Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jack Daniels, post: 996874, member: 1954"] Well my initial vote (based on what I thought the OP was initially asking) was "no". But really the question is not open to all of the interpretations we are making; the question is simple and clear. The question is "Is poker gambling?" That question, as written, specifically asks whether poker is part of a certain classification (gambling) not whether or not it is a game of skill or game of chance like most everyone is trying to argue. Everyone here that actually understands poker would agree that it is a game of skill with an element of luck and is not simply a game of chance. The definition of "gambling" is the conscious [COLOR=black]wagering[/COLOR][COLOR=black] of money or something of material value on an event with an uncer[/COLOR]tain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. The definition of gambling does not account for the amount of luck or skill required; it simply requires wagering to take place on something where the end result can have differnet outcomes without guarantee (even if one outcome is favored over another it is still uncertain). And to Zach's point earlier about knowing what the cards will be in the long run, I have to disagree. You can live to be 1000 years old and play 534 trillion hands of poker, but you will never know what the card will be. All you'll know with absolute certainty is what the card should be x% of the time and that is what is being wagered on. So as a simple question, yes, the game of poker is gambling by definition. Playing the stock market is gambling. Wagering on a football game is gambling however playing in a football game is not gambling because there is no wagering of money or material value (just the concept of the team's record, etc). Going for a walk is not gambling. Making wagers on the outcome of a walk that someone is going on is gambling. Most things in life are not gambling by definition simply because there is no conscious/intentional wagering of money or material value. On the flipside, anything can have a gambing aspect to it once the wagering takes place on the outcome. Chess was an earlier example. Chess is, without a doubt, a game governed by skill. However, there is still an element of uncertainty in every game played. That uncertainty varies greatly based on the players, but it exists. If I played a grandmaster, I'd surely have my ass handed to me is under 25 moves. But if the #1 and #3 ranked players in the world played, then the that uncertainty grows significantly and the #3 ranked player could conceivably beat the #1 ranked player. Look at Olympic divers or gymnasts. These are people at the top of their sport in the world, but so many times the final results for the top finishers will come down to hundreths or thousandths of a point. But again, none of these things are gambling in or of themselves simply because there are uncertainties. I guess what it ultimately comes down to is whether the wagering aspect is an inherent part of the activity or not. Blackjack, craps, poker, etc all have wagering as an inherent part of the activity. This is what makes is some form of "gambling". Walking down the street or things vaporizing and appearing on Mars do not inherently include wagering as part of those activities, therefore they are not gambling but are instead activities upon which wagering or gambling can occur. I think it can be a subtle difference, but every example in this thread clearly falls into one category or the other. Now having said all that, I think the debate is useless overall simply because it serves no purpose. The argument of legality in most jurisdiction that I'm aware of is not about whether poker is gambling or not, it's about whether it is a game of chance or skill. I'm now tired of typing. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us