Quick Question - answers appreciated!!!

Mark J

is an STT, a competition or is it plain gambling?

please, one word answers only.(to settle an arguement!)

Competition.

or

Gambling.

one word only, plz.

Samba

any form of poker essentially is gambling

Lafortezza

It's a gambling competition, hope I helped.

Ste05

lafortezza wrote:

It's a gambling competition, hope I helped.

Couldn't get a better answer, absolutely perfect description.
Doesn't help you much with your argument but nice definition...... :cool:

hotspur

Both

wayfarer

lafortezza wrote:

It's a gambling competition, hope I helped.

Well then its just a type of competition isn't it? Therefore thats your anwser.

Mark J

ok, lets make this easier.

you know your horses, their form, conditions, etc. follow it down to a T.
in other words, you know your sh*t!

you win money on horses a lot of the time.

is poker the same as gambling on horses(or other gambling) or is there a difference?

hope that makes the question easier!

tx in advance!

Tyr

would call it a competition
(The competetion is to put urself in sistuation were you have an advacetage and now when u are a underdog so u can fold)
U often have to gamble to win but befor u start gambling u play safer to build up a stack so u can afford gambling. thats how i see it

The Gecko

IMO - Depends on blind structure. a good structure = competition.... Speed Torneys = gamble.

davidgti

Tyr wrote:

would call it a competition
(The competetion is to put urself in sistuation were you have an advacetage and now when u are a underdog so u can fold)
U often have to gamble to win but befor u start gambling u play safer to build up a stack so u can afford gambling. thats how i see it

nope gambling

Lafortezza

gaming

Mark J

lafortezza wrote:

gaming

hmmm.....spanner in the works there, Mr. Lafrtezza!?

nice move, Queen to King 6.

Ste05

Mark J wrote:

ok, lets make this easier.

you know your horses, their form, conditions, etc. follow it down to a T.
in other words, you know your sh*t!

you win money on horses a lot of the time.

is poker the same as gambling on horses(or other gambling) or is there a difference?

hope that makes the question easier!

tx in advance!

The way I look at it and how I explain it to my non poker studying (i.e. fish) friends is like this…
Poker is gambling but a good Poker player can act as the bookie at a table of bad/ mediocre players, if you take your example of the horses, who always wins long term here ...... The bookie/ house…… A good Poker player becomes the bookie by laying terrible odds, offering terrible bets that bad players take….

Imagine this example, AC Milan are playing some Estonian team (no offense to Estonians!!) at home in a Champions League Qualifier and I offer my friend an even money bet, I’ll take AC and he can have this Estonian team. Really he’d need 10 or 15:1 to take this bet but he takes it anyway…. :eek:
Now consider that same bet transferred to Poker :cool: …. You offer some fish even money to fill his inside straight draw with a pot sized bet on the turn, everytime they call this bet it’s the same as taking this bet above…. The odd time it will hit and there will immediately be a bad beat thread here, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: but generally he won’t and this is the difference….. just like a 100:1 shot romping home, but without getting 100:1 on the bet

If you consider good players playing against each other, there are a lot more variables at play, but in general you’ll lay odds and good players won’t take these silly bets, and then it comes down to skill, who gets the better cards, who has a slight edge, who has a tell, a read, etc. etc…… then whether or not it’s gambling or not is debatable (is it like playing chess for money???), but generally you’ll try and find tables where the players are not as good as you and therefore you can go back to being the bookie, not to the same extreme as above, but similar, because reads, etc.. will become more prevalent and allow better players to continue winning…..

Think this got away from me a bit there, but hopefully it makes some sense and helps slightly

Mark J

Ste05 wrote:

and then it comes down to skill, who gets the better cards, who has a slight edge, who has a tell, a read, etc. etc…… then whether or not it’s gambling or not is debatable

Ste05 wrote:

Think this got away from me a bit there, but hopefully it makes some sense and helps slightly

got away for a bit!?!?!?! LOL! naw, good info. just looking for different opinions that are peoples own opinions and not just something re-hashed from someone else on the board.

tx for taking the time out to reply. appreciated.

Ste05

No bother I'd been trying to articulate this properly for a while now and came quite close here I think.... ??? hmmmm maybe, not sure about the good v good part but the fish part I think is fairly accurate

hermann

I think it makes more sense to call a tournament a competition because the chips that you are betting with don't represent money directly (as they do in a cash game); they are only a way of keeping score.

Entering a poker tourney is the same as paying to enter a golf or tennis tourney, luck plays a part in these games too.

hotspur

I touched on this issue in a thesis I wrote recently on Internet poker players, It doesn't go into it in much detail because it was a psychology thesis, and the "gambling" issue is really just semantics, but it may be of some interest to you-

"An issue which strikes at the heart of Internet poker is whether or not it should be properly considered gambling. Gambling is a fuzzy concept and like the field of ethics the field of gambling studies continues in the absence of clear and agreed upon definitions of terms. I will not delve into the matter too deeply here as I feel it is quite complex, and even touches on philosophical questions of epistemology and the problem of induction. If one makes a wager with somebody that they are are wearing shoes or that the sun will rise tomorrow is it gambling? If one defines gambling based on uncertainty of outcome then one can get into trouble. As for it containing a financial element even the issue of what constitutes a wager is unclear, although it has been defined in law. Beliefs about the extent of the role of luck versus skill and the temporal specificity with which one judges success are central to whether or not a poker player will view what they are doing as gambling. Rather than attempt a complicated definition of gambling here I will just say that if art is whatever hangs in an art gallery then an activity is gambling if gambling researchers say it is. For me the issue is the consequences of excessive online poker playing. While whether or not it is gambling is not that relevant to me, it most certainly is relevant to those who may need to recognise that they have a problem and need to get help. A total of 41% of the players indicated that they did not consider their online poker playing to be gambling. This may be dangerous. In their explanations of why they did not consider it to be gambling most mentioned the fact that they played the game mathematically using their knowledge of odds and their skill at cards. It is true that there is skill in poker, and that knowledge of poker odds confers an advantage, but 85% of players said that they knew poker odds quite well or very well (they should because it only takes about 30 minutes to learn and they are available on every poker strategy site on the Internet). It would appear that players have a belief that they are better than others because they assume that other players do not know poker odds or are not very skilled. But the vast majority of players do know poker odds, most players rated themselves favourably on a scale of 1-10 of their skill, almost 90% of players thought they had an advantage over others, and 78% felt that they would win a lot of money playing in the future. This array of beliefs adds up to the shared view that most other players are suckers or “fish” who do not know what they are doing. This leads to the view that while poker certainly contains an element of luck, the fact that they have an advantage over other players means that it is not really gambling in the long run, because if they play for long enough then their better skill will pay off. For many players then it is a question of reducing the variance inherent in poker by playing for longer hours and more often. If they play for long enough then luck will even out and they will be up money due to their edge. This is analogous to how casinos operate – they gamble with an edge which will guarantee a profit if they get customers to play for long enough. The difference between a casino’s gambling and a poker player’s gambling is that the casino has their edge mathematically built into the game for certain. But the online poker player’s supposed small edge may be imagined. In fact if it is based merely on the belief that other players do not poker odds as well as they themselves do then this study would suggest that they are wrong. Consequently a lot of players are playing very long hours trying to realise an edge which they do not actually possess, it is being maintained by an erroneous belief. Parke (2005) has commented that there is a strong link between perception of outcome control and persistent problem gambling behaviour. “Systems” are ubiquitous in the field of gambling (Lesieur, 1984) whereby gamblers fool themselves into thinking that what they are doing is a matter of skill. Poker would appear to have an inbuilt system, the game itself. While there is little doubt that some players have a greater gift for the game than others, most of that advantage disappears when the game is played online and the ability to “read” people’s body language is irrelevant. If most players think that their gift is a combination of knowledge of poker odds and patience then they are wrong, that is not a gift or unique ability, it is the norm. The 28% who indicated that they would be interested in playing on mobile phones are probably looking to decrease the variance further by playing wherever they are. The software for this is being rolled out right now, and will likely be available all across Europe by the end of 2005. Good news for those for whom having a casino in their bedroom is not enough access."

Doc Farrell

i'm sure its spot on chief, but one word:

paragraphs!

kinaldo

doc is right. break it down into paragraphs and then i'll read it, otherwise the strain on my eyes is just too much

Mark J

"An issue which strikes at the heart of Internet poker is whether or not it should be properly considered gambling.
Gambling is a fuzzy concept and like the field of ethics the field of gambling studies continues in the absence of clear and agreed upon definitions of terms.

I will not delve into the matter too deeply here as I feel it is quite complex, and even touches on philosophical questions of epistemology and the problem of induction.

If one makes a wager with somebody that they are are wearing shoes or that the sun will rise tomorrow is it gambling?
If one defines gambling based on uncertainty of outcome then one can get into trouble.

As for it containing a financial element even the issue of what constitutes a wager is unclear, although it has been defined in law.
Beliefs about the extent of the role of luck versus skill and the temporal specificity with which one judges success are central to whether or not a poker player will view what they are doing as gambling.
Rather than attempt a complicated definition of gambling here I will just say that if art is whatever hangs in an art gallery then an activity is gambling if gambling researchers say it is.

For me the issue is the consequences of excessive online poker playing.
While whether or not it is gambling is not that relevant to me, it most certainly is relevant to those who may need to recognise that they have a problem and need to get help.

A total of 41% of the players indicated that they did not consider their online poker playing to be gambling. This may be dangerous.
In their explanations of why they did not consider it to be gambling most mentioned the fact that they played the game mathematically using their knowledge of odds and their skill at cards.
It is true that there is skill in poker, and that knowledge of poker odds confers an advantage, but 85% of players said that they knew poker odds quite well or very well (they should because it only takes about 30 minutes to learn and they are available on every poker strategy site on the Internet). It would appear that players have a belief that they are better than others because they assume that other players do not know poker odds or are not very skilled. But the vast majority of players do know poker odds, most players rated themselves favourably on a scale of 1-10 of their skill, almost 90% of players thought they had an advantage over others, and 78% felt that they would win a lot of money playing in the future. This array of beliefs adds up to the shared view that most other players are suckers or “fish” who do not know what they are doing.
This leads to the view that while poker certainly contains an element of luck, the fact that they have an advantage over other players means that it is not really gambling in the long run, because if they play for long enough then their better skill will pay off.
For many players then it is a question of reducing the variance inherent in poker by playing for longer hours and more often.
If they play for long enough then luck will even out and they will be up money due to their edge.

This is analogous to how casinos operate – they gamble with an edge which will guarantee a profit if they get customers to play for long enough.
The difference between a casino’s gambling and a poker player’s gambling is that the casino has their edge mathematically built into the game for certain. But the online poker player’s supposed small edge may be imagined.
In fact if it is based merely on the belief that other players do not poker odds as well as they themselves do then this study would suggest that they are wrong.
Consequently a lot of players are playing very long hours trying to realise an edge which they do not actually possess, it is being maintained by an erroneous belief.
Parke (2005) has commented that there is a strong link between perception of outcome control and persistent problem gambling behaviour.
“Systems” are ubiquitous in the field of gambling (Lesieur, 1984) whereby gamblers fool themselves into thinking that what they are doing is a matter of skill. Poker would appear to have an inbuilt system, the game itself.
While there is little doubt that some players have a greater gift for the game than others, most of that advantage disappears when the game is played online and the ability to “read” people’s body language is irrelevant.
If most players think that their gift is a combination of knowledge of poker odds and patience then they are wrong, that is not a gift or unique ability, it is the norm.

The 28% who indicated that they would be interested in playing on mobile phones are probably looking to decrease the variance further by playing wherever they are. The software for this is being rolled out right now, and will likely be available all across Europe by the end of 2005. Good news for those for whom having a casino in their bedroom is not enough access."

So, after reading this, is a STT,
(Single Table Tournament - 9 players pay $100 each and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd get paid),
gambling or a competition?

Mark J

any better?

o.k.

is a MTT,

(Multi Table Tournament, where 100 people pay $100 entry and top 10 get paid),

gambling or a competition as in people competing?
or is it like racing.
you know the form of a horse etc and putting a $100 down on him to place in the top 10 out of 100?

what happened the single word answers!?!

Doc Farrell

baby, its gambling.

don't anybody kid themselves.

the reason we practice, read and post here is a form of damage limitation.
but its still a gamble.

like driving on the M50

but as i just got my ticket for the sat for the EPT for 6 dollars its a gamble i can live with.

Mark J

hermann wrote:

I think it makes more sense to call a tournament a competition because the chips that you are betting with don't represent money directly (as they do in a cash game); they are only a way of keeping score.

sort of makes sense....

Mark J

Doc Farrell wrote:

baby, its gambling.

don't anybody kid themselves.

the reason we practice, read and post here is a form of damage limitation.
but its still a gamble.

like driving on the M50

but as i just got my ticket for the sat for the EPT for 6 dollars its a gamble i can live with.

STT or MTT - Gambling.

Doc Farrell

gamble, gamble, lordamercy, its all a gamble!

kinaldo

very good

i would have to say competition, unless we're talking about freeroll standards

even then, although it's gambling, the odds can be quite favourable

Mark J

Doc Farrell wrote:

gamble, gamble, lordamercy, its all a gamble!

ty.

Scotty #

Its Gambling!!! The only reason there's competition is because your playing against the other gamblers instead of the house...but every time you place a bet your gambling!!

Mark J

kinaldo wrote:

i would have to say competition

seems to me a bit of dis-agreement in the camp! (forum!)

Mark J

Scotty # wrote:

Its Gambling!!! The only reason there's competition is because your playing against the other gamblers instead of the house...but every time you place a bet your gambling!!

the only reason there is competition......

contradictory of terms?

but it`s still gambling, yea!?!

Mark J

class signature!

Doc Farrell

there's no contradiction, a man and a boy are both males, tears and rain are both wet, alimony and palimony both cost the same, jeeze louise.....

if you want to know if card playing is gambling or not, put ur money on the table. u'll find ur answer pretty quick.

end of contribution, god bless.

Mark J

Mark J wrote:

but it`s still gambling, yea!?!

it is so. end of.

Tourneque

gam·ble
1. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
2. To play a game of chance for stakes.
3. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.

Of course poker is gambling - so is owning a casino. But I don't see banks having trouble loaning them money to start up...

If you tell people you play poker they look at you like you're a mad gambler - so try telling them you own a small casino - then they'll understand..

The better you are, the better your edge is - but it is still gambling.

JuliusFranco

if he sucked my cock, does that mean i'm gay?

same kinda question here...

Mark J

JuliusFranco wrote:

if he sucked my cock, does that mean i'm gay?

same kinda question here...

i`d say you`d have tendencies for leaving him do it.