Poker is or is not gambling

DOLEMAN · 09-06-2006 10:52AM

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 · 09-06-2006 10:54AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:01AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:03AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:11AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:16AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:19AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:20AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:21AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:24AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:25AM

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

ntlbell · 09-06-2006 11:28AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:28AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:30AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:30AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:33AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:37AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:38AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:38AM

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 · 09-06-2006 11:51AM

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.

Lafortezza · 09-06-2006 11:51AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion is a bit about +EV gambles where you are not guaranteed to win, but long term you should.

Say you have a bankroll of 100 buy-ins for your particular stakes in poker.
There is still a 'risk of ruin' or losing your whole tank, no matter how small this risk may be.
Unless you have an infinite bankroll there will always be a chance that you could lose it all through variance/bad luck, so even if the gamble is small, it's still gambling.

jacQues · 09-06-2006 11:55AM

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.

Huh, what

ecksor wrote:

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

Not at all. Its just that according to that logic some are using, all companies are gambling companies. They start out trying to make money but since there is a risk they are all gambling on actually making a profit. With that logic all banks are gambling companies too etc. etc.

If you are investing your money on even or worse odds, you are gambling. This is determined by many factors indeed. If, however, you are investing your money with an edge, a clear advantage, a positive expectation. I don't see how its still gambling then... Risk-free? No, there is always a risk. But gambling??

Also yes, using 2a the pro players do not have a gambling career whilst playing on the same table with people who are gambling. In contrast, using 2b the casino is gambling too when providing the game of roulette.

It is my belief that companies that gamble won't last too long. Whereas companies that do not gamble (but obviously run risks - since all do) have a good chance of lasting. Casinos can go bust, sure. Just like Coca-Cola or Philips can go bust. It is possible, but not probable. Gamblers on the other hand; with those its probable that they will go bust.

jacQues

Samba · 09-06-2006 12:00PM

Correct me if i'm wrong but Poker is the only form of gambling whereby in some situations, you cannot lose, you are a 100% favourite to win a hand and your opponents are drawing dead.

Is that gambling?

Poker Players imo are like day traders in the sense that only a small % have what it takes to play the game for a living.

This applies to casual player also imo, if everyone is making money, who is losing it!?

Personally I don't have what it takes and if you look at most pro players you can see the signs of battle in their physical appearance.

I've gone back to trying grinding, I used to play 4 tables 25/50c many moons ago, while you did not make enormous profits, I rarely ever dropped a buy in.

I've tried adopting this in the Fitz and it has worked with Success it's been two months since i've dropped a full buyin.

My swings are low but my profits are low(3.5k) slow and steady.

I reduce my variance which in turn causes less emotional strain.

This game is demanding on our bodies.

You have a choice, there are situations where you can choose to gamble or not to gamble, a 50/50, or you can pass up those gambles and take more favourable odds.

This is what a good player does, he passes up these situations where his odds are not really in his/her favourite. (to make a profit long term)

Hectorjelly · 09-06-2006 12:05PM

I think its mainly a question of semantics, and not that important really. I mean most decisions you make in life are a gamble, when you go to college you are gambling that the qualififcation you get is worth the time you spend and so on.
Yes when I play poker I can lose a lot of money on any given hand, but I also know that in the long run (and the long run for me is 1 week) that I will make money. So its not really a gamble for me is it?

nesf · 09-06-2006 12:11PM

jacQues one of the problems when debating is that generally you are not allowed to redefine a word to specifically suit your argument. It usually makes your argument null and void since it doesn't actually address the counterarguments by those using the actual definition of the word.

If people want to talk about how certain groups in this country misuse the word and add all these incorrect assumptions and prejudices to it, then cool that's a valid thing to talk about. Redefining the word gambling to make poker somehow not gambling just does not make sense. By doing so you just indicate that you don't understand what the word means or that you are confusing the meaning of the word with the connotations that it carrys in our society.

How about this:

Poker is gambling but it can be responsible and intelligent gambling with low levels of risk. Akin to how you need to differentiate between drinking alcohol and abusing alcohol you need to differentiate between gambling and abusive gambling. If certain elements of society cannot do this then this is their problem and not ours.

ecksor · 09-06-2006 12:15PM

jacQues wrote:

Huh, what

I was trying to rephrase nesf's statement in a clear manner. I took a bit of liberty since I know he's used to statements being phrased in such a manner.

Not at all.

I'm still waiting for the source for the definitions you keep using. Although language is defined by its users to a large excent, I'm not prepared to change my understanding of this word based on a redefinition on this thread.

Its just that according to that logic some are using, all companies are gambling companies. They start out trying to make money but since there is a risk they are all gambling on actually making a profit. With that logic all banks are gambling companies too etc. etc.

You can reduce it to that if you wish. I have no problem with those statements. Are the mathematics that underlie gambling not in demand by banks?

In fact, it appears that mathematical statements about expectation and combatting variance and other smart gambling practices are being used to magically turn +EV propositions into "something not gambling" while -EV ones are gambling. This is logically muddled since the mathematics of gambling that cover both +EV and -EV propositions are the same.

Also yes, using 2a the pro players do not have a gambling career whilst playing on the same table with people who are gambling.

Why is playing an individual hand of poker gambling? Surely you play +EV hands? Is it only not gambling if you play until your profit approximates your EV? (Sorry, your positive EV).

Read this: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GamblersRuin.html

Can you tell me which one of the coin-flippers is the gambler?

nesf · 09-06-2006 12:17PM

Hectorjelly wrote:

So its not really a gamble for me is it?

See gamble can mean a very risky venture or a wager on an uncertain outcome. By the second definition of the word yes you are. In the sense I think you were using it in no, not really. It is semantics, but while I agree the former definition there mightn't apply to a few players most of the time, the second definition always applys by default.

edanto · 09-06-2006 12:18PM

nesf wrote:

Poker is gambling but it can be responsible and intelligent gambling with low levels of risk. Akin to how you need to differentiate between drinking alcohol and abusing alcohol you need to differentiate between gambling and abusive gambling. If certain elements of society cannot do this then this is their problem and not ours.

I think that's the only way to keep everyone happy, the pedants, the card players, the gamblers and the irresponsible obsessive compulsive chain smoking alcoholic sheep shagging poker players too (like DeV).

nesf · 09-06-2006 12:25PM

ecksor wrote:

Why is playing an individual hand of poker gambling? Surely you play +EV hands? Is it only not gambling if you play until your profit approximates your EV? (Sorry, your positive EV).

What's more interesting is that good poker play in situations like tournaments can vary hugely from rigourous +EV/-EV play. Unless you somehow quantify psychological factors and find a way to add them into the probabilites sucessfully.

ecksor wrote:

Read this: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GamblersRuin.html

Can you tell me which one of the coin-flippers is the gambler?

Lol. Evil.

allin-king · 09-06-2006 12:30PM

Hectorjelly wrote:

I think its mainly a question of semantics, and not that important really. I mean most decisions you make in life are a gamble, when you go to college you are gambling that the qualififcation you get is worth the time you spend and so on.
Yes when I play poker I can lose a lot of money on any given hand, but I also know that in the long run (and the long run for me is 1 week) that I will make money. So its not really a gamble for me is it?

Are you saying you never have losing weeks?

If people are so quick to differentiate between poker and sportsbetting then surely comparing poker to running a business / going to college is just stupid

I think a big problem with poker players is ego, no wants to say that they lost their bollox last month/week/year and to call it gambling

The fact is as Dev pointed out there are very few succesful pros, so if it's not gambling its a fairly ****e "Business" to be in. Or maybe it all comes down to personal choice, I mean maybe some people are happy to grind out their living in cash games (without ever going broke) but what prospects does life hold for that person, where is their future headed?

Poker is or is not gambling

Comments