Why does 2+2 call poker gambling?

[Skallagrim]

Most folks instinctively understand the difference between playing chess or bridge for money and playing craps or slots for money. They have no problem with the former, and think people who play the latter for anything more than "fun money" are fools, degenerates, or addicts.

To get legislative change we need to show the average person who does not really understand the depth of the game of poker that playing poker for money is more like playing chess than it is like playing craps.

Having a word change will hardly accomplish this on its own, but it will help. When people unfamiliar with it say "poker is gambling" they are thinking its just like craps: you need to know what you are doing, but your results are due to chance. By saying in response "poker is NOT gambling its [whatever word you choose]" we begin the education process that moves poker in that average person's mind from the bad connotation/category (risking money on your luck) to the good connotation/category (risking money on your skill).

Skallagrim

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

To get legislative change we need to show the average person who does not really understand the depth of the game of poker that playing poker for money is more like playing chess than it is like playing craps.

I smiled when I read this if for two reasons. First, this is the exact opposite of what we want to do when we're playing. Personally, I prefer it if my table has some people at it who view poker like roulette.

Second, the thing we need to do to get legislative backing is to show that a) internet poker will not dilute B&M casino revenue, and b) that the tax revenue from legal gambling will outweigh the nebulous "societal costs" of gambling.

Here is a link on the Boston Globe site that has compiled all the editorials and op-ed pieces on casino gambling. Note that the entire discussion (except Jeff Jacoby's piece) focuses on tax revenue vs. impact on society.

If we're going to appeal to politicians, we have to speak their language.

[Skallagrim]

It is ironic that what may be good for the game legally is not necessarily whats good for the game financially [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. But so be it, I doubt that anyone but the newest noob who plays doesnt realize that poker requires at least some skill/judgment.

As to speaking politician's language, you are right, but not including the whole picture. Politicians also worry about votes (money comes first, but they know that without votes they are in no position to get the money). So if most of a district is strongly "anti-gambling" no amount of lobbying or arguing is going to get the Rep. from that district to support gambling. But if you can get a good number of those anti-gambling folks to stop being anti-poker, then you have an opportunity to change that Representative too.

Specifically, one way to deal with the concerns of "cost to society" is to show that poker, being a skill game, is not like other "gambling" in creating those costs - in fact, it creates far fewer costs than things like slots and roulette. That is clearly one way to respond to the "too many social costs" crowd: poker being a game of skill between people is not what has been studied, and is far different from those "addictive" games of chance played by people against a casino.

To ultimately win we have to put ALL of these arguments forward.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
To get legislative change we need to show the average person who does not really understand the depth of the game of poker that playing poker for money is more like playing chess than it is like playing craps.

I smiled when I read this if for two reasons. First, this is the exact opposite of what we want to do when we're playing. Personally, I prefer it if my table has some people at it who view poker like roulette.

Second, the thing we need to do to get legislative backing is to show that a) internet poker will not dilute B&M casino revenue, and b) that the tax revenue from legal gambling will outweigh the nebulous "societal costs" of gambling.

Here is a link on the Boston Globe site that has compiled all the editorials and op-ed pieces on casino gambling. Note that the entire discussion (except Jeff Jacoby's piece) focuses on tax revenue vs. impact on society.

If we're going to appeal to politicians, we have to speak their language.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an interesting article about the ultimate effects of a fully implemented UIGEA pushing on-line gaming further out of reach of regulators. The net effect of which is to create money flows even more likely to be misused by criminals.

Most Amercians are willing to pay taxes when they percieve a benifit. Right now under-reporting gaming winnings seems to have reached the tipping point in the equation.

The Gov't faces a choice, IMO, they can continue to attempt to stick their fingers in a very leaky dyke (the internet) or let us player legally draw the water from the lake.

Take e-pass for example, that is a 5% tax on deposits that goes uncollected although imposed by Congress. If the UIGEA is fully implemented that tax rate will go up.

Prohibition is the perfect example. All attempts to ban led to more crime and a lousey product, no body was saved, many died. Taxes and regulation led to the elimination of the criminal element and a much safer, even cheaper product.

D$D

[Impact]

Is playing poker with play money gambling? Doesnt seem like it. But its still "poker" right?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
Is playing poker with play money gambling? Doesnt seem like it. But its still "poker" right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah. The wagering is the key part of the game. Play money is not real poker.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Play money is not real poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

.... because play money affects how people actually play poker, so it's not quite the same thing.

[DoTheMath]

Poker is a form of gambling. Bets are made.

Read, among other things, SSHE's sections "Gambling Concepts Introduction" and "Fundamental Gambling Concepts". In that book, Miller et al. seem to think that it is important to remember that playing poker IS gambling.

There is an important distinction between games of skill and games of chance. This distinction is important because of laws which treat the two forms of gambling differently. However, the distinction is not between some things which ARE gambling and some things which ARE NOT gambling. It is a distinction between two forms of gambling.

Read the article posted by Skallagrim carefuly. It does not claim that betting on games of skill is not gambling. It says it is not illegal gambling.

Sure, try to find a euphemism for gambling that will make poker more acceptable. Definitely provoke discussions that highlight the difference between games of skill and games of chance, and that demonstrate that poker is a game of skill. Just don't make the mistake of denying what poker really is: a gambling game.