5 Minutes of Your Time...

Egon Towst · May 7, 2010

Mortis said:
I don't want to click on the link for fear that it may be a virus....

Oh wait, I'm on my roommate's computer.. I'll take the survey.

You are clearly not up for gambling, then.

Mortis · May 7, 2010

Egon Towst said:
You are clearly not up for gambling, then.

lol

Hutcho · May 7, 2010

Egon Towst said:
As a matter of curiousity, what are you reading Hutch ? You must be close to graduating. Do you have a career in mind ?

Studying "Information Studies" Egon.

It's a mixture of more literature based modules, such as how information is used and portrayed etc, and more technical modules, some of which have included, database design, website design, and adobe flash design.

I leave in around 3 weeks, and not sure what I will be doing yet. Probably a year out to relax and get a part time job for steady income. Play a bit of poker too of course

Egon Towst · May 7, 2010

Hutcho said:
Studying "Information Studies" Egon.

It's a mixture of more literature based modules, such as how information is used and portrayed etc, and more technical modules, some of which have included, database design, website design, and adobe flash design.

I leave in around 3 weeks, and not sure what I will be doing yet. Probably a year out to relax and get a part time job for steady income. Play a bit of poker too of course

You might consider Librarianship. It sounds as though your degree might be good grounding for that, and I happen to know that there is a shortage currently of good people to manage books and other information resources in the larger and more academically-inclined secondary schools.

tomh7795 · May 7, 2010

That survery had nothing to do with poker. I still did it though

mig2169 · May 7, 2010

very nice survey, totally enjoyed it.

Stick66 · May 7, 2010

Since I saw the phrase "non-poker" a lot and since I don't consider poker to be gambling, I just answered the questions as if none of it related to poker.

Folks need to relax and give this kid a break.

Pascal-lf · May 7, 2010

Stu_Ungar said:
I will try and give you some idea as to why poker is different from other gambling activities.

The biggest problem with trying to explain why poker is a game of skill to a non-poker player is that in order for them to understand that that its a game of skill, you have to explain how to win at poker, and this is difficult to do because its a game that takes so long to learn, its impossible to sum it up into a single 1 hr lecture.

However, Dusty Schmit, in his book came up with a really neat way of showing the presence of skill. Rather than talking about winning, he turns the situation around and talks about losing!

If I put a gun to your head and told you that you must lose the next hand of poker, could you do it? Even if you held AA could you find a way to lose?... I think you could.. you might make a bad fold or something, but you could find a way.

What about a game like roulette? Could you find a way to lose there? Are you as a player able to influence the times that you lose? In this case no, you cannot do anything to make yourself more likely to lose than the odds dictate.

So when playing a game that you cannot increase the chances of losing you are purely gambling, but when playing a game where you can increase the chances of losing, you are playing a game of skill.

Then consider the flip side, if you can increase the chances of losing, you can also increase the chances of winning.

While this is certainly an elegant explanation of poker, I'd say it's fundamentally flawed. The definition of gambling you are using means that every possible outcome must be random - there must be no way to use skill to influence the game to lose.

Let's take a slightly wider definition of gambling - betting on an outcome of which you are uncertain. While there are obviously situations in poker when you know you have the best hand, there are plenty of times when you do not, and at the beginning of a hand you never know whether your hand is going to be the best. You entire the pot uncertain of the outcome.

Regardless, I still like that definition, even if it is a bit misleading

Elie_Yammine · May 7, 2010

atlantafalcons0 said:
"If I put a gun to your head and told you that you must lose the next hand of poker, could you do it? Even if you held AA could you find a way to lose?... I think you could.. you might make a bad fold or something, but you could find a way."

I'm in the BB and everyone folded.

I'm dead.

LOOOL!
online for sure :goodnight!but live, hmm...where's Oz? If I open up a card making it look like an accident, can I reject my hand or induce the small blind to raise me or something

?

Nunnayo_Bizniss · May 7, 2010

Pascal LeFiscal said:
While this is certainly an elegant explanation of poker, I'd say it's fundamentally flawed. The definition of gambling you are using means that every possible outcome must be random - there must be no way to use skill to influence the game to lose.

Let's take a slightly wider definition of gambling - betting on an outcome of which you are uncertain. While there are obviously situations in poker when you know you have the best hand, there are plenty of times when you do not, and at the beginning of a hand you never know whether your hand is going to be the best. You entire the pot uncertain of the outcome.

Regardless, I still like that definition, even if it is a bit misleading

Well said... got some bright minds in here...

Stu_Ungar · May 7, 2010

Pascal LeFiscal said:
While this is certainly an elegant explanation of poker, I'd say it's fundamentally flawed. The definition of gambling you are using means that every possible outcome must be random - there must be no way to use skill to influence the game to lose.

Let's take a slightly wider definition of gambling - betting on an outcome of which you are uncertain. While there are obviously situations in poker when you know you have the best hand, there are plenty of times when you do not, and at the beginning of a hand you never know whether your hand is going to be the best. You entire the pot uncertain of the outcome.

Regardless, I still like that definition, even if it is a bit misleading

What?

Poof · May 7, 2010

Stu_Ungar said:
What?

Don't ask, I have a feeling now this will be moved to the rigtard thread.....lol

lektrikguy · May 7, 2010

Pascal LeFiscal said:
While this is certainly an elegant explanation of poker, I'd say it's fundamentally flawed. The definition of gambling you are using means that every possible outcome must be random - there must be no way to use skill to influence the game to lose.

Let's take a slightly wider definition of gambling - betting on an outcome of which you are uncertain. While there are obviously situations in poker when you know you have the best hand, there are plenty of times when you do not, and at the beginning of a hand you never know whether your hand is going to be the best. You entire the pot uncertain of the outcome.

Regardless, I still like that definition, even if it is a bit misleading

This is where we debate if poker is a true gambling game. If we are playing roulette, I put my money on 17 and hope it hits. In Poker, I choose which hands to play and which hands to fold. And while we talk about winning and losing, what about winning,losing,or just not losing a particular hand? If I fold, I give myself a 100% chance of not losing. True, I have a 0% chance of winning that hand, but I can wait for a better hand.

Panamajoe · May 7, 2010

Worked for me. Hope it helps, was easy and not particularly intrusive.

belerophon · May 8, 2010

Pascal LeFiscal said:
Let's take a slightly wider definition of gambling - betting on an outcome of which you are uncertain. While there are obviously situations in poker when you know you have the best hand, there are plenty of times when you do not, and at the beginning of a hand you never know whether your hand is going to be the best. You entire the pot uncertain of the outcome.

Regardless, I still like that definition, even if it is a bit misleading

IMDO this is where your statement becomes vague. A good player, over the long run, can be assured of the outcome. The skill trumps short term "luck".

I took the survey also and have to agree with the others here. It sucks that your tutor was unable to see this fundamental flaw. Good Luck with your paper.

forsakenone · May 8, 2010

i done the survey, tho i did not like it, it assumes i am a addicted gambler, might even suggest i am a problematic gambler.

Mortis · May 8, 2010

forsakenone said:
i done the survey, tho i did not like it, it assumes i am a addicted gambler, might even suggest i am a problematic gambler.

I thought the same thing. Answered anyways.

The times that I went out to the casino to play poker.. I saw that money as entertainment money, and not gambling money. I expected to lose my $50 or so when I went out.. same amount as going out to a dinner and movie. Except sometimes, I would get a return on my money.

Hutcho · May 8, 2010

Thanks to all who took the questionnaire.

I couldn't reply for 24 hours due to reaching my maximum post count for the day, due to being a new member.

For those saying that poker isn't really gambling - I agree with you, and that is going to be a strong point to make in my conclusion of the work.

The questions contained on the questionnaire were strictly suggested to be used, by my personal tutor for this dissertation, and he will be the one is is also grading the work.

Therefore, there will be weight on his shoulders, should he give me a poor grade and I will have a strong argument due to his insistence in the questions.

DawgBones · May 9, 2010

Hutcho said:
Thanks to all who took the questionnaire.

I couldn't reply for 24 hours due to reaching my maximum post count for the day, due to being a new member.

For those saying that poker isn't really gambling - I agree with you, and that is going to be a strong point to make in my conclusion of the work.

The questions contained on the questionnaire were strictly suggested to be used, by my personal tutor for this dissertation, and he will be the one is is also grading the work.

Therefore, there will be weight on his shoulders, should he give me a poor grade and I will have a strong argument due to his insistence in the questions.

This is just a suggestion. What if you made another survey with your own questions about poker? That way if your tutor should flame on you for the results of "his questionnaire", you would have a backup. Fwiw mostly checked the "not at all" button because most of the questions did not apply.

5 Minutes of Your Time...

Egon Towst

Cardschat Elite

Mortis

Bulls On Parade!

Hutcho

Rising Star

Egon Towst

Cardschat Elite

tomh7795

Visionary

mig2169

Rock Star

Stick66

Legend

Pascal-lf

Legend

Elie_Yammine

Visionary

Nunnayo_Bizniss

Rising Star

Stu_Ungar

Legend

Poof

Made in the USA

lektrikguy

Legend

Panamajoe

Legend

belerophon

Rock Star

forsakenone

Legend

Mortis

Bulls On Parade!

Hutcho

Rising Star

DawgBones

Legend

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site