NC, USA determines poker = chance

[Lottery Larry]

Easy, baby- easy. Just because people are arguing/disagreeing with you isn't any reason to go OTT on 'em....

[Skallagrim]

Im OTT because I am amazed at the number of people who dont get just how important this argument is.

Its not the folks arguing with me, I want that; the argument needs to be "vetted" so to speak.

But the people who say it useless, the people who say its impossible, and the people who say its the wrong question, they have to realize that right now the only thing standing between the DOJ and an open attack on poker sites and poker funding mechanisms is the worry that like in CA and MO, poker will be found by a Court to be skill and thus not covered by most state gambling laws (recall; all their recent cases were about sportbetting) and thus not covered by any Federal law.

Being able to say poker is mostly skill is the key to it not being currently illegal.

Until we get the laws changed (which is going to happen tommorrow right?), this question is whats saving us. We lose it, and our game is undeniably illegal (in most of the US) UNTIL the laws are changed.

Skallagrim

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]
Im OTT because I am amazed at the number of people who dont get just how important this argument is.

Its not the folks arguing with me, I want that; the argument needs to be "vetted" so to speak.

But the people who say it useless, the people who say its impossible, and the people who say its the wrong question, they have to realize that right now the only thing standing between the DOJ and an open attack on poker sites and poker funding mechanisms is the worry that like in CA and MO, poker will be found by a Court to be skill and thus not covered by most state gambling laws (recall; all their recent cases were about sportbetting) and thus not covered by any Federal law.

Being able to say poker is mostly skill is the key to it not being currently illegal.

Until we get the laws changed (which is going to happen tommorrow right?), this question is whats saving us. We lose it, and our game is undeniably illegal (in most of the US) UNTIL the laws are changed.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, I don't think that's behind what the DOJ is doing but I can't prove it. So I will let it rest.

Back to the skill v luck argument, I'm still confused by your arguments. I'm sure everyone here agrees that poker is a game of skill. And that skill comes from making +ev decisions. Furthermore, that results of individual hands do not matter. That's why you get flamed when you post results in a strategy forum. But your arguments (which I believe correlate to the tests the courts are using) are about individual hands and are completely results oriented.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
There is skill in blackjack, its just that no amount of skill can overcome the cards. The cards always determine the winner in blackjack and the only thing you can do is maximize your percentage expectation (which is always negative unless you count cards).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I really don't agree that this is the reason that blackjack is not considered a game of skill. If you slightly modified the game of blackjack to make it +EV, by forcing the dealer to stand on 16, it would still be a game of chance even though it would be possible to beat it in the longrun. I mean think about it this way. If the powerball lottery grew so inflated that it were actually somehow +EV to buy tickets, you definitely wouldn't call the lottery a game of skill. Whether a game is 'beatable' is incidental, not consequential, of its standing as a game of predominately chance.

This is really the major problem here. Yes, poker has a large element of skill - but how can you formalize this and prove it? You can't just circularly argue that "Poker is a game of skill because it involves skill." You need to be able to layout a set if criterion showing if a game is predominated by skill or chance. And poker must fit this criterion while games like blackjack must not fit it. I can't even begin to imagine what this criterion would be. Poker and many other games predonimated by chance are very closely linked. What distinguishes poker?

[ekdikeo]

I've always said that poker is only all luck, if you're sitting at a table with me. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

(so says the guy who doubled his bankroll tonight woot)

[Skallagrim]

Ok Dire, rather than send you to the various times I have posted it, here is the argument:

Define terms: Skill = decisions made by players
Chance (or luck) = the distribution of the cards


Now consider a fair representative number of poker hands at any table, and remember, showing chance means the outcome is determined by the cards.

So, first, every hand that does not go to showdown was undeniably the result of player actions, not the cards (there is no rule that says you HAVE to fold 2-7 or call/raise with A-A). In most forms of poker this is the way most hands are resolved (all but one person folds before all the cards are revealed).

Second, when hands do go to showdown, who is at the showdown is detemined by player decisions (to call, fold or raise), not the cards. And quite often the person who would have had the best hand has folded long before all the cards are shown.

Third, even at the showdown the more skilled player will be in the advantage (he who has the best pre-river hand is there usually because his skills tell him he has that hand. So the cards ARE NOT determining who goes into a showdown with the hand most likely to win, it is the skill (or lack thereof) of the players.

Fourth, even at the showdown, the underdog only wins less than half the time because, of course, thats why he is the underdog!

And finally, the amount of the win (especially significant in tournament poker) has been determined completely by the players (though structured by the betting rules), not the cards.

So put all that together, and the only time you can really say that chance DETERMINES the outcome in poker is when there is a showdown and the less skilled player gets lucky and hits his or her improbable card. We all know that happens in poker, we also all know that happens far, far less than half the time.

Therefore Poker results are determined far more often by the players than by the cards. And thus Poker is a game of Skill. This is even more apparent when you factor in that poker is really a game of winning chips, not hands. Since the amount of win or loss on any hand is totally within the players control, that element of poker must also be deemed a skill element.

The distinction with blackjack is apparent in the above argument. There is no betting after the initial bet, so there is no possibility of using psychology in blackjack to win the hand. Also, the limited skill of knowing when to hit or not will not DETERMINE THE OUTCOME, it will only influence it, the outcome will still be decided by what the cards are every time (even if you get the card you want or dont hit at all the dealer can still beat you).

Skallagrim

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
Im OTT because I am amazed at the number of people who dont get just how important this argument is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it's that, I just think a lot of people here are negative. I think that there's a need among those who bluff for a living to be seen as smarter than you, i.e., making the argument that is NOT being made as being the one that is most in one's best interests. To them, they need to see that sometimes, what seems obviously best, really IS best.

[questions]

Is the white elephant in the skill vs. chance argument room the fact that ultimately, it's not about who wins the hand, but who leaves the table with the most money? That is, skill determines how much $$$ you extract from the other players, regardless of your cards; ergo, chance dealing you good or bad cards can be irrelevant.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the white elephant in the skill vs. chance argument room the fact that ultimately, it's not about who wins the hand, but who leaves the table with the most money? That is, skill determines how much $$$ you extract from the other players, regardless of your cards; ergo, chance dealing you good or bad cards can be irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have hit the nail on the head my friend. I have tried to point out the distinction previously but perhaps saying it flat out is needed: You do not necessarily win the most money in poker by winning the most hands. Thats why I distinguish "edge" from "skill." Frequently in poker players make a play knowing they are unlikely to win the hand, but also knowing over time making that play gives them an edge (pot odds).

Yet if we only talk about the edge part, then poker is indeed no different from blackjack where the better players have a bigger edge then the lesser players but any given hand will still be determined by the cards. That situation is precisely what the NC Court held to be a game of chance.

So while reminding courts that overall winning money is the key to poker, WE ALSO HAVE TO SHOW THAT PLAYERS CAN DETERMINE OUTCOMES, I.E. WINNING THE HAND. Of course, in both games you cant win money if you never win a hand. But in poker you can also win a hand independant of the cards, and/or despite having "bad" cards or despite not having the "best" hand.

In fact we already know this to be the case where most hands are folded to the winner. And maybe soon we will have the numbers to show that this is also the case even when there is a showdown.

Skallagrim

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the white elephant in the skill vs. chance argument room the fact that ultimately, it's not about who wins the hand, but who leaves the table with the most money? That is, skill determines how much $$$ you extract from the other players, regardless of your cards; ergo, chance dealing you good or bad cards can be irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This again is not a valid argument. If this were the case, good players would win the vast majority of their sessions. I win just over 60% of my sessions and I'm a large winner at relatively small stakes. I'm sure the win rate for high stakes players, who are presumably the most skilled, quickly converges very close to 50%. And if 'leaving the table with the most money' proves skill, wouldn't the best players leaving the table stuck nearly 50% of the time therefore prove the predominance of chance?