Poker is or is not gambling

Hectorjelly · 09-06-2006 12:43PM

allin-king wrote:

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?

Not for some time no. I think your last paragraph is a little silly, what exactly do you mean? If you call playing less than 20 hours a week doing something you enjoy and making far more than would be possible in any other endeavour grinding then yeah I agree.

The problem with playing for a living is its much much harder than people think, very few people have both the skill and the temprement neccessary. I know a few people who are very good (better than me in some respects) but will never be able to manage it because of completely non poker related issues.

Hitman Actual · 09-06-2006 12:49PM

jacQues wrote:

Right.

Gambling is wagering money with even or worse odds.

I disagree. That's just your interpretation of it. What odds you're getting doesn't change the fact that you're betting on an uncertain outcome. Casino's are still gambling, but they have much less chance of risk of ruin, which is a totally different thing.

jacQues · 09-06-2006 12:50PM

nesf wrote:

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.

I respectfully disagree. Sorry if my opinion offends anyone in any way. Here goes:

The dictionary is not a "set of rules" or "blueprint" of the language. It rather is a reflection on how the language is used in daily life. My point was that I can compare a poker pro with a casino offering roulette. If you agree to that then my conclusion is that a poker pro career is not gambling just like Coca-Cola or Philips are not companies that gamble. The actual use of the word "gamble" is my point of reference here, not what is written in some book. The public opinion of companies like Coca-Cola or Philips (random examples) is that they are, in fact, not gambling. However, they still run a risk of getting bust and closing down. This is possible, but not probable. The same rules apply to a casino (IMHO). Casinos can go bust because as with any other business there is always a risk. This is possible, but not probable. I tend to think that the general public's opinion in this is on a straight line. Casino's are places of gambling but the company/management is akin to any other company and thus not a gambling one. The fact that some of the risks of a casino lie directly in the middle of "gambling" instead of -say- customer's taste doesn't change this. All the "gambling" issued are well-proved money making elements. Maybe casinos have a higher risk factor than some other sectors, but by far most casinos that close down its for other reasons than "a punter breaking the bank".

Punters are clearly gambling. Happy we agree on something.

nesf wrote:

What I was asking was how can it follow that all poker hands are gambling yet living though playing poker hands is not gambling since each hand played is gambling itself?

For the same reason as why I don't see a casino gambling when offering roulette. It is a game between them and the punter where they can lose or win. Factually, the casino is playing a gambling game, just as a poker pro is. So factually, both are gambling. This is using the exact words written in dictionaries. But using logical comparison written above, and the spirit of the word "gambling" on which dictionaries are based on, they are not. And since I put poker pros in the same box as casinos (poker pros are, in fact, self-employed homeworkers). Hope this makes sense.

Maybe the word "gamble" is adrift, floating from one side of the equasion to the other. It happened with words like "gay" etc. so this is possible. I realise that my points balance on a very delicate scale. But I cannot deny the way that I think. I am not a poker pro myself and didn't intentionally try to bend the meaning of the word "gamble". Above is how I interpret it. And as such, it is my opinion on this matter.

jacQues

nesf · 09-06-2006 12:52PM

allin-king wrote:

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.

Most new businesses fail. Just like poker taking an idea or trade and trying to make a living from it is a very different prospect to doing something as a hobby or as part of a large company. Poker and business are very comparable in quite few aspects.

allin-king · 09-06-2006 12:59PM

Well you must be the best player in the world, with that kind of record

My point was in the last paragraph is that very few people are succesful pro's and that is the nature of gambling

Also i notice other posters arguing that being in a 70 / 30 isn't gambling in the long term, well that is well and good in theory but no one will ever be consistently in that situation. How many e.g KK vs AA or AK vs JJ situations ect are going to pop up. Its certainly not as simple as being in a 70/30 situation all the time

In saying all that if you are making a comfortabe living and you enjoy it then you are one of those very successful players HJ

nesf · 09-06-2006 01:03PM

jacQues wrote:

The dictionary is not a "set of rules" or "blueprint" of the language. It rather is a reflection on how the language is used in daily life.

Yes and no. A dictionary is the base point from which we work. Otherwise you and I would have an awful lot of difficulty communicating. If we could change words to our own personal meanings on the fly and if they then became valid and true then we would be constantly misinterpreting each other.

Languages do evolve and they are most definitely not fixed in stone however we do have what's called "accepted usage". Definitions tend to be these.

Essentially. You are no longer speaking of gambling in your posts. You are speaking of a different, albeit related, thing. You are correct in what you say if you define it your way but that is redundant. I could win any argument with you simply by changing the definition of a word in your posts. Would that make any sense to you? Would it mean that I was right when I did it and that you were then suddenly wrong?

I sorry and I don't mean to offend but really you cannot do what you are doing. If you want create a new word or phrase for your definition cool but you cannot insist on changing a present one simply to suit your argument. The question is whether or not poker is gambling, the question presupposes that we are working off standard definitions by it's nature.

A question though, if I lay odds at 2 to 1 to you that you won't make your flush on the turn after you flopped two of it on the river am I gambling or not gambling?

Mr. Presentable · 09-06-2006 01:06PM

It's a contentious question. I had a quick look around on the web and found the following interesting views.

"(n) gambling, gaming, play (the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning (including the payment of a price for a chance to win a prize)) "his gambling cost him a fortune"; "there was heavy play at the blackjack table""

"Define gambling
Many people seem to think that poker is gambling. It is most definitely not. It is a game of skill comprised of math and psychology."

"GAMBLING IS STEALING
"The gains of the winners are paid at the expense of the losers. In winning, one receives the wages that another person has earned without giving anything in exchange." (Gambling, Kober; p.2 & 8). Just because it is robbery by consent does not make it right. Gambling is nothing more than sophisticated stealing. Ephesians 4:28 says "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth."

The late Dr. M. R. DeHann said, "Gambling is morally wrong, for its expressed purpose is to obtain material gain apart from honest, productive toil, and at the expense of one's neighbor! In fact, it is little more than refined stealing! One cannot truly love his neighbor as himself and still seek to practice such robbery by consent.""

I am inclined to agree that poker played live is not gambling, but online poker dilutes the psychology part of play, the most important factor for me, and should probably be properly called gambling

nesf · 09-06-2006 01:13PM

*sighs*

Poker involves maths and psychology, but that isn't the sum total of the game. That much should be obvious to anyone who plays the game.

pokypoky · 09-06-2006 01:15PM

I agree with HJ, its a matter of semantics. Gambling is a way of conceptualising a game that could just as easily be defined as a leisure activity. Many people partake in poker as a leisure activity and are prepared to pay for the pleasure. If they win its an added bonus. Poker is many things to many people, gambling is a particular way of looking at poker from a particular angle...

and presuming we did manage to establish that poker is gambling what exactly is the problem?

Hectorjelly · 09-06-2006 01:17PM

Theres an excellent book out at the moment, Freakonmics. Its basically an economis using statistical techniques to look into interesting problems (its easy to read for someone with no maths). One of the most interesting topics is on crack dealing, basically some dude spent months with a gang of crack dealers. He was interested in it because it was supposed to be a very profitable business, but most crack dealers live at home with their mothers. (Which doesnt make sense)

What he found was that the very top guy in the gang made a fortune (500k a year I think). He lived a good life. The guys below him made a reasnable living, but the guys below him lived beneath the poverty line. They made about $4 an hour (less than working in McDonalds). For every guy making 500k there was 1000's making $4 an hour and had about a 25% chance of dying each year.

The poker world is similar to that, the best players in any game will make a fortune. Some of the 2nd best player will do ok. The rest will lose, and for every winner there are a tonne of losers.

Someone posted a few months ago surprised that most people cant make it on the circuit. Thats the way poker works, a few people do well and the rest lose. I think a lot of people who play mainly tournaments have a very naieve view of poker.

nesf · 09-06-2006 01:21PM

Hectorjelly wrote:

Theres an excellent book out at the moment, Freakonmics. Its basically an economis using statistical techniques to look into interesting problems (its easy to read for someone with no maths). One of the most interesting topics is on crack dealing, basically some dude spent months with a gang of crack dealers. He was interested in it because it was supposed to be a very profitable business, but most crack dealers live at home with their mothers. (Which doesnt make sense)

It's a very entertaining and quick read. The book was very controversial when it came out, the whole abortion drop in crime rate link was interesting but it upset a lot of people.

The analogy with poker is not quite perfect though. You could still get an amazing streak of luck and win the WSOP or similar and make your money that way (didn't some guy do that a few years back or something?).

Mr. Presentable · 09-06-2006 01:22PM

nesf wrote:

*sighs*

Poker involves maths and psychology, but that isn't the sum total of the game. That much should be obvious to anyone who plays the game.

So, nesf, what *are* the other ingredients? I don't pretend to be an illuminated player and therefore it's obvious I need to be told.

jacQues · 09-06-2006 01:25PM

nesf wrote:

I sorry and I don't mean to offend but really you cannot do what you are doing. If you want create a new word or phrase for your definition cool but you cannot insist on changing a present one simply to suit your argument. The question is whether or not poker is gambling, the question presupposes that we are working off standard definitions by it's nature.

If you feel that I use the word "gambling" incorrectly, as you suggest, then lets make it real simple.

If we can agree that either:
a) Casinos and poker pros are not gambling companies. (following the logic in my previous posts)
or
b) Casinos are gambling, so are poker pros. (following the logic in my previous posts)

Al we need to do next is ask the general public the following question:

"Talking about the companies themselves, are casinos gambling with their money by offering games like roulette?"

If more people say YES, then you are right and I am wrong. Clearly B is the correct answer.

If more people say NO, then we are both right and neither of us are wrong. The correct answer is A or B depending on your own personal view. You are right taking the exact view of a given dictionary, and I am right taking the view of the actual use of the word "gamble" on which the dictionary (maybe not so accurately or maybe the use of this word is changing) based its description. Note that you need to ask the general public, not biassed people in a casino. You also need a good sample size.

Idea or ridicilous?

jacQues

nesf · 09-06-2006 01:26PM

nipplenuts wrote:

So, nesf, what *are* the other ingredients? I don't pretend to be an illuminated player and therefore it's obvious I need to be told.

Pixie dust and bat's eyes. Don't you read Sklansky?

nesf · 09-06-2006 01:29PM

jacQues wrote:

If you feel that I use the word "gambling" incorrectly, as you suggest, then lets make it real simple.

If we can agree that either:
a) Casinos and poker pros are not gambling companies. (following the logic in my previous posts)
or
b) Casinos are gambling, so are poker pros. (following the logic in my previous posts)

Al we need to do next is ask the general public the following question:

"Talking about the companies themselves, are casinos gambling with their money by offering games like roulette?"

If more people say YES, then you are right and I am wrong. Clearly B is the correct answer.

If more people say NO, then we are both right and neither of us are wrong. The correct answer is A or B depending on your own personal view. You are right taking the exact view of a given dictionary, and I am right taking the view of the actual use of the word "gamble" on which the dictionary (maybe not so accurately or maybe the use of this word is changing) based its description. Note that you need to ask the general public, not biassed people in a casino. You also need a good sample size.

Idea or ridicilous?

jacQues

We could make it even simpler by presenting them with the two definitions and asking them which is correct. I don't think it's very feasible though. How do you pick your sample? Is a high level of vocabulary important (this would obviously skew it towards the dictionary definition by definition, etc)?

Mr. Presentable · 09-06-2006 01:33PM

nesf wrote:

Pixie dust and bat's eyes. Don't you read Skalansky?

I may have read the Theory of Poker when I was a student. But apart from that, no, I don't read Skalansky.

FastMachine · 09-06-2006 01:38PM

Poker is only gambling in the short term. The longer you play the more skill comes into it. That's why if you play enough hours (ie, full time) and you're more skillful than your opponents it is not gambling at all. It's about speculating to accumulate.

Idiot sits down for 1 hour - gets lucky makes a few hundered quid
Pro sits down for 2 hours - gets unlucky loses a few hundred quid

Idiot puts in 40 hours a week for a month - he loses his bollox
Pro puts in 40 hours a week for a month - he makes alot of money

Even still, 40 hours a week for a month is way more than necessary for skill to overcome luck in cash games. It is a rare occurance for a pro to have a losing week - basically it's 95% of the time through not putting in enough hours or burning out/tilting for various reasons - I've probably had 2 weeks, actually no, maybe one, where I've been playing well and finished down.

allin-king wrote:

Also i notice other posters arguing that being in a 70 / 30 isn't gambling in the long term, well that is well and good in theory but no one will ever be consistently in that situation. How many e.g KK vs AA or AK vs JJ situations ect are going to pop up. Its certainly not as simple as being in a 70/30 situation all the time

Those situations happen tons of times during a week if you play enough. In the end it will even out and I'm not talking about over the course of a year, I'm talking about over the course of the week. Unless you're in against a shortstack.

strewelpeter · 09-06-2006 01:47PM

If you ask me, and I know you haven't but I'm gonna tell you anyway...

This isn't really about whether poker is gambling or not...its about whether it is 'respectable' or not, its about a mind set that resents being labeled a gambler because they have never been in a bookies in their lives. It's about how we can tell our Mammies where we get our money.

The etymology of the word is clear its from the old English gamen an obsolete form of game.All definitions directly refer to playing games for money. There is no argument or debate - Playing poker for money is gambling that is all there is to it.
If we apply the term gambling to any activity where risks are taken with the prospect of reward, as we tend to do, then yes everything from getting out of bed in the morning to conducting our business is a gamble. If we are going to be literal about it no one can deny that the word applies to playing poker at whatever level

What is very interesting though is the whole blur regarding the recognition of the part chance and risk and reward play in all the other aspects of life.

I grew up in a business and for us there was no difference between money earned or lost through hard work and money earned by having a dog or a horse that we were able to get a price about. As it happened in the long run it was in business that we were regularly robbed and defrauded and it was there that the real money was lost.
I never cease to be amazed at the amount of people in business who do not understand that you cannot get the reward without taking the risk. There are so many people whose living are dictated by what I would see as huge risks (or gambles if you like ) who harbour some weird puritanical distaste for the very concept of gambling. I to them am some sort of unclean low life who actually takes his holidays at Cheltenham Shock! Horror!
[Apologies to anyone of a strong religous opinion who believe that all gaming is wrong... I respect your right to that opinion but IMHO you are just wrong about that ...and everything else]
So for me everything I do is a matter of calculated risk, some I work out better than others...Its a bit like walking around with your eyes open instead of pretending that all the outcomes are predetermined. But as with all these things it really helps if you have a good idea of what the chances of all the outcomes is.

sikes · 09-06-2006 01:48PM

but negative vairance can last a life time, so the argument about winning in the long run is bull.

if you are not guarnteed to get back what you put in, its gambling, in any walk in life.

jacQues · 09-06-2006 01:53PM

nesf wrote:

We could make it even simpler by presenting them with the two definitions and asking them which is correct. I don't think it's very feasible though. How do you pick your sample? Is a high level of vocabulary important (this would obviously skew it towards the dictionary definition by definition, etc)?

We are trying to (dis)prove the correctness of a given definition in a dictionary. By giving an example people will instinctly answer based on their interpretation of the word "gamble" without actually thinking about the correctness of the description of given word in a dictionary. This provides 'true' results based on the actual usage of given word. When presenting people with the exact question a percentage of the people questioned will answer based on their belief of what the description should be rather then their actual usage of the word, which would result in inaccurate (though not necessarily wrong) results.

If you want to do this I will accept the result if the sample size is taken from adults and at least 50 males and 50 females and no more than 60%/40% either way for males/females.

Maybe I am presumptuous but I really do believe that the current actual usage of the word "gamble" does not include casinos (and companies for that matter). I acknowledge that when using dictionary wording

is the correct answer. But I feel that casinos aren't seen by the public as companies that gamble but rather as companies not-without-risk. "risk" and "gamble" are connected, heck even synonyms according to the dictionary, but not the same IMHO.

jacQues

FastMachine · 09-06-2006 02:02PM

sikes wrote:

but negative vairance can last a life time, so the argument about winning in the long run is bull.

if you are not guarnteed to get back what you put in, its gambling, in any walk in life.

Lol, winning in the long term isn't bull. There are plenty of people on this site who are proof of that. Saying negative variance can last a lifetime is the what's bull. Everyone's 'luck' converges over time (or amount of poker played) so over a long enough sample size everyone will have basically equal luck.
It's the same as flipping coins for long enough - two guys flip them 1,000,000 times, one guy gets heads 495,877 times and the other guy gets it 501,344 times - you're not going to find a guy getting heads only 349,677 times.

jacQues · 09-06-2006 02:06PM

I found a dictionary with the following description on "gamble":

To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.

We all agree; every pokerhand played has an uncertain outcome. Therefore; we all agree that the nature of poker is gambling.

On the long run, the outcome (winning or losing) is not uncertain at all for a poker pro. Provided the bankroll is sufficient, the poker pro will win money. In my eyes, that is a certainty. Also if this were not true, then would there still be poker pros?

The second line is interesting, since it includes the word "risk". A poker pro has an advantage vs. the other players. Whereas the other players hope of gaining an advantage.

jacQues

Ste05 · 09-06-2006 02:14PM

jacQues wrote:

But I feel that casinos aren't seen by the public as companies that gamble but rather as companies not-without-risk. "risk" and "gamble" are connected, heck even synonyms according to the dictionary, but not the same IMHO.

jacQues

This is the whole point IMO, it's the public percention that is what matters here. In their eyes a Casino is not gambling, even though they only have about a 2% edge over the punter. Whereas a (Proven Winning) Professional Poker Player can have an even higher EXPECTED edge over their opponents (punters) even though they both make their money the same way.... as nipplenuts (or more correctly the late Dr. M. R. DeHann) put it "robbery by consent" however, the Poker Player is demonised and looked down upon as a mere degenerate gambler, whereas the Casino is thought of as a regular company, maybe in some quarters thought of as socially irresponsible/ undesirable, but not generally just taking regular business risks... even though they both make their money the same way....

Also in relation to the Sikes/FastMachine points: I think I remember a thread on 2+2 where they basically proved using mathematical models that in fact Bad Variance can last a lifetime. Highly unlikely, but possible, nonetheless

nesf · 09-06-2006 02:16PM

jacQues wrote:

On the long run, the outcome (winning or losing) is not uncertain at all for a poker pro. Provided the bankroll is sufficient, the poker pro will win money. In my eyes, that is a certainty. Also if this were not true, then would there still be poker pros?

Eh, that's not true. The outcome for pros in the long run is uncertain. Just less uncertain than many beginners for instance. Would there still be poker pros if this wasn't true? Yeah sure there would, you only hear about the successful ones, who through a combination of skill and the lack of very bad luck have suceeded to some degree. Your average pro isn't one of these people. The outcome is uncertain, you cannot question that. The sufficient bankroll to make it certain is an infinite one, combined with an infinite number of hands. Anything less than that introduces uncertaincy.

Ste05 wrote:

This is the whole point IMO, it's the public percention that is what matters here. In their eyes a Casino is not gambling, even though they only have about a 2% edge over the punter.

This is the real issue here. People need to take a breath and step back from their automatic reaction of defending poker as something that is not gambling and look at the reasons why they have such aversions to poker being called gambling. DeV's post summed it up well. It's all about public perception of "gamblers". It has little to do with the fact that poker is gambling, but the fact that quite a few people in this country have prejudices against the activity that are very narrow minded and restriced in viewpoint imho.

kincsem · 09-06-2006 02:32PM

DeVore wrote:

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.

I believe betting on the GGs and poker are not 100% gambling as defined above, because skill does count, but there is a large gamble in both. You need a long timeframe for the skill to win out over the luck.

Yesterday I told Dev about my recent GG success (Sir Percy).

Dev got lucky when I stopped to give him a lift

but unlucky when I started to go on about my win. :mad:

FastMachine · 09-06-2006 03:15PM

Ste05 wrote:

Also in relation to the Sikes/FastMachine points: I think I remember a thread on 2+2 where they basically proved using mathematical models that in fact Bad Variance can last a lifetime. Highly unlikely, but possible, nonetheless

Yes, but how bad is bad over that long a sample size? Using the coin flipping analogy again very bad would be getting heads only 430,000 times out of a million and that would be very, very, very, *insert as many verys as you want here* unlikely. You'd probably be more likely to be struck by lightning. Even getting heads 485,000 times would be considered very unlucky and that wouldn't be a killer. The vast majority of people will end up getting heads in or around 500,000 times.
So you'd have to be the 1 in 10,000,000 (random huge number) guy whose lifetime variance is so bad that it's going to ruin his chances of suceeding at poker no matter how good his is.

sikes · 09-06-2006 03:25PM

FastMachine wrote:

Lol, winning in the long term isn't bull. There are plenty of people on this site who are proof of that. Saying negative variance can last a lifetime is the what's bull. Everyone's 'luck' converges over time (or amount of poker played) so over a long enough sample size everyone will have basically equal luck.
It's the same as flipping coins for long enough - two guys flip them 1,000,000 times, one guy gets heads 495,877 times and the other guy gets it 501,344 times - you're not going to find a guy getting heads only 349,677 times.

but people are using the law of large numbers to argue that poker is not gambling by showing that over a large sample size the result will be close to the EV of their plays.

There is no guarntee that this is the case. Although it is "likely" to occur. I am well aware that if you are a decent player and get your money in at the right odds you will most likely win in the long run, but there is no guarntee.

There was also a post that showed that negative variance can last a lifetime either here or 2+2, will have a search.

Sorry Ste05 got there ahead of me, but FastMachine, my point was that there is no guarntee of your return and while the probability of running bad for a lifetime is very very slim, the probabilty is still there.

melekalikimaka · 09-06-2006 03:28PM

Gambling (or betting) is any behavior involving risking money or valuables (making a wager or placing a stake) on the outcome of a game, contest, or other event in which the outcome of that activity depends partially or totally upon chance or upon one's ability to do something.

DeVore · 09-06-2006 04:05PM

melekalikimaka wrote:

Gambling (or betting) is any behavior involving risking money or valuables (making a wager or placing a stake) on the outcome of a game, contest, or other event in which the outcome of that activity depends partially or totally upon chance or upon one's ability to do something.

again, that definition covers a large amount of human endeavour and most of commerce.

DeV.

DeVore · 09-06-2006 04:08PM

DeVore wrote:

again, that definition covers a large amount of human endeavour and most of commerce.

DeV.

The use of the infinite in that Gamblers Dilemma makes it pointless and meaningless. If you allow me to use Infinity I can prove all sorts of things including 1=2*.

DeV.

*Obviously its not a "proof" since the statement is absurd.

Poker is or is not gambling

Comments