(Revised) Poll: is poker gambling or not?

[Chris Alger]

I would appreciate votes and feedback on what might appear to be a fairly simple question. The issue is whether poker should be considered gambling according to a particular definition.

[cowboyzfan]

poker is gambling. you bet money hoping to win, most lose. I understand your desire to not calling it gambling. Yet, Ed Miller clearly explained why it is gambling in his book, Small Stakes Hold'em.

To me, this issue is tough because most Americans want the government to solve all their problems. We are a society of victims, with no desire to have personal responsibility.

Then enemies of personal responsibility can never explain why the government has the right to tell people what they can and can't do with their money. You know they are completly out of ammo when they say "it is for the children".

The problem with this online gambling issue is that those who support it, have no natural allies. The left wants the governement to control their economic lives and the right wants them to control their social lives.

Some have mentioned the name Jack Abramoff in this issue. But Abramoff was supporting Indian casinos, in other words, attacking gaming in other venues. Same with Vegas, they don't want a free reign for online gambling, they want Americans to be forced to go to Nevada or AC to gamble.

I don't see any indigenous American special interest fighting for the rights of freedom.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
"Gambling" means risking money on the outcome of an event over which the person taking the risk has no control.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a rough part to work through. I can see it going either way, but I voted for it is.

[grapabo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Gambling" means risking money on the outcome of an event over which the person taking the risk has no control.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a rough part to work through. I can see it going either way, but I voted for it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of had the same issue. Yes, at the end of the decision-making process, one has no control over the outcome when the risk is taken, but the skill in poker is deciding whether and when to take that risk, and to maximize the amount of control over the outcome as much as possible. This is particularly true in games where you're up against other people, as opposed to the house games.

[Hybrid_11]

but technically speaking you have no control, and theres no way to change that, a clear yes to the question. You'll never have control, there is no way you cant consider it anything but gambling.

[Hellmouth]

Poker is gambling in the short term, skill over the long term. Although we cannot influence the cards, by playign proper strategy we can eek out a small +EV.

Greg

[jaffa]

The element of bluff, means that you would have some control. If you were a good player you'd be able to win hands you wouldn't otherwise win. Also, it, technically, could be possible to win almost every hand if you were so amazing at bluffing and general play that you could convince everyone at the table you had the best hand each time. Obviously no one actually exists like this, but it the rules allow it to happen. Also, because you can fold, after seeing your cards, preflop, without putting money into the pot, that surely counts as some control. I voted no anyway. But its a tough call, and is that the standard definition of gambling?

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is gambling in the short term, skill over the long term. Although we cannot influence the cards, by playign proper strategy we can eek out a small +EV.

Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does +EV mean skill?

If the rake was incredibly high, making it unprofitable for every player, would the game still be skill?

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is gambling in the short term, skill over the long term. Although we cannot influence the cards, by playign proper strategy we can eek out a small +EV.

Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does +EV mean skill?

If the rake was incredibly high, making it unprofitable for every player, would the game still be skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the game can not possibly be +EV without skill based on the current rake structure. If things change than they change. However it doesnt change the fact that even 10K hands are not enough to prove that you are a long term winner. You need more to minimize the effect of luck on your win rate. Thus my origional statement is correct.

Greg

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is gambling in the short term, skill over the long term. Although we cannot influence the cards, by playign proper strategy we can eek out a small +EV.

Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly stated .... long term it is a game of skill ... short term it is luck