[Skallagrim]

"My argument is that since your opponent plays a huge part in your expectation, skill is the predominant factor in poker. "

You have presented a good argument for skill being a factor in poker. And, by anecdotal evidence, most would agree a big factor. The only problem with your argument, from the legal point of view, is that it doesnt seem to have a way to QUANTIFY the skill element. Without that part, there is no way to say for certain that skill predominates over chance.

So lets work on that part.

Skallagrim

[Our House]

Skall,

Have courts been able to quantify the skill element in baseball?

[Our House]

I believe I can help quantify skill elements across the board...

All games in which EV > 0 is achievable have 100% skill. This is a very important fact, so I'll repeat it.

All games in which EV > 0 is achievable have 100% skill.

That's right, 100 percent skill! The ONLY difference between these games is the time frame it takes.