Why does 2+2 call poker gambling?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
as to the horses, I think they have a fancy name, para-mutual wagering.

Come to think of it, that concept would fit poker tournaments as well, players pool money and some win a portion of the pooled money, others do not.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that even the worst house rake doesn't make you want to create this comparative link between the two types of "paramutualling"

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets call poker and all other games that you play against other people for money or prizes "gaming."

Lets call all games that you play against a "house" for money or prizes (so called "banked" games) "gambling."

If we can get this linguistic change popular, just think how it will infuriate the FOF types and the casino interests who oppose us. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Skallagrim

PS - where in this mix you put betting on other people's games (like pro sports and animal racing), I will let others decide.

[/ QUOTE ]

So flipping coins with another person for money, or running a marathon (most major mnarthons put up prize money), the tour de france, and most olympic events are gaming now?

I'd rather work to try and get the games anc activities we care about, basically poker, legal, than engage in an almost certainly futile exercize in changing popular language usage, particularly to try and make such an inconsequential distinction.

[Skallagrim]

The distinction is far from inconsequential Zetack. Separating poker from online slots (and similar games) would negate virtually every argument the FOF folks and the "gambling is dangerous" folks use against us.

Think how much was accomplished by the linguistic change from "[censored]" to "gays" and from "ni**er" to "blacks" and from "inheritence tax" to "death tax" - the examples are legion....

The point is that if you can change the language you can change the thinking.
This is a basic principle of linguistic philosophy. Read some Wittgenstein or Chomsky (on linguistics ONLY). If thats too intellectual for you, just remember the words to John Lennon's "Mind Games."

And if its just that you dont like the words I have suggested, come up with better ones!

Skallagrim

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is not gambling. Craps, blackjack and roulette is gambling. Sports betting is not gambling, like poker it takes skill to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a very, good comparisons, just somone posting on the internet that "poker is not gambling" doesn't make it true.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO it is harder to win at sports betting because you are wagering against the house that knows a lot about sports and you must pay a rake that is higher than online poker rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "the house" I assume you mean legal sportsbooks. They don't need to know anything about sports to win. In fact these days none of the major legal books set theit own initial lines. They merely adjust them to keep a near even percentage on each side of the game.

Also using your definitions a 2/4 limit game with a ten dollar rake would be gambling but one with a $1 rake would not. How do you explain this discrepancy? Face it, like it or not poker is gambling. If you don't think so have you ever had AK off , been headsup against AK off and lost the pot? Please explain how your skill made any difference at all in that hand?


Jimbo

[Skallagrim]

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

[JPFisher55]

A 2/4 limit holdem game with a $10 dollar rake would be harder to beat then one with a $1 rake, but neither is gambling. I like Skall's word "gaming." Playing poker, bridge, backgammon and gin rummy is "gaming" because the player with the most skill wins in the long run.

[eof]

so casino owners are gambling? gambling is when you get paid or not because of luck. playing poker is no different than playing chess or any other game of skill. if you put one slightly better chess player up against another slightly worse one, the slightly better one will not win every nor even necessarily the vast majority of games. chess is clearly a game of skill. poker is a game of strategy that some people bet on. basically poker is chess, and you can't make chess illegal, even online where they cheat

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
so casino owners are gambling? gambling is when you get paid or not because of luck. playing poker is no different than playing chess or any other game of skill. if you put one slightly better chess player up against another slightly worse one, the slightly better one will not win every nor even necessarily the vast majority of games. chess is clearly a game of skill. poker is a game of strategy that some people bet on. basically poker is chess, and you can't make chess illegal, even online where they cheat

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

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

[Zetack]

[ 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 ]

*Sigh*. Almost everybody, when talking about the luck component starts talking about when one hand beats another. You have to look at all the hands that were dealt in. My guess is that in a full ring game a very small percentage of hands that win, probably under ten percent, are the same hand that would have won purely by luck, that is if all hands stayed in to the river.

So if 7-2 sucks out on A-A on the river, a lot of people say, see luck won out over skill in that hand. But if somebody folded 3-9 off pre-flop which would have beat them both, the outcome of the hand has been completely changed by the exercize of skill.

And that's the basis of the argument for legalizing poker. But poker is still gambling by most resonable definitions of the word. Fortunately, most state statues that have "anti-gambling" statutes don't simply say "gambing" is illegal, they make a distinction between games of skill and game of chance. (Unfortunately, in my state the appellate courts have ruled that poker is a game of chance not a game of skill). Changing the popular defintions of the word won't have any impact on these state statutes.

And as far as trying to influence public opinion by a distinction between gambling and gaming? C'mon, most folks are going to understand gaming is a form of gambling. You need far more distinct terms. How about jousting, meaning contesting against an opponent for money? Or if you don't want an existing word, Contfomey. "Hey, I hear you're a professinal gambler! Well, no, actually, I'm a professional Contfomer - I play poker and pool for money."

Anyway, I just think thats a long slow process, with little chance of significant success, and I'd rather see poker legalized accross the country in, say, the next decade.