GPSTS conference 11/10/07 at Harvard Law School: My Thesis

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
Its still gambling right? Even blackjack is a game of skill albeit with a negative expectation, exclusive of counting, but you have to play it with basic skill to minimize the -ev. I just don't think the luck vs. skill arguement does any good, everybody here knows that for a skilled player to profit off of poker 9 out of 10 players must be overall losers. You are going to make the arguement that it should be legalized for that 1 in 10 skilled player? I just want to be able to gamble legally, whats wrong with that? The bottom line to making it legal is to show someone in power the money and that they are not getting it when they could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There difference is this. No matter how optimal a players performance at a game like Blackjack, they are ALWAYS going to be looking at a negative expectation, over the long run. Keep in mind, the long run is what matters, both in poker and in life. Anyone can get lucky and pick up a 10 one night at a bar in their lifetime, but it is a combination of the luck involved with personal traits and the experience to take advantage of these situations over and over. Refer to the Nash Equilibrium. I would argue that on any given night in a bar, there are several players all using their abilities to reach the same goal. However, in most cases anyways....lol, only one player can be successful. I attest to you that the winner of this game is such because his SKILL was superior over his villain's. Agreed or not?

Contrary to the game on blackjack, poker is a game that has and can be beaten over the long run via superior skill. Proposing that the gambling that goes on in the game of blackjack is relative to that which goes on in games of poker, is to say that, for example, player such as Chip Reese , Doyle Brunson, and Stu Ungar are merely extraordinarily "lucky".

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Once they understand the similarities, we can help the understand how luck (deviations from expectation) has only an affect on the short term.

Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is if I get hit in a car crash by a drunk driver and die this has no long term effect?

I can now sleep easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain your thought process. I don't understand how you came to this conclusion....

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
Luck: Finding a property that is 20% below market value.

Skill: Figuring out how you "stumbled across that property" and doing it over and over again [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It is the skill acquired through experience and understanding which causes a real estate agent to take advantage of an opportunity like this whereas a randomly chosen player would not have the same outcome over the long run.

What I'm saying, even IMO, sounds so elementary but THAT is exactly the reason that the argument against legalizing poker is so absurd.

[felixleong]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is chastised constanty because of the well known luck factor involved in the game. As I spoke with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson about on Saturday, our goal through the GPSTS should be to help people realize how much luck is involved in every single day of their lives, through work, relationships, family, etc. Think about how many crucial factors along your lifeline have been completely out of your control.

Once they understand the similarities, we can help the understand how luck (deviations from expectation) has only an affect on the short term. Like in poker, it is not the presence of luck in the short term, but the level of SKILL over the long term which will affect the outcome and SUCCESS we achieve in our lifetime.

Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow , that sounds very interesting.
yeah luck affects a lot of things in life

I'm curious how do calculate luck?

[felixleong]

luck exist anywhere everywhere

i get outdrawn on the river in poker and lose a big pot

i can also get "bad beat" at work if my boss catchs me now posting at 2+2 forum instead of focusing on my current project

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

luck comes and goes
skill is forever
Felix

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is chastised constanty because of the well known luck factor involved in the game. As I spoke with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson about on Saturday, our goal through the GPSTS should be to help people realize how much luck is involved in every single day of their lives, through work, relationships, family, etc. Think about how many crucial factors along your lifeline have been completely out of your control.

Once they understand the similarities, we can help the understand how luck (deviations from expectation) has only an affect on the short term. Like in poker, it is not the presence of luck in the short term, but the level of SKILL over the long term which will affect the outcome and SUCCESS we achieve in our lifetime.

Thoughts/Discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow , that sounds very interesting.
yeah luck affects a lot of things in life

I'm curious how do calculate luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a good question, but not one I can answer. I'm 22 yrs old and have absolutely no educational background in this area. I've formed these opinions from my own experiences and observations.

I would love to see a response from anyone who could even begin to formulate any kind of equation that ends intself to this topic though....can't imagine how.....but that would really give me a lot of hope for the sustained prestige of these forums....

[0524432]

My point exactly.....now IYO, how does this lend itself to the argument going on through legislation right now?

[waarior]

I think there is a general unwillingness to accept such a conclusion because it runs contrary to the American ideal. If you work hard --> success will follow. The ethos doesn't really allow for someone to work hard and fail, even if it was just bad luck.

There is obviously a spectrum of luck----skill with poker falling somewhere in the middle. Clearly more towards the luck limit than skill in the short term.

I think the most interesting comparison would be to sports. One of the reasons I believe they are so popular is the belief that the winner "deserves" to win through their hard work, preparation etc. Luck is grudgingly acknowledged sometimes but its contributions discounted.

On one hand, you have poker where most view it as predominately luck and on the other, sports where it is primarily viewed as completely skill based. Interestingly the more games ones plays in both activities the less luck involved. But that is no consolation for the team that suffers from the bad call, or the hand of god in the final.

Definitely an interesting topic though.

[0524432]

Thats the point, where is the line that is crossed that makes a suckout in poker more or less "lucky" than one of the MANY uncontrollable events that occur in sports? Which I am not even going to begin to list ffs....

What it is that makes, for example, Brian or Taylor's preparation to play the HSNL games with the best of the best any less respectable than the preparation that an NFL team takes in the film room?

[ContactGSW]

I understand to an extent, but please clarify your goals. I am just a chop at poker although I am still in the black. I play it for entertainment only, as do most, because 9 of 10 of us lose, we like the gamble of having the cards fall right on a good night (and the skilled poker players want us to have plenty of those good nights too). We want the ability to play online easily, and go to local card clubs. What does the skill over luck argument do for us? Just let us chops play poker, collect the government cut and let the majority gamble at this game, believe me the skilled players need this more than anything.