Why does 2+2 call poker gambling?

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Because poker *is* gambling. The term "gambling" does not presuppose either skill or chance, it simply presupposes monetary risk/reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also a wager. I've seen a number of threads get derailed when people want to leave out the wagering part of it, and then argue that the stock market is gambling. Without a wager, you do not have gambling.

[Skallagrim]

Most folks instinctively understand the difference between playing chess or bridge for money and playing craps or slots for money. They have no problem with the former, and think people who play the latter for anything more than "fun money" are fools, degenerates, or addicts.

To get legislative change we need to show the average person who does not really understand the depth of the game of poker that playing poker for money is more like playing chess than it is like playing craps.

Having a word change will hardly accomplish this on its own, but it will help. When people unfamiliar with it say "poker is gambling" they are thinking its just like craps: you need to know what you are doing, but your results are due to chance. By saying in response "poker is NOT gambling its [whatever word you choose]" we begin the education process that moves poker in that average person's mind from the bad connotation/category (risking money on your luck) to the good connotation/category (risking money on your skill).

Skallagrim

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

To get legislative change we need to show the average person who does not really understand the depth of the game of poker that playing poker for money is more like playing chess than it is like playing craps.

I smiled when I read this if for two reasons. First, this is the exact opposite of what we want to do when we're playing. Personally, I prefer it if my table has some people at it who view poker like roulette.

Second, the thing we need to do to get legislative backing is to show that a) internet poker will not dilute B&M casino revenue, and b) that the tax revenue from legal gambling will outweigh the nebulous "societal costs" of gambling.

Here is a link on the Boston Globe site that has compiled all the editorials and op-ed pieces on casino gambling. Note that the entire discussion (except Jeff Jacoby's piece) focuses on tax revenue vs. impact on society.

If we're going to appeal to politicians, we have to speak their language.

[Skallagrim]

It is ironic that what may be good for the game legally is not necessarily whats good for the game financially [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. But so be it, I doubt that anyone but the newest noob who plays doesnt realize that poker requires at least some skill/judgment.

As to speaking politician's language, you are right, but not including the whole picture. Politicians also worry about votes (money comes first, but they know that without votes they are in no position to get the money). So if most of a district is strongly "anti-gambling" no amount of lobbying or arguing is going to get the Rep. from that district to support gambling. But if you can get a good number of those anti-gambling folks to stop being anti-poker, then you have an opportunity to change that Representative too.

Specifically, one way to deal with the concerns of "cost to society" is to show that poker, being a skill game, is not like other "gambling" in creating those costs - in fact, it creates far fewer costs than things like slots and roulette. That is clearly one way to respond to the "too many social costs" crowd: poker being a game of skill between people is not what has been studied, and is far different from those "addictive" games of chance played by people against a casino.

To ultimately win we have to put ALL of these arguments forward.

Skallagrim

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

is to show that poker, being a skill game, is not like other "gambling" in creating those costs

I'd downplay this, myself, because its so easily countered. What percentage of people who play poker are long-term winners? Is it not conceivable that people who over-estimate their poker acumen will fall prey to the same problems?

The skill game argument is great as far as it counters existing laws that ban "games of chance." I do not think it is a good counter against those in government who would try to protect us from ourselves, and good old liberal Taxachusetts is full of those types.

[Skallagrim]

The "studies" our enemies cite almost always involve slot machines. Occasionally there is discussion of table games like blackjack and such, but really when you look at, its slots that worry these people (rightly or wrongly): they envision the person always less intelligent then themselves sitting helpless in front of a machine seduced by the colors and sounds and incapable of not putting that last $20 in. The last $20 that should have been spent on the child's lunches....You can here it now "these are the people we need to protect from themselves."

As we all know, this is (mostly) hogwash, but it is the image used against us.

Contrast that image with the image of a group of people around a table actively mentally engaged in a competitive game like bridge or poker. There are none of the slot-style seductions.

Do most lose at poker? Yes, of course, but the desire to compete, to strive to be the best even if you lose, is a prized value in the good ole US of A. Will some people get lost in this competition and over do it? Yes, some folks spend way to much on competing at golf too, but the numbers who go to far at a competitive game are much, much less than the numbers seduced by the slots. Its apples and oranges.

That is how you convince a strident anti-gambling do-gooder that poker should be treated differently (leaving out the hogwash part of course).

Skallagrim

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Jimbo, poker is undeniably a game that involves BOTH Skill and Luck/Chance.

Your example of AK being beat by AK is countered by the hand where some one bluffs AK out of the pot with 2-7. How can you say luck/chance determined the outcome of that hand?

The key question is whether the luck or the skill is the more important factor. Some hands are decided by luck, some by skill. Same with the amount of the win. But if you really believe MOST results are the product of chance, why do you read these forums? What would be the point of trying to "improve your game" if it was mostly the result of chance anyway?

That is what makes poker different and what makes being a poker pro possible: MOST results in poker are the product of the player's actions, not simply the cards dealt. In my opinion, and in what should be the opinion of anyone who believes poker is entitled to be treated differently from slots and craps, games where the play of the players determine (for the most part) the outcome of the game, are NOT "gambling."

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skallagrim, I appreciate your passion for getting online poker legalized. That does not excuse you for attempting to put words in my mouth then using a strawman arguement in a very weak effort to discredit my position that poker is gambling.

As others have said you can call a dog a cat but that doesn't make it true. If JP was honest with himself both you and he would simply admit that poker is gambling period without any doubt, it has nothing at all to do with skill overcoming luck in the long run, it is by it's very nature and definition gambling.

Jimbo

To clarify some of the words you tried to put into my mouth; I believe in the very very long term skill overcomes luck in poker. I do not believe the majority of the poker players advocating clarifying the legality of online poker are more skillful than lucky.

[Skallagrim]

I am not trying to put words in your mouth Jimbo. I appreciate your comments in this forum. I made a straw man argument (2-7 bluffing AK) to counter your straw man argument (AK losing to AK).

Otherwise we just disagree. I am not merely arguing for the sake of legality, I truly believe Poker results are PREDOMINANTLY the result of the plays you make, not the cards you are dealt. I believe this is true over any representative sample, though I admit that in a small, unrepresentative sample the cards dealt could be more important - of course we have all seen that happen.

On the subject of the word gambling, I personally have no problem calling poker gambling - you risk something hoping to gain greater reward. I call most investing gambling too, especially commodities trading.

But in the legal world there is a huge difference between an activity being gambling or not gambling. That is the only reason I would prefer to not call poker gambling and I have offered my reasoning as to why it is legitimate to distinguish the two.

Skallagrim

PS - check out this link for a more lengthy discussion of skill v. luck (be sure to scroll down to the second article): http://gpsts.org/poker-a-game-of-skill/

[oldbookguy]

What interesting thread.

In my talks with people and in several letters I have written, I make the distinction Skall mentions by interjecting early on, I do NOT gamble, I play cards against other people pitting my abilities to out play you versus your ability to out play me, barring of-course uncontrollable circumstances; I.E. desperation in tournament play or just a bad decision made at the right time.

If asked about the latter, I explain short stacked versus the escalating blinds in a late game and as to a bad decision at the right time, a 9% draw is that, 9 out of 100 it will win.


obg

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Realizing, of course, that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. It's always better to refine our argument among friends first rather than beta testing in the heat of battle.

That is how you convince a strident anti-gambling do-gooder that poker should be treated differently (leaving out the hogwash part of course).

One final comment. I think you use these arguments with the middle-of-the-road fence-straddlers. They should be the focus of our efforts. The strident do-gooders are beyond hope. No sense wasting time and resources chasing windmills. Win over the middle and you win the war.