Poker is or is not gambling

DeVore

I'm going to try to explain why we have a difference of opinion with "poker is or isnt gambling". Is this descends into a slagging match, I'll fry EVERYONE involved. Pithy quips or no.

Some people define gambling as any game where there is chance involved and a wager is staked on the outcome. Backgammon for example would fall into this definition. Yes its a skilled game but even a muppet can win occasionally because the dice favour him.

I define gambling as an activity where experience, skill and intellect cannot be brought to bear to such an extent that a positive expectation is achieveable from a wager on the outcome.

A wha?!

Here's an example:
Roulette is gambling to me because no matter how smart I am and how brick-stupid Lafortezza* is, when we put our money down on Red or Black we have the same chance of winning, and also (and more importantly) neither of is capable (regardless of skill) to effect a situation where we are on the "right side of the odds". I hope I dont have to explain what the "right side of the odds" is to anyone here.

Blackjack is also gambling to me because while I can make my likelihood of winning increase beyond Lafortezza's* by use of intellect and skill, I cannot make it such that I can be on the "right side of the odds". This fulfils criteria one but not criteria two.

Poker is not gambling because it can (for SOME PEOPLE) fulfil both criteria.
When asked if he was a gambler, Stu Ungar said "no, but the people who sit with me are".

Now, if you define gambling by the FIRST definition then yes, I am a gambler by your terms. If you use the second then I'm not (or at least I believe I'm not )
Language only works because we have a consensus of commonly held mental images and definitions transmitted from person to person by gutteral tones and/or line-drawings.
This is where we are breaking down.

The confusion is that we are not using a common definition of the word "gambling" and any meaningful discussion needs to have that bedrock sorted out.

The anger from certain quarters is coming from the fact that many people attach unnecessary, inaccurate and negative mental images to the word "gambler". Personally it makes me think of old men who are addicted to betting on horses walking out of a bookies trailing receipts having spent the kids' shoe money on a "hot tip".

I find having that label and the corresponding implication put on me highly highly offensive. I dont think I've EVER been in a bookies in my life. Not even Paddy Powers


Curious Fact:
I bet well over 1 Million euros worth of debt, about 40,000 worth of equipment and 12 peoples jobs on the chance that my company's sales would improve by the end of the quarter. They didn't.

To this day I find it ironic that it wasnt until a year later people referred to me as a "gambler".

Often the manner in which it is said, with a lowering of the voice and a wrinkling of the nose, seems to imply that I have been somehow found to interfere with dogs!

DeV.

* I picked Lafortezza for this example because he was one person I could be sure wouldn't go spazzo and start a 15 page derailment. **

** Plus he's as smart as a brick.

ocallagh

Just like Horse racing is not gambling, you cannot define poker as gambling either:):).. ok you're wondering what the **** im talking about..

Horse racing as a sport is not gambling.. but taking bad odds against a bookie on the outcome of a horse race IS gambling. If you continually got good odds on the outcome of a horse race you'd always make money (in the long run). This is what bookies do.. and in the same way this is what a professional poker player does. He continually gives his opponents bad odds. The professional poker player and the bookie are not the gamblers.. The idiots who take them up on these bets are the gamblers.

So in summary,

A good poker player with a proper bankroll and good game selection is not a gambler.
A bad poker player who has no bankroll but occasionally sits into the larger cash games IS a gambler.


and to add:
IMO, some poker players have a more steady income than anyone else. Some poker players are that good that they will never lose money in the long run. You cannot say the same for property investors in Dublin.. or especially for investors over the last week or two on the ISE. Also, a professional poker player will never get the sack!!:)

Tar.Aldarion

Poker is like investing imo, neither are gambling. Nobody would call investing gambling, it takes skill as well as chance. It depends on ones definition of gambling.
In some definitions it is, in others it is not.
I don't think it is, it comes down to control, you have control in poker and similarly investing.
Should I sit at this table? Should I sit at that seat? Should i bluff? Should I semibluff? SHould I invest in that area? Should I rent the place? Should I raise or lower the rent? Etc.
You make the key decisions, you can win at a disadvantage, it takes skill. Not gambling in my books.
It's all about image, either it's not gambling or a hell of a lot of things that people consider to not be gambling, are gambling.

nesf

I'd go with the dictionary definition that gambling is wagering money on an uncertain outcome, regardless of whether the odds are with you or against you*. The difference being important only when distinguishing a good gambler from a bad gambler. You can stack the expectation as far as you want into the positive, but unless you have an infinite pool of money and hands then it is still an uncertain outcome even if you play perfectly. You could just have a very bad and sustained run of luck.

There are negative connotations associated with gambling and I can respect people not wishing to have "gambling" as a hobby but tbh I can't see poker in any other way. Then I was raised around "good" gambling and knowing odds etc, so maybe I'm more comfortable with the tag than most.


*It does have other definitons that people have more issues with which is different. But I'll take the most common and standard one here.

Iago

I have a running argument on a daily basis with my father on this very subject.

His contention, all forms of games/lotteries/investing etc is gambling because you are taking a monetary risk with them, with a less than 100% guarantee of a better return than investment.

My contention, when I play Poker I will get a better return than investment. It might not be today, or next week, or next month but over a long enough period of time I will make more money than I lose. I believe this because I believe that I'm a far better player than most people who play the stakes I play at.

I can back that up by pointing to my results over the last 12 months and showing that even though I lost money on given days, weeks and months, over the 12 months I made a 4-figure profit. Not bad for a year playing $5-$15 STTs and micro-limit cash games part-time.

In saying that, I have become a little disillusioned recently. I'm on a bad run and variance is killing me. I've lost just over $1k in the last 3 weeks, and each hand I lost big money on I was way ahead when the money went in. Now $1k is a lot of money for the levels I play at, but it's not a "huge" deal to me because I could afford to lose it. Still, there's a part of me that thinks I could have withdrawn that $1K and done something more productive with it. That dilemma is a whole other subject though!

I know that if I continue to play at the same levels over the next 12 months I will cover that $1K loss, and make a profit on top of that, from my point of view that means that Poker isn't gambling as I'm sure that I will make profit over a 12 month period, I see it like a saving account. When I lose money that's a withdrawal, when I win money it's interest accrued..thankfully my bank manager is very understanding and gives me a very good interest deal

DeVore

"His contention, all forms of games/lotteries/investing etc is gambling because you are taking a monetary risk with them, with a less than 100% guarantee of a better return than investment."

By that definition, all forms of commerce are gambling.

DeV.

RoundTower

Poker is gambling. Like backgammon, horses, scrabble, scratchcards, greyhounds, roulette, the stock market, the currency market, real estate, almost all business, guts, blackjack, card counting in blackjack, sports betting, the Lotto, the insurance industry, punto banco, Prize Bonds, and variable-rate mortgages. And it's not close.

An example of something I wouldn't consider gambling would be playing chess for money. And this one is close.

nesf

Iago wrote:

His contention, all forms of games/lotteries/investing etc is gambling because you are taking a monetary risk with them, with a less than 100% guarantee of a better return than investment.

Explain to him that he needs to account for inflation with investments. It basically kills "safe" options like deposit accounts and the safest bonds. Most of the other forms of investment that give you more than inflation in returns entail some degree of risk. There are the occasional anomalies such as SSIAs and arbitrage but generally it's the case.

All forms of high return investments involve high degrees of risk. There are few ways around that, and almost all of them are not available to private individuals.

Iago wrote:

My contention, when I play Poker I will get a better return than investment. It might not be today, or next week, or next month but over a long enough period of time I will make more money than I lose. I believe this because I believe that I'm a far better player than most people who play the stakes I play at.

Not true mate. You are not guaranteed that return. Your skill level could make it likely, or more than likely, but never makes it 100%. Even the best player can go bust and not recover if he's unlucky.

Iago wrote:

I can back that up by pointing to my results over the last 12 months and showing that even though I lost money on given days, weeks and months, over the 12 months I made a 4-figure profit. Not bad for a year playing $5-$15 STTs and micro-limit cash games part-time.

Nice stats.

Doesn't mean that it isn't gambling and that there isn't uncertainty involved though tbh.

Iago wrote:

I know that if I continue to play at the same levels over the next 12 months I will cover that $1K loss, and make a profit on top of that, from my point of view that means that Poker isn't gambling as I'm sure that I will make profit over a 12 month period, I see it like a saving account. When I lose money that's a withdrawal, when I win money it's interest accrued..thankfully my bank manager is very understanding and gives me a very good interest deal

The problems are:

a) What happens if the game becomes unpopular and all the micro games start loosing their fish? Is your present level down to the standard of your opponents more than your skill or is it relatively independant of the stakes you play at?

b) Looking at losses as a form of withdrawl is maybe not the best idea. You should look at them as a "downturn in the market" or similar if you want your analogy to work imho.

c) As a professional player your "interest" could work out as a lot less than the "interest" you could get by working. Not that money is the be all and end all of playing poker (imho it shouldn't be just about the money if you are planning on going pro) but if you focus too much on the money side of poker a few bad months could break you.

nesf

DeVore wrote:

By that definition, all forms of commerce are gambling.

Essentially that is the case, and in some circles the idea of risking money on a business venture is almost as looked down upon as risking €5,000 euro on a greyhound.

DOLEMAN

The problem I have with this is as an ex-bookie employee, I can tell you that pretty much everyone (bar 0.00001% of people) have overall loses when it comes to betting on Soccer, Horses etc.

Same goes for poker. I was able to see peoples overall loses as well.

The thing is that everytime I spoke to a gambler/pokerer they always told me they were up (positive balance) and that they knew what they were doing.

It seems gambling causes all kinds of living in denial activity.

Gambling is when you sit at a table or computer and are unsure as to whether you will be up money or not. If it is not guaranteed, it's gambling. Poker is gambling.

I would also agree that investing on the stock market is a form of gambling. The share prices are in general determined by the public, and we all know how clever the general public is...

Imposter

The definition of gambling is different for everyone and depends more on the person's personality than any dictionary definition of the word imo. Ok occasionally it could also be a person's blind stupidity but that's another argument. At the extreme's the following two cases are probably good examples:

Take a church-going person who works a standard 9-5 job. Chances are they see 'gambling' as bad and this person is very conservative and rarely takes a risk with anything.

Take a successful businessman. His attitude is much more likely to be that gambling is a risk but that it can be a measured risk.

Now take the first persons opinion of the second person. They generally look up to the second person but fail to realise that they are successful because they've taken risks. That's the stupidity part.

The other thing with gambling then is the difference between a successful gambler and a not so successful gambler. The successful one is likely to be more honest about his abilities and results whereas the losing gambler is likly to work off delusions of one form or another. I think most of us have these delusions but the extent of them determine how close we come to each extreme.

These delusions range from the fact that we are a winning player or not, the fact that we can actually beat the game we are in, the fact that a run of negative variance is actually based on the fall of the cards and not the way we are playing them as well as others.

nesf

Imposter wrote:

Take a church-going person who works a standard 9-5 job. Chances are they see 'gambling' as bad and this person is very conservative and rarely takes a risk with anything.

Take a successful businessman. His attitude is much more likely to be that gambling is a risk but that it can be a measured risk.

Now take the first persons opinion of the second person. They generally look up to the second person but fail to realise that they are successful because they've taken risks. That's the stupidity part.

That's something that's been on my mind the past few months actually. People don't seem to be able to link measured risk and success in business. Or the opposite where people have all these great business ideas but when you sit down with them and thrash it out they haven't evaluated the level of risk at all and seem to think that it just works out on it's own through some magical means or something.

The strangest thing is people's perception of the whole thing. Technically I gamble for a living. I work for a tiny company (ie me and my father) and we work in a very specialised area of sales taking quite large but very measured risks that work out well for us. But people wouldn't view us as gambling for a living because we wear suits and are "sucessful business people". Messed up if you ask me. The risks we have to take at times make professional poker playing look like a safe bet tbh. In poker it is far easier to control matters, business involves far more outside influences and effects imho.

El Stuntman

you were doing so well until you picked Stu Ungar as an example to support your argument - lifetime winner at poker/gin rummy/blackjack who gave it all back and more on sports betting....

back of the class!!!

brianmc

"Gamble" is a word with a dictionary definition.

Merriam Webster Dictionary wrote:

Main Entry: 1gam·ble
Pronunciation: 'gam-b&l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gam·bled; gam·bling /-b(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: probably back-formation from gambler, probably alteration of obsolete gamner, from obsolete gamen (to play)
intransitive senses
1 a : to play a game for money or property b : to bet on an uncertain outcome
2 : to stake something on a contingency : take a chance
transitive senses
1 : to risk by gambling : WAGER
2 : VENTURE, HAZARD
- gam·bler /-bl&r/ noun

How can poker not be gambling?

If you are smart then poker is not stupid gambling but it is gambling.

And yes - so are business, stock markets, love, life, religion etc.

(I would prefer not to have the stigmatised label "gambler" put on me but technically speaking it's what I am)

Puteq

This is an interesting point to raise, the definition of gambling. Life is risk, everything you do is a gamble if you want to look at it that way. The societal perception that gamblers are to be spoken of with a lowering of the voice and a wrinkling of the nose (as the OP said) is just that, a perception, without realisation that people perceived as 'gamblers' are on the same continuum as people considered as 'normal church going 9-5ers'.

So the real question regarding gambling is not whether someone is a gambler or not, but rather how far along the line of gambling do you consider unacceptable. I would both agree and disagree with Tar.Aldarion when he said “Poker is like investing imo, neither are gambling.” - poker is like investing, in that both are gambling, like everything else. But poker and investing are more extreme forms of gambling than, say, crossing the road.

I would not have any problem with anyone labelling me as a ‘gambler’ since I know that everyone is a gambler, whether they acknowledge it or not.

padraig_f

Poker is gambling. If you can lose money as well as win money, you're gambling. I don't see how your long-term expectation changes anything.

e.g. If I have a positive expectation at my weekly home game and some other players there don't. When we sit down to play the game, they're gambling and I'm not?

Lafortezza

Roulette, Blackjack and Poker are all gambling. It's a 50-50 shot, you either win money or you don't.

Ardent

All things being equal, it's gambling. I used to think otherwise. But we're talking about the turn of a card after all.

As Sammy Farha is fond of saying: "You've got to gamble to win!"

ianmc38

padraig_f wrote:

Poker is gambling. If you can lose money as well as win money, you're gambling. I don't see how your long-term expectation changes anything.

Nuff said.

Lots of people who back horses have an edge over many others that back them. For example, I know nothing about horses but would stick the odd bet on. Fade2Black, the horse racing mod, would understand and follow form, weight, ground etc and could therefore make more informed bets than me. Similarly, a professional gambler who bets on the GGs can probably do this better than Fade2Black. This difference in skill does not chaange the bottom line that they are gambling.

brianmc

Cue: Can of worms.

How many of us are gambling addicts?

I'm not saying that many or any of us have gambling problems but I suspect (oddswise) that some of us do.

Poker is gambling (IMO) BUT I know that each of us do have a long term EV that is either + or -.

Gambling brings some very intense psychological issues into play. I don't think that this depends on our long term EV, i.e. I think these influences are the same for those with +EV as those with -EV. So, I beleive that you can be a poker (gambling) addict but not necessarily have problems due to it.

Culchie

ianmc38 wrote:

Nuff said.

Lots of people who back horses have an edge over many others that back them. For example, I know nothing about horses but would stick the odd bet on. Fade2Black, the horse racing mod, would understand and follow form, weight, ground etc and could therefore make more informed bets than me. Similarly, a professional gambler who bets on the GGs can probably do this better than Fade2Black. This difference in skill does not chaange the bottom line that they are gambling.

From what I've seen Fade2Black and the boys on the racing forum here outperform every tipster known to man.

btw Poker is gambling. If you are wagering to win, it is gambling.

Ste05

I think we seem to be in agreement that Poker is gambling. But I would consider that a Long Term Profitable Poker Player is akin to a bookie. They are sitting on slightly more information that the average punter, but nonetheless if they have a bad Cheltenham, then they issue Profit Warnings, which is just like a bad run of Variance for the Poker Player.

Where I think the problems are is when a Pro Poker player is referred to as a Pro Gambler (which IMO they are - just as Paddy Power, Mr. Ladbrokes, etc is) is what the perception in this country of what a "Gambler" is. Alot of people in this country would lump in Professional Poker players in the same barrel with Problem Gamblers. Except the only difference would be that they're just getting lucky at the moment or have some trick, but: "it won't last!! He won't be able to give it up, and *when* it starts to go bad, what then??"

And with images and stereotypes floating around the country of a Charlo Spencer type character and (as Dev put it so well) "old men who are addicted to betting on horses walking out of a bookies trailing receipts having spent the kids' shoe money on a "hot tip".

I think this stereotype has been in this country for generations and is only now *starting* to change.

Like Iago I also have an ongoing debate with my mother about Poker, and it's led me to the conclusion that in this country the older generations have the stereotype above firmly tattooed in their mind and they think that if you get caught up in gambling, in any form, even if you're doing well, it's just a matter of time before you lose it all and you're the one heading down to the bookies with your kids lunch money and the family Jewellery to bet it all on "a sure thing" running in the 4.20 at Kempton! It's like they view Poker as the "Gateway drug" into the harder stuff!! But once you're in ... you're in!!

The problem now is how do you convince them that it's not like this when it comes to Poker?? I find a quick BR management talk works well. (at least for that evening)

ntlbell

There's some interesting posts on rec.gambling.poker

I like this.

Poster 1 wrote:

There's a rather wonderful line in 'Big Deal' by Tony Holden.


In an early part of the book, Holden is explaining that gamblers are always
taking the worst of it, whereas good poker players are making bets with odds on
their side. Anyway, the line goes something like this:


"Poker isn't gambling, to the contrary, gambling is a style of playing poker,
and a loose and losing style at that."

Poster 2 wrote:

I remember reading that. I also remember thinking at the
time, "Tony Holden is full of ****".

BigDragon

When any activity in life involves the the use of money to gain then the difference between 'gambling' and 'not gambling' is bankroll management.

Living expenses, mortgages, investments, having kids, buying a new car, holiday choices, that flat screen TV, starting a business.

All bankroll management. If you dont practise it youre gambling.

nesf

I grew up around cards so it's odd for me. My mother doesn't approve per sae of me playing cards, but since me, my brother, my sister and my father all play regularily she can't really say much. She's the only one in the family that doesn't play actually. My partner just thinks that it's a pretty decent hobby. Sure there's variance but once you mind your bankroll and keep it seperate from the house money etc there isn't an issue there really. At the tiny levels I play at a night's poker gone bad is no worse than a night's heavy drinking expense wise really.

jacQues

Also read my post in the other thread.

The definition of gambling is staking (a fair chance to lose) your bankroll (investment). Full stop.

Take the roulette example. If it is a pure gambling game, then is the house gambling? Seriously. Is the casino gambling that they will make profits with it?

NO.

If you have a ~3% edge over the field, then you are not gambling. For roulette the casino has a ~3% edge over the punter. For poker the pro has a 3% edge over the other players. You may suffer a 'bad beat' (poker pro) or 'lucky punter' (roulette). But over the long run you will always be up. You still need cash (bankroll) management though. Otherwise it may still go bad for you.

Thus, if you are a poker pro you do not have a gambling career. Just like a casino isn't a company that gambles itself. However, in contrast, every hand played is a gamble, just like every spin of the wheel. Also note that all other poker players (non-pros) by this definition are gamblers.

jacQues

Ste05

BigDragon wrote:

When any activity in life involves the the use of money to gain then the difference between 'gambling' and 'not gambling' is bankroll management.

Living expenses, mortgages, investments, having kids, buying a new car, holiday choices, that flat screen TV, starting a business.

All bankroll management. If you dont practise it youre gambling.

Couldn't agree more. Proper BankRoll management in Poker and Cashflow management in business, is usually the difference between success and failure.

As we're told so often "Past performance is not a guide to future performance, investments can fall as well as rise". In every facet of life you need a safety net...

nesf

Ste05 wrote:

Couldn't agree more. Proper BankRoll management in Poker and Cashflow management in business, is usually the difference between success and failure.

As we're told so often "Past performance is not a guide to future performance, investments can fall as well as rise". In every facet of life you need a safety net...

But all bankroll management, fund management and cashflow management do is reduce the risk to acceptable levels it doesn't remove it and transmute gambling into "not-gambling". It's intelligent and responsible behaviour, but it doesn't change the nature of the beast really.

bohsman

"Cue: Can of worms.

How many of us are gambling addicts?"


I wouldnt class myself as a gambling addict, it has been at least 90 minutes since I last gambled ($10k worth of pai gow) and Im not planning on gambling in the next 20 minutes or so.

Hitman Actual

One theme I'm getting from this thread is that those players who say poker isn't gambling use the fact that they will have a positive expectation in the long run. IMO, this doesn't in any way change the fact that you're still gambling. You're staking money on a game of chance, so by definition you're gambling, end of story. Every dictionary known to man has that definition in some form or another (staking money on a game of chance). It's nothing to do with skill levels, positive expectation, bankroll management, etc. If it was, we should apply to have every dictionary entry changed as follows:

v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles
v. intr.

1. 1. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest, except where a person has sufficient skill levels and applies proper bankroll management.
   2. To play a game of chance for stakes, except where a person has sufficient skill levels and applies proper bankroll management.

ecksor

DeVore wrote:

"His contention, all forms of games/lotteries/investing etc is gambling because you are taking a monetary risk with them, with a less than 100% guarantee of a better return than investment."

By that definition, all forms of commerce are gambling.

So? I thought you were a gambler when I worked for you in Spin. The first time I was referred to as a gambler wasn't anything to do with poker, it was having a discussion about me packing in my job and pissing off to study for a couple of years. I agree with nesf, there already is a working definition of this word and you're trying to change that just don't like the ignorant connotations that the general public have of it. But why would you give a damn about that anyway? I'm reminded of the change in the use of the word "hacker" because some journalists got hold of it and started using it to mean things that it didn't.

DOLEMAN

padraig_f wrote:

Poker is gambling. If you can lose money as well as win money, you're gambling. I don't see how your long-term expectation changes anything.

e.g. If I have a positive expectation at my weekly home game and some other players there don't. When we sit down to play the game, they're gambling and I'm not?

Excellent point Padraig.

Hitman Actual

ecksor wrote:

I agree with nesf, there already is a working definition of this word and you're trying to change that just don't like the ignorant connotations that the general public have of it.

Exactly, people are choosing to interpret the term in the way that most suits them.

ecksor

jacQues wrote:

Take the roulette example. If it is a pure gambling game, then is the house gambling? Seriously. Is the casino gambling that they will make profits with it?

NO.

What assumptions are you making here? Take a couple of examples, when Kerry Packer visited the European casinos, how well he did would have a huge impact on the bottom line of those operations at the end of the year because of the amount he would wager during his visits. Benny Binion's policy of allowing people to bet huge amounts lead to some punter famously coming along with something like a million dollars and started to parlay that on roulette or craps or one of those games and started to go on a winning streak. They continued to accept his bets, but if he had run hot for a significant amount of time then they would have gone broke. Simple as that. BigD's definition above would step in and say that it's about bankroll management but where exactly are you drawing the line? And what exactly is your source for the definition of gambling you use above?

jacQues

lenny_leonard wrote:

One theme I'm getting from this thread is that those players who say poker isn't gambling use the fact that they will have a positive expectation in the long run. IMO, this doesn't in any way change the fact that you're still gambling. You're staking money on a game of chance, so by definition you're gambling, end of story.

I think most here would agree that playing roulette (as a punter) is gambling. At the same time I think most would agree that the casino is not gambling when offering roulette as a game.

When the punter bets, according to some statements in this thread, the casino is also gambling. So why isn't is considered gambling? Because of the house edge! If you are better than the other players (player vs. player edge), is it still gambling? How is this different than a house vs. player edge?

So the bottom line is:

1) Playing a poker hand is always gambling.

2a) A poker professional's career is not a gambling career. All other players are gambling though.
or
2b) All poker players are gambling.

Use 2a or 2b according to your own thoughts/feeling. But if you go for 2b, in my opinion, then you are stating that casinos gamble when offering roulette as a game...

jacQues

Ste05

nesf wrote:

But all bankroll management, fund management and cashflow management do is reduce the risk to acceptable levels it doesn't remove it and transmute gambling into "not-gambling". It's intelligent and responsible behaviour, but it doesn't change the nature of the beast really.

I didn't mean that BR management changes the fact that Poker is gambling,

All I was saying was that proper BR management reduces the risk of ruin for a Poker Professional, or allows a business to survive (and hopefully prosper), as in all business: "Cash is King" (Casfhlow management), and that includes a Profession in Poker (Bankroll management) proper controls of both will increase the chances of success, or at least make success possible, however, without it failure is inevitable.

As I said before, Bankroll management, like cashflow management in business, is very often the difference between success and failure. Without it you have little hope, with it you at least have a chance...

nesf

Ste05 wrote:

I didn't mean that BR management changes the fact that Poker is gambling,

All I was saying was that proper BR management reduces the risk of ruin for a Poker Professional, or allows a business to survive (and hopefully prosper), as in all business: "Cash is King" (Casfhlow management), and that includes a Profession in Poker (Bankroll management) proper controls of both will increase the chances of success, or at least make success possible, however, without it failure is inevitable.

As I said before, Bankroll management, like cashflow management in business, is very often the difference between success and failure. Without it you have little hope, with it you at least have a chance...

Apologies, I misread your post. I thought you were agreeing with the handful here who seem to think that having positive expectation and bankroll management somehow change the fact that you're betting on an uncertain outcome.

jacQues

ecksor wrote:

What assumptions are you making here? BigD's definition above would step in and say that it's about bankroll management but where exactly are you drawing the line? And what exactly is your source for the definition of gambling you use above?

Right.

Gambling is wagering money with even or worse odds. What you are refering to is risk. No business is risk-free. Bankroll-management is minimizing your risk. Yes it is possible that a punter 'breaks the bank' playing roulette. It also happens (although very very rarely) to poker pros that go bust.

If you think that casinos are worried about a player "breaking the bank" think again. The house edge is a proven method of making steady money. If a casino allows a player to gambe unlimited instead of the usual limits, then they are taking an increased risk. This doesn't change the fact that they are operating +EV. That is also the reason for allowing the person in the given example to continue to play during a winning streak. The longer he is allowed to play, to less chance he has of maintaining a positive balance. They will win it back plus more.

So to my opinion, the player vs. player edge is the gambling or not-gambling factor. Bankroll management is essential. But its risk-related. The two are very simular, I agree. Allowing too much risk makes it gambling etc. But any poker pro that has sufficent bankroll should never be worried about going broke.

jacQues

nesf

jacQues wrote:

I think most here would agree that playing roulette (as a punter) is gambling. At the same time I think most would agree that the casino is not gambling when offering roulette as a game.

It is actually. It's just making it highly unlikely for it to go bad. This is then compounded by sheer volume of bets that are laid over time and the usual limit on bet size.

It's still gambling in the sense it's a wager on an uncertain outcome. i.e. the definition of gambling

jacQues wrote:

So the bottom line is:

1) Playing a poker hand is always gambling.

2a) A poker professional's career is not a gambling career. All other players are gambling though.
or
2b) All poker players are gambling.

Use 2a or 2b according to your own thoughts/feeling. But if you go for 2b, in my opinion, then you are stating that casinos gamble when offering roulette as a game...

jacQues

I don't see how it's possible how 1) can lead to 2a). If all A are B then that which contains only As has to contain Bs no?

Ste05

jacQues wrote:

then you are stating that casinos gamble when offering roulette as a game...
jacQues

But they are gambling... they just have a 2% edge, but it's still Gambling IMO.

Here's a good question for you all. If Roulette offered by the house was to be considered Gambling, should any profits taken from this gamble be considered Tax exempt, as it is a gambling profit?? (i.e. should the Private members club that offers Roulette not pay tax on these profits???)

Now without opening up the can of worms regarding Legalisation of Casino's in Ireland, but this could be one of the sticking points on a tax side??

Alternatively, could it be looked as the Casino is GUARANTEED this 2% edge, although a Poker Professional, EXPECTS his/her 2% (to keep it simple) edge, and therefore that could be the distinction.

marius

jacQues wrote:

2a) A poker professional's career is not a gambling career. All other players are gambling though.

So in order not to be a gambler playing poker you just have to declare yourself a professional?
You can have good pro's and bad pro's. Pro's go broke just like everyone else.

Stu Ungars quote about not being a gambler but everyone else at the table is is nonsense. If a better player than Ungar sits down a the table does that now make Ungar a gambler?

By this definition the only poker player who is not gambling is the best player in the world - all others are gamblers.

bohsman

Casinos do go bust, seem to remember on in Limerick going bust a couple of years ago.

ntlbell

bohsman wrote:

Casinos do go bust, seem to remember on in Limerick going bust a couple of years ago.

Opening your front door in Limerick is a gamble never mind a casino.

brianmc

Ste05 wrote:

Alternatively, could it be looked as the Casino is GUARANTEED this 2% edge,

They are not guaranteed 2% profit. They do have a 2% (or whatever the exact figure is) edge.

They are pretty damned likely to make 2% profit on all monies passed through the roulette table once enough goes through and their bankroll is big enough - but it is not guaranteed - (unless they get to pass an infinte amount of money through the wheel and have an infinitely large bankroll to handle the infinitely bad runs but I think there are some problems with the state of the universe if that happens).

Hence they are gambling.

nesf

brianmc wrote:

They are not guaranteed 2% profit. They do have a 2% (or whatever the exact figure is) edge.

Eh.. that's what he said.

ecksor

nesf wrote:

I don't see how it's possible how 1) can lead to 2a). If all A are B then that which contains only As has to contain Bs no?

I think he may actually be trying to say that a given set of As is not necessarily an A which is logically correct but probably irrelevant.

This is all basically a lot of handwaving by people ignoring dictionary definitions because they don't want to be associated with bad gamblers.

jacQues

nesf wrote:

I don't see how it's possible how 1) can lead to 2a). If all A are B then that which contains only As has to contain Bs no?

Its 2a or 2b, depending on your own thoughts about the matter I explained. I think its 2a, but feel free to think 2b.

Ste05 wrote:

Alternatively, could it be looked as the Casino is GUARANTEED this 2% edge, although a Poker Professional, EXPECTS his/her 2% (to keep it simple) edge, and therefore that could be the distinction.

Good point. Also playing +EV does not constitute a player vs. player edge. You need to be better than the rest. If you are, you should be guaranteed this % edge. Looking at the continued income of most poker pros this hold up.

jacQues

Lazare

I'm constantly arguing with people about this, I believe poker is not gambling. My argument is usually with people who equate poker with roulette, and generally don't understand the game. Sure there's an element of gambling in poker but there's risk in everything in life. If you buy shares in Vodafone there's a risk you'll lose money, if you invest in a McDonalds franchise there's risk involved. I eat, sleep and drink poker, I'm consumed by it, but I've absolutley no interest in visiting a bookies or sitting at a blackjack table, but some poker players do. The problem is, people who hear you play a lot, think you're a degenerate gambler.I agree with Dev, it's the 'degenerate gambler' tag I find wholly offensive, but it usually stems from ignorance, therefore I try not to let it bother me.

nesf

ecksor wrote:

I think he may actually be trying to say that a given set of As is not necessarily an A which is logically correct but probably irrelevant.

True. But in saying that a pro only plays poker hands for a living, which he accepts are gambling, wouldn't it follow that a pro has to be gambling to make a living? I can't see how it can follow in any other way tbh. Maybe my logic is too narrow minded though...


Dictionary wise from the Oxford Shorter English Dictionary:

gambling (verbal noun) the risking of money on games of chance as a pastime or a sphere of human activity.

Fits the playing of poker quite neatly tbh.

nesf

jacQues wrote:

Its 2a or 2b, depending on your own thoughts about the matter I explained. I think its 2a, but feel free to think 2b.

Did you even bother to read my post? Sorry, but really you've just ignored my question be it intentionally or unintentionally.

edanto

jacQues wrote:

The house edge is a proven method of making steady money. If a casino allows a player to gambe unlimited instead of the usual limits, then they are taking an increased risk. This doesn't change the fact that they are operating +EV. That is also the reason for allowing the person in the given example to continue to play during a winning streak. The longer he is allowed to play, to less chance he has of maintaining a positive balance. They will win it back plus more.

From something like roulette, that's true with one important condition. A maximum bet. If there is no maximum bet and a punter arrives with bottomless pockets, they can loose consistently, double the bet every time and walk off smiling when they win just one bet. But that's an exceptional case and not typical. Generally, the casino is a sure bet to win.

So, the casino is gambling, but they have the edge and they set the rules. Of course they will win.

Any poker player is gambling, no doubt. Depending on their skill, they may have an edge on a particular table and in that case you could call them an sensible or even a responsible gambler.

The problem DeV faces in terms of perceptions of gambling is tricky, but it's not going to be fixed by suggesting to people that poker isn't gambling. The negative connotations wouldn't be so strong if you had the chance to explain how long you had studied the game, and had some figures handy for how well you've done by playing it.

The analogies with starting a small business or buying and selling shares are also useful for showing how much of normal life is gambling and that it isn't a bad thing once the risks are understood and bearable.