How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[Mendacious]

By the way, given that if all skill were equal, no one would win over the long run (except the house), the fact that people can program "bots" to play winning poker over the long term pretty much proves that this is a game of skill over the long term.

[Skallagrim]

Mendacious:
1. Since listing every state would take forever, lets choose New Jersey. That state defines a game of chance as one where "the outcome depends to a material degree upon chance notwithstanding that some skill ... may be a factor." The term "material degree" has been held to require more chance than not. NJ Stautes 2C:37-1(a). Most states follow this formula for determing what is or is not a game of chance. Many states also have a specific exemption for money awarded in "bone fide contests of skill" For example, Wisconsin (statute #945.01(2)(b). You can check each state's law yourself at http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Law-Summary/

2. Of course legislatures can pass different laws at any time.

3. This point is commonly made and to a certain extent true in the context of overall being a winning player (i.e. making money) But legally whether you can or cant make money at it over the long term is only one small factor in deciding whether chance predominates. And as I have posted earlier, the better question to ask is, 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?

4. This is your conclusion, and as you can tell from above, I dont agree, AT LEAST AS A LEGAL MATTER. Whether 8% or 80% can make money long term is a small consideration in determining whether chance is responsible for over 50% of that number. And being able to beat the rake or not is absolutely irrelevant to this legal argument.

[Berge20]

Typical Mat [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[mattnxtc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't heard anyone name 1 game of skill that you couldn't lose right away if you wanted to.


[/ QUOTE ]

cant u get a check mate in aroudn 4-5 moves...im a little rusty at chess but i recall that u can
Chess, now you can't say that anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

His wording was poor -- you could easily make yourself lose in chess though, just not in the first few turns. It is very easy to put yourself in a check-mate position if you are trying.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
And as I have posted earlier, the better question to ask is, does chance determine the result over 50% of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite get what you are saying here. It seems obvious that the answer to this question is a resounding YES. How could it be otherwise?

[Petomane]

Why do we need to prove that poker is a game of skill?

I think this is an issue of the freedom of the Internet.There's plenty of ways you can ripped off on the Web, from purchasing fraudulent spyware that actually infects your computer, to ordering strippers for your batchelor party that never show up. Is it the government's job to protect us from all of it?

If 23 million Americans choose to play a card game AT THEIR OWN RISK, or indeed tic-tac-toe or anything, what business has the government butting in? It's our money.

It makes no difference if we're playing games of skill or not
Betting on horseraces is not a game of skill, yet it's legal. So is the lottery.

[E.Z.]

[ QUOTE ]


4) The "skill" argument is one of the weakest arguments and has the least chance of gaining any political traction. I think it is widely held that only 8% or so players are winning players long term-- that is to say are skillful enough to beat other players and the rake. Clearly in a rake environment to whatever degree "skill" is involved this game is only +ev for the vast minority of people and the "house". For society it is -ev, unless you factor in considerations such as personal freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

take this example- donkey and a pro sitting in same seat and seeing same cards against the same 5 oppenents.

using your DVR you go hand by hand letting each one make their own bets with the same 2 cards in 2 cash games with opponents holding same cards.

give the donkey and the pro AA- 100 times and 7-8 suited 100 throughout the session. give each 200 big blinds in the cash game.

the pro will maximize wins with 7-8 ( by bluffing or catching and minimize losses with AA)

the donkey will raise too much with AA or donk off his 200 blinds in a heartbeat over and over again. and alot of donks will likely fold 7-8 preflop or limp and fold post flop.

Rake is like commission. Refco is low while your local broker might hit you for $50 a turn (trading metals) if you let him.
poker sites and casinos can make the rake what they see fit, some low (or none) and some high. some of the very high tables on full tilt prob rake less than 0.1%.

this 50k hands is hogwash. i'm just a descent small stakes no limit player. my typical runs on the party reloads included maybe 4 diferent 2 hour sessions ( my account and room-mate) while watching TV and 8 tabling i would have winning session prob 80% of the time. the cards may make a difference on how much i won but good cards can lead to the losing sessions as well. set vs set on flop.

instead of playing 8 tables for 2 hours, i would like to think playing 2 tables for 8 hours with the TV off would increase my win-rate even higher. it's pretty sad when you don't know your oppenents names, get timed out or don't realize your full ring table is actually down to 5 handed and can still win.

and since i would get crushed at higher stakes (tighter games-more preflop raises) i think it's safe to say a pro would have a win-rate of 90% had he done my party sessions for me.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And as I have posted earlier, the better question to ask is, does chance determine the result over 50% of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite get what you are saying here. It seems obvious that the answer to this question is a resounding YES. How could it be otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will let you in on a little secret - I phrased the question this way because a) it fits the legal standard and b) because I hope everyone (even the non-poker playing general public) would see that the answer is indeed a resounding yes.

If everyone agrees (or at least the judges and juries, as the case may be) then poker is legally not gambling in about 30-35 states.

Skallagrim

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as I have posted earlier, the better question to ask is, does chance determine the result over 50% of the time?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't quite get what you are saying here. It seems obvious that the answer to this question is a resounding YES. How could it be otherwise?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I will let you in on a little secret - I phrased the question this way because a) it fits the legal standard and b) because I hope everyone (even the non-poker playing general public) would see that the answer is indeed a resounding yes.

If everyone agrees (or at least the judges and juries, as the case may be) then poker is legally not gambling in about 30-35 states.


[/ QUOTE ]

If chance determines the result more than 50% of the time it is not gambling? Huh? This is the opposite of what you said before.

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of you guys are making good points bit missing the key issue as it relates to "saving poker." To save poker (in most states becasue of the state law) we need to show that poker is NOT MORE THAN 50% chance. I ask you to respond to that directly. Folks on these boards are here (mostly) because they are serious about poker. HOW MANY OF YOU FEEL THAT MORE THAN 50% OF YOUR RESULTS WERE DUE TO CHANCE (the random distribution of the cards)?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are so many ways to measure this 50% that I think it is almost meaningless. Ultimately I think poker will have to be specifically exempted from being a game of chance.

[Homer]

[ 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.