Poker is or is not gambling

nesf

MrPillowTalk wrote:

I rarely bet on anything anymore bar the odd football bet that I make more to make matches interesting than anything else, before I played poker I bet a fair bit on sports but bookies just hold no attraction for me anymore.

That's something I'm guilty of as well. I find matches (rugby/GAA) more interesting when I've a few quid riding on it. Rarely a big bet or anything just 20 euro or so. It's bad gambling usually, but it's fun.

nesf

DeVore wrote:

The the term is meaningless.... which is partly what I have been getting at.

DeV.

Could it be more that you need to quantify what you are saying when using such a broad term as gambling? As in would you be happy with the dictionary definition if it was phrased "Poker is a form of gambling where a skillful player can arrange positive expectations on his wagers". Or something similar? It's inelegant I know but it's a workaround while keeping within the meaning of the word.

kincsem

DeVore wrote:

ps: thanks for the lift Kincsem, you saved my life!

And thanks for the cycling advice. You had some interestings things to say about a subject I'm surprised you knew anything about. This evening I'm a bit tense about tomorrows Wicklow 100km (7 am). Wind, sun, rain, old age, and a few hills to overcome.

C'mon Kezman for top scorer in the World Cup. Who?

Sinfonia

MrPillowTalk wrote:

You have to take human nature into account and apply the "rule of three", you ask a man how many women he has had nocturnal liasons with, divide the answer by three and for (many of) the respondants you will arrive at a reasonably correct answer. Ask a woman and you have to multiply the answer by three to arrive at the correct number.

in the movie American Pie, the rule of three stated that for a man you subtract 3, and for a woman you add 3



i had an argument with a friend before who insisted that poker was heavily luck, and gambling, and that anyone could win, and that at his home game, a different person usually wins each time they play....so i made a bet with him, that we could play 10 headup tournaments and i wouldnt lose one...he laughed and accepted, and seriously believed that it would come out 5 apiece...
so we sat down the next day, and i said
-"ok, the game is Limit 7 card stud". at first he thought i was joking, but then said
-"but i don't know how to play that".
-"but surely if poker is all luck and gambling, you should be able to win 5, won't you?" and he was speechless, it was great, and he was about to call off the bet, but i still wanted to play, so he agreed to to play Limit hold'em (i didnt want to play NL since i couldn't lose any games...
he was a terrible player, and i generally kept tight enough, i could read him easily though, so it was no trouble, but i did lose the LAST match, i won't go into the beats, but i did make a couple of iffy calls.
i paid up as was the wager, but he did change his mind on the luck/gambling aspect, as i pointed a few things out to him afterwards...
so i feel that it is gambling, but is a very different type of gambling to roulette, craps, etc. in other words, i had enough skill to outplay my friend in 9 games in a row, but then he caught some nice cards in the last game and won it...
the skills of poker are in maximizing revenue and minimizing losses, thus maximizing profit, just like running a business, and like a business, one must employ risk management (tableselection,bankroll management, etc.) etc.
i consider gambling to be taking a risk, which is not a bad thing, if you have the necessary knowledge and employ the necessary tools and tactics that will reduce and manage the risks - in poker, in business, in life.
if you can employ these tools, and always be on the right side of the odds, you would have to be very unlucky to lose in the long run, and because this is possible, i consider it gambling/risk taking. to me, poker is justrunning a business that has great benefits if you work hard and well. poker players are entrepreneurs, and some are good and some are bad, and the good ones mostly succeed, but sometimes the bad ones get very lucky and succeed also



a question was asked earlier "Also what % of pro players are consistent proven winners?" i dont think this is a relevant question,
What % of people in any field are consistent winners? how many companies succeed to Starbucks/McDonalds type success, and how many have crashed and burned along the way?



That's my two cents anyway

ecksor

DeVore wrote:

Everyone who worked for me (and you were one of them ) was informed when we took them on (and practically every month too) of the risks we took and I ensured they knew we would HAVE to take them. Jon's specific answer to me (that I STILL remember was) "Look Tom, how many *minutes* do you think it would take me to get another job". I also almost didnt take on Marius because he wanted to move his family to Ireland on the strength of the job offer. All entrepreneurs have to take risks and I dont regret taking them but I hope you arent implying recklessness...

I'm not implying recklessness. To me it seemed you took a high risk / high reward approach and you were taking a gamble because you figured it was the best chance you had of getting rich. I didn't have a problem with that philosophy. It may have appeared I did because I nitpicked a lot of the details, but it was my job to do that.

At least in poker you can usually have a reasonable estimate of your EV when you make a play, but in that business case the EV would have been far more difficult to estimate and by some people's definitions on this thread that would make spin's business decisions more of a gamble than your poker playing.

DeVore

I would class business as more of a gamble then professional poker playing by the definitions being used in this thread...

DeV.