Poker as a skill(Need help)

[Skallagrim]

I found it shocking too JP. But the case is cited there in the linked AG's opinion. Maybe they dont charge an entry fee?

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Skall, every year Tennessee hosts many bass tournaments. B.A.S.S. often has a tournament on Kentucky Lake. The FLW is the other large organization hosting bass tournaments. Those two organizations are the big guns in bass fishing. ESPN now owns B.A.S.S. and Walmart owns FLW, which is much younger, but may have more money. In 2008, the WBT, BASS' women's tour will have a tournament on Old Hickory Lake near Nashville. I fished it many years ago, but preferred Percy Priest. The FLW tour, its main and biggest tournament circuit, has scheduled a tournament on a lake in TN with which I am not familiar. Tournaments held by both BASS and FLW typically have first place prizes in the 5 figures.
Other smaller organizations hold bass tournaments through out Tennessee. All have an entry fee and give both cash and sometimes boat prizes.
I guess the TN authorities ignore this law as it pertains to bass fishing tournaments, which do benefit local economies.

[rbnn]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a quick note on Tennessee gambling law. There, gambling is defined as "risking anything of value for profit whose return is to any degree contingent on chance..."

[/ QUOTE ]

This provision would make illegal paying an entry fee to play in a chess tournament. A player's return in a chess tournament depends on chance because it depends on the results of his own games and on the results of other players' games. The result of a particular chess game is partly determined by chance: whether a player makes a move depends on his assessment of whether it is the best move based on an incomplete analysis of the game tree. This move is sometimes actually the best and sometimes not; whether it really is, depends on luck to some extent. That is, a good player might sac a pawn thinking it is "probably sound" or, if it is not sound, that the opponent will "likely blunder." But a player cannot know for sure this is the case - he has to have some luck.

Indeed, if two players of the same ELO rating play one another, each player will win the same proportion of games. The whole model for ranking chess players, the ELO rating, is dependent on modelling the outcomes of games as chance-dependent.

[jcl]

[ QUOTE ]
And its the same thing that distinguishes poker from blackjack. Other than the limited surrender option in some casinos, every blackjack hand must be played to the final card. Hence the cards always decide the winner; though skillful betting and hitting/standing improve your odds (for some folks even to +EV), skill acts never CONTROL whether you win or lose a hand in blackjack.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is intentionally busting then not the same 'skill element' as folding preflop? I have to say this is where I find the argument for poker very awkward. Saying that a poker hand ended because someone applied their skill element of folding sounds retarded. I can end a blackjack hand by repeatedly hitting until I bust and that would be the complete opposite of skill.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And its the same thing that distinguishes poker from blackjack. Other than the limited surrender option in some casinos, every blackjack hand must be played to the final card. Hence the cards always decide the winner; though skillful betting and hitting/standing improve your odds (for some folks even to +EV), skill acts never CONTROL whether you win or lose a hand in blackjack.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is intentionally busting then not the same 'skill element' as folding preflop? I have to say this is where I find the argument for poker very awkward. Saying that a poker hand ended because someone applied their skill element of folding sounds retarded. I can end a blackjack hand by repeatedly hitting until I bust and that would be the complete opposite of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be completely wrong but the skill game argument of poker vs blackjack has less to do with the amount of skill involved than the fact that in blackjack you are playing against the house, where the house has a built in advantage.

A very "skillful" player can beat the house in blackjack, but there aren't that many and the house will soon ban them, just ask Andy Block among others.

Poker on the other hand is played against other players. Yes in a raked game the house always makes money but it doesn't gain an advantage from less skilled players the way it does in blackjack.

In poker the better your skill level, the more profitable the game is over the long run. Yes this is also true in blackjack but ultimately in blackjack there is an insurmountable wall that is the house's advantage.

So the fact that you can fold rather than double down in blackjack is about the only way to both increase your bet as well pretty much ends the similarities between the two games. There is no further betting nor folding in blackjack and after the first move the game is entirely dependent on chance, in poker the additional betting rounds acutally increase the amount of skill to ultimately win the most pots.

In additon in blackjack no matter how badly you play a hand it has no influence on the outcome of future hands, you can really mess up someone else sitting at the table for that hand, in blackjack, but your skill level displayed never changes the dealers strategy for future hands. This is what is missed by most people who have learned poker from watching it on television.


D$D

[jcl]

I was referring to the legal argument they are using.

[Skallagrim]

The fact that you can intentionally lose in blackjack by busting out on purpose shows that there is a skill element to blackjack.

But come on, lets not completely divorce our logical arguments from reality. No one plays any money game to lose on purpose. When you fold in poker, you lose the hand on purpose, but you do so because it is essential to being a long-term, overall winner at the game. No amount of busting out on purpose will ever improve your blackjack results, so no one does it in reality.

I understand where you guys are coming from, let me remind you where I started from: the court decisions that hold poker to be a game of chance. Those same decisions constantly recognize that poker has some skill, that players "can improve their odds through the exercise of that skill." But they conclude poker is a game of chance "because the end result is ALWAYS due to the random factor, the distribution of the cards." they think this because, as any one not really a poker player knows, the "winner" is always the player with the best hand right? The more savvy judges acknowledge that the "occassional" bluff exists, but think it is too small factor in the game to matter.

It is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THEREFORE, to demonstrate to these judges basically unfamiliar with poker, THAT THE CARDS DO NOT ALWAYS DETERMINE THE END RESULT - NOT EVEN MOST OF THE TIME; that most poker results are independent of the cards entirely: that they are far more dependent on the player's perception of the cards. That is the hurdle my and Howard's proof, and so far only my and Howard's proof, overcomes. And it comports with what we players instinctively know, that most hands will end by folding, that being able to convince your opponent you have better cards than him or her is just as, if not more, important over the long run than actually having the better cards. So is figuring out when you dont have the cards and you will NOT be able to convince the opponent otherwise, so you fold and lose less than your less skilled opponents, giving you more to play with next time, and increasing your overall results for the better.

In sum, if you cannot get over the conclusion that "the winner is determined by the cards" you lose the skill argument as a matter of law.

If you can do that better than me and Howard DO IT!!!!!

If all you want to do is say that shouldn't be test, there are better tests, OK, say it; but recognize that that is the test the courts have imposed and so your opinion does not advance the cause.

Skallagrim

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
No amount of busting out on purpose will ever improve your blackjack results.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about the Surrender rule? :P


The rest of your post is one I'd put under my new thread. maybe I can't successfully argue that long-term financial results are the determination, legally, of success at poker.

You've argued this before, that the short-term focus of the courts is the key redefinition that we need to make. Legally, you may be correct.

[TheProdigy]

Hey guys,

I almost didn't post this as it is one of my worst works. I did a good job finding some decent sources, but when you add in her rules on sources and things like that I had to leave out some stuff. Also had to include things I didn't want to, and wrote most of it the night before. Definitely not my best work, and maybe I will write something actually good without having to repeat myself/etc. I never claimed to be a good writer, but if anyone wants to critique this or work on it or do anything with it just get a hold of me.

edit: Obviously none of the formatting works...Sorry if it sucks but I did get an 'A' on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Chase Schwalbach
Dr. Sexton
English 100 (014)
November 12, 2007
Texas Hold’em
Investing in nearly anything is a risky choice, and poker is no different. Even though many different investments are risky, poker has gained notoriety as a negative investment. This isn’t completely true, even though poker has become a negative stigma in the eyes of many. Texas Hold’em, a specific type of poker game, is one of the few games played in Las Vegas that can be beaten long term. Texas Hold’em is an effective investment vehicle that may be utilized to produce a controlled rate of return despite the recent legislative restrictions pushed against it. Texas Hold’em, in particular, is a game of skill that is a negative investment at first but is one that can be turned into a positive one with experience and development.
To be able to thoroughly explain my topic, one must understand the game completely to understand the rules and terms of Texas Hold’em. The game is usually played with a group of nine people sitting at a table and a dealer. The first player to the left of the dealer, or the small blind, will put half of a bet in the pot. The second player to the left of the dealer, or the big blind, will put a full bet into the pot. These two bets are made before any action is taken so that betting is encouraged later in the hand to win this money that was already put into the pot. After this, the dealer will deal two cards to each player, which are collectively known as hole cards. The player to the immediate left of the big blind will open the action by taking any of three options. Each player in the hand will have the option of folding, calling, or raising. After each player has acted accordingly, the dealer will turn over three community cards, known as the flop, in the middle of the table. These cards, along with any of the two cards in each of the players’ hands, are used to make the best five card combination according to the poker hand rankings chart. Anyone left in the hand will act in turn starting to the direct left of the dealer, and when all bets are closed the dealer will flip over the fourth community card, known as the turn. The last step is repeated once again and the dealer flips over the final card, known as the river. Bets are once again placed, and when all action is closed the players flip over their cards and the best five card combination wins. Any player can win the pot at any time if he is the last one left in the hand before the final round of betting.
To be able to produce a consistent return in anything, one must prove that the game is not decided by chance but by skill. In baseball, the Yankees always buy the best players and consistently produce returns, by making the playoffs every year. Although nearly everyone considers baseball to be considered a skill game, there are luck factors in it just like there are luck factors in poker. James McManus, a writer for The New York Times, points out the luck factors in baseball. He talks about how different umpires could call one pitch a strike and one a ball, how the wind can push down a ball that could be a home-run one day and how it could make a ball that wasn’t hit well a home-run the next day (D7). Although luck is a factor in the game, the reason that the Yankees keep winning is that skill is the biggest factor in the long-run. It is easy to illustrate the long-run by showing that the Yankees keep making the playoffs because of a long season where they win consistently. Unfortunately, these same Yankees haven’t won a championship in many years because in each round of the playoffs the teams only play until one team wins three games. Even though the Yankees may be the better team, natural factors and things out of their control have led to their losses in the short-term playoffs recently (D7).
Poker in general has always been viewed as a gambling game by the public. They think that people are losing their savings playing cards and the game is harmful to America. Actually, in college-aged players, who are usually said to be the most susceptible to gambling addiction, a tiny 4% of the students who play actually ever develop any kind of addiction to gambling. In addition, only 1 to 2% of the American population have any type of gambling problem (McKee P5). Also, the view of poker as a gambling game is slightly skewed. It is a fact that poker is gambling in the short-term. In a hand, an hour, a day, or even a month, the best players can lose consistently. When one extends this period to a year of skillful play with a large amount of time invested into the game, these numbers change. Many players online have played 500,000 or more hands and are quite ahead overall (“Winnings”).
At first, it would seem to anyone that hears the rules of this game that it is directly decided by chance. This is partly true and partly false. A game like blackjack is one that is decided directly by chance, because each time you get dealt a hand you must flip over your cards at the end of your hand and compare the cards to see who wins. In Texas Hold’em, however, each betting round can decide the outcome of the hand. Any player can win the hand at any time, no matter what type of hand he or she holds (Johnson). Actually, in a study done by Howard Lederer, a well known poker player who has been known to study the game extensively, his data showed that approximately 60% of hands played between players in poker are decided before any cards are flipped over (7). The players who can skillfully bet the correct amount of money to win these pots will come out of the game a winner, regardless of chance, since the cards don’t ever come into play. Anyone who excels in poker is generally following a strategy that is actually completely opposite of getting lucky and winning hands by only having the best hand when the cards are flipped over. As Howard Lederer writes:
The better a player becomes at the game, the more selective that player becomes in the hands to play. Winning poker players tend to play fewer hands, but they win a greater percentage of hands where they make a significant investment. They also win bigger pots when they win a hand, because they are skillful in their betting. (7)
Players that excel at Texas Hold’em only play the best starting hands, which are the hands that win the most when the betting is done. By folding their worse hands, they are taking away their chance of investing money into a hand that it expected to have a negative return (5-8).
Another way to prove that chance isn’t predominate in poker is by looking at games that are known to be chance. If one goes to a craps table, they cannot lose purposely. They have to let the die decide if they are going to win or lose each time they bet (Johnson). In poker, however, one can purposely lose their money in a very quick way. By putting all their chips into the pot with a bad hand over and over again, you stand to lose your money quickly. On each hand you can put all your money in as a ten to one underdog, whereas in games like craps and slots you never can put your money in as an underdog like that (Johnson). Some professors agree that this a good way to show that you must make certain skillful decisions to be able to come out ahead in poker, whereas in games of complete luck, you cannot change the outcome of any bet you make in the game (Johnson).
Those uneducated about the game will always dismiss it and put it into the same context as games that you play against the house, which are games that you will always lose long-term. Games like roulette, slots, and craps are games where you have to wager against the actual casino. The casino will set the odds of winning and each time you place a bet they have a better chance of winning the bet than the person making the bet does. Poker isn’t played against the casino, it is only played in the casino and played against other players. Charles Nesson, a Harvard law professor, is on the side of Poker as a game of skill. He says that poker "teaches thinking skills; teaches how to see from another's point of view; teaches how to assess risk, how to manage your resources” (qtd. in Monaghan A6). Also, he is against the recent legislation that bans online poker. Since the ban is only on games that are mainly determined by chance, Nesson argues that poker should be exempt.
In games such as craps, slots, or a lottery, the result is decided by chance. Poker, its proponents argue, is a game of skill. While luck determines whether a person is holding a pair of aces or a handful of duds, the game is really about betting and getting opponents to fold, so strategy, psychology, self-control, and risk-assessment mean a skilled player can win regardless of what cards she or he holds. (Johnson)
The recent legislative measures against online poker have brought about the debates about poker as a skill game. In the recent SAFE Port Act, an act focused on the ports in our country, Congress attached a completely unrelated bill on internet gambling (Schwartz 4). When this rider was attached to the bill, it wasn’t discussed before the main bill was passed. The bill was actually to ban any game that is subject to chance, which is too vague to be effective (4). Realistically, this terminology could be applied to nearly any game at all, but Congress has decided instead to focus on games that can be won by skillful play. Since the bill passed, many influential people have come to the side of poker players. One of the most influential people, former senator Alfonso D’Amato, has recently been at the forefront of the movement to get poker legalized in the United States. He recently signed a lobbying deal with a poker advocate group, the Poker Players Alliance (Rivlin and Richtel C1). Senator D’Amato also has a stance on the subject of poker being a skill game. He says that poker shouldn’t be lumped together with games of pure chance like roulette and craps, going as far as to call it a sport instead of a game (D2).
As one can see, poker is definitely a long-term game of skill. Poker was once called the Cheater’s Game, because of the type of people playing the game at the time (McManus D2). Poker is often still viewed as a game played in smoke-filled rooms with the same type of cheaters, but it is nothing like that anymore. Poker is now a highly skillful game played and supported by some of the greatest minds in the world. People that are as educated as Senator D’Amato and Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson don’t put their names on the line for something that isn’t reputable. These important people show that poker is no longer a game played in the back alleys by hustlers and cheaters. These people are backing online poker for a reason, and that reason is that it can be beaten long-term as a way to continually gain capital. Since poker is a game of skill, it can be used to provide a return for anyone who plays it, just like any other skill can provide returns in other forms. Poker should no longer be shunned to the background of society, but should be embraced as a game that people of all ages and demographics can play and win.


Works Cited
Johnson, Carolyn Y. “High stakes.” The Boston Globe 5 Nov. 2007.
<http://www.boston.com/business/artic...es?mode=PF>.
Lederer, Howard. “Is Poker a Game of Skill?” Global Poker Thinking Society.
29 Oct. 2007. <http://gpsts.org/poker-a-game-of-skill/>.
McKee, David. “Pathological gambling among the young is exaggerated, experts say.”
Las Vegas Business Press 31 Oct. 2005, sec. Page 2: 5. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Camden-Carroll Library, Morehead, Kentucky. 31 October 2007. <http://www.epnet.com>.
McManus, James. “Skill and Luck in the Two National Pastimes.” New York Times 20
Aug. 2005, sec. D: 7.
McManus, James. “Once Swept Under the Rug, Now on the Table.” New York Times
21 Jan. 2006, sec. D: 2.
Monaghan, Peter. “Betting on Students.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 54.9 (26
Oct. 2007). 12 Nov. 2007 < http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i09/09a00602.htm>.
Rivlin, Gary and Matt Richtel. “D’Amato Never Folds.” New York Times 5 Mar. 2007,
sec. C: 1-2.
Schwartz, David G. “Congress should study, not ban, ‘Net gambling.” Las Vegas
Business Press 18 Oct. 2006, sec. Opinion: 4.
“Winnings.” 18 Nov. 2007. Hold’em Manager Beta 0.55b. Roy Goncalves, 2007.


[/ QUOTE ]