Poker is or is not gambling

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. 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....

Best post in this thread.

Yes, it seems there is a 'flaw' in my logic thinking which is there because I tend to think logically but there is no logic in the the masses' view on things. It would be neat to do a survey to find out if you are right, but I'd gamble on it.

This would mean, however, that a casino is not gambling and a poker pro is. Which is absurd. Sounds like a doctor's advice to start using cocaine for health reasons. (Yes, this happened in the past!) E.G. the public is (currently) ill-informed about poker.

This may also suggest that the definition of the word "gamble" is indeed not 'settled' at this moment.

jacQues

DeVore wrote:

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

DeV.

The standard definition will do that yes. It isn't a problem with the definition, it's just gambling is an extremely broad term. Which is why the whole public perception this is so ****ed up.

Imho DeV you are a professional gambler and there's simply no other way to swing it. But I don't attach a bunch of prejudices and connotations to it based on some shoddy inductive logic though.

The thing is in poker you're not just taking odds but laying them a lot of the time too, which is what really sets it apart from traditional bookies and casinos and all the problems associated with them.

since some of you think casino's and pro players are similar can you tell me the ratio of skint casino owners to skint poker players?

any person with an iota of common sense would never compare the two

Again i will state there are a handful who will be succesful, actually HJ made a good point about this,a sort of poker hierachy

Ste05 wrote:

If you read the points again you'll see that the comparison is, IMO, actually correct. If a Professional Poker Player is a Proven Winning Player, then by mere definition there are probably less Skint Professional Players than skint Casino owners, all casino's are subject to Card Counters, the usual market competition associated with running a business, cost control, etc. etc. So there are more risks associated with running a business such as a Casino than there is for a Proven Winning Professional Poker Player

Clever how you left the last sentence out of my qoute,

and BTW would you give that little place called Vegas a call and tell them to stop spending money on their casino's as there probably going to bust on their 2% margins

Also what % of pro players are consistent proven winners?

Well just to be clear. I agree with all these points and haven't disagreed with any of them in this thread

It's been an interesting thread to read although I wish more people had the clarity of thought and exposition that Dev does.

Trying to nail down a commonly agreed definition of a fuzzy concept is very difficult, take Wittgenstein's famous example of the word "game", but very helpful for having a meaningful discussion about it. It's not always strictly necessary though, for example the field of ethics continues on without agreed upon definitions of core terms like "right" and "good" (the subfield of metaethics deals with the definitions of these terms). In the field of gambling studies we continue on without bothering about the definition of gambling.

Dev said:

DeVore wrote:

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.

Sorted among whom? It is one thing for us poker players here to agree a definition of gambling, but surely we must either acquiesce to the general population's majority definition of gambling or at least accept their view that poker is gambling to them. Okay you're a more proactive "change the world's view" kind of guy, and I respect that energy a lot, but it is infinitely easier to change your own view. What I mean is - if you and others have negative connotations about the term "gambler" then you ought not to create a private definition of it which precludes good poker players, you ought to disabuse yourself of the necessarily negative connotation for yourself and ignore it in others.

I am quite clear in my own mind that poker is gambling because my definition of gambling is the simple one which disregards any exactitude of odds or long run, and I accept that some people view gambling negatively. Their views often *aren't* actually predicated on a semantic misunderstanding or lack of understanding that it can be consistently profitable (many may not understand this but it is not really the source of their negative view of it). Many people view all gambling activities engaged in very frequently and for long periods as an unworthy use of time in life and as promoting irresponsible or unhealthy attitudes and behaviours. It has little to do with how much you win or lose at the end of the year. And to a great extent I agree with them, and I say that as someone who once put in an average of 50-60 hours per week for a year.

The only aspect of it which gets to me a little bit is the respect and reverence with which many financial "suits" are treated. I have close to zero respect for jobs which involve the stockmarket (particularly) and pension fund investments etc. These are people gambling too, and gambling on the stock exchange is an absolute joke if you understand the true chaotic nature of it (I assume Roundtower2 does).

There is one important point about the type of definition of gambling that you were espousing - the fact that it precludes poker has social implications. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have managed to make a lot of money from this game know just how difficult it really is for the average player to do. I've spent time studying the phenomenon of expertise and have spent a lot of time around international pro scene of another card game. I know that only a tiny % have the ability, dedication and personality to become an expert at a game like poker. Everyone else is threading water, just about beating the rake, pulling in a few thousand and probably losing most of it back,and mostly being delusional about their future earning potential.

Half of poker players don't consider poker to be gambling for the reason of your definition about using intelligence and skill to win in the long run. But I estimate that only about 5% of serious poker players have this intelligence and skill. You end up with 21 year olds leaving college and thinking about taking up poker professionally because it isn't *really* gambling, one can use intelligence and skill to suceed. When you combine that with the fact that the very vast majority of players grossly overestimate their own ability and erroneously believe that they have an edge which they don't then you have young people making very negative life decisions leaving college when delaying starting their career may be very detrimental.

So promoting poker as a non-gambling game can genuinely have negative effects on average players. They too could go pro if they *just* applied themselves a little more, if they *just* could avoid tilting, if they *just* etc etc. The truth is they probably couldn't earn big money, and even if they could they are probably suffuciently clever and talented to be able to earn more doing something else, and even if not it is still not a necessarily healthy choice.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to pack to head off to play cards in sunny America for a week

DeVore wrote:

In that case both ecksor and RT have missed my reasons for this thread.

I was trying to investigate the definition of the term that would apply to poker professionals but not to say, commerce, stocks trading or any other form of return on investment without 100% certainty.

Why dont one of you put forward a definition that is clear and not illogically applied to one set of activities and not others.

My point was that the arguments in a previous thread were spawned because we dont have a workable definition of the word "gambling" and so the term is confusing, misleading and contentious.

DeV.

I indicated my definition of "gambling" earlier in the thread, it does include stock trading. But regardless of your intention in starting the thread, half of the posts in this thread have been from people trying to twist the definition of gambling so that it doesn't apply to them, because they feel the word has negative connotations. That's all ecksor said.

DOLEMAN wrote:

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...

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.

Similarly a gambler who says he is up a fair bit is generally break-even or in a loss situation but has had a couple of big wins he chooses to remember more vividly than all the small losses.

A gambler who claims he is break even is unevitably quite a big loser.

There is an anomally (spelling?) whereby the poker players I talk to that just say "I do allright" when asked tend to be the biggest winners, go figure.

It is also easier to lie to yourself when you are playing poker/gambling in a live environment than it is online, online all you have to do is compare deposits and withdrawls to get a clear picture of where your at.

Everyones a gambler.