Stu_Ungar said:
This is a common but extraordinary misconception, at least in the case of Christianity.
In fact this is about as perfect a summation of the exact opposite of of Christian core belief as one could come up with in as few words.
This is a very interesting post.
I was wondering if when I read it, how I define gambling. I feel like the level of gamble is the focus and not so much the game.
Everything has a level of gamble to it. Some, more than others. Short-term poker seems to have a lot of gamble to it, but long-term poker does not. Everyday decisions has a level of gamble to the degree of making the wrong decision when usable decision-making info is lacking). Even when presented with information, many of us see investing in stocks and/or day trading as gambling. It seems as if any activity with ANY level of gamble can conceivably be defined as 'gambling'.
Back to poker. I heard a definition of 'gambling' with respect to poker that was interesting (not necessarily fact though). Ok, Forget about winning, let's focus on losing.
As it was explained, in roulette, craps, etc....it is NOT possible to NOT win at least once. If you choose a number or roll dice, eventually you will hit your number (through infinity). It IS possible to lose every time when you play poker. I believe this was only an illustration of the ability to affect an outcome between traditional gambling and games of skill like poker.
It's not necessarily the defining explanation (it's not perfect), but I think it's not too bad.
I was wondering if when I read it, how I define gambling. I feel like the level of gamble is the focus and not so much the game.
Everything has a level of gamble to it. Some, more than others. Short-term poker seems to have a lot of gamble to it, but long-term poker does not. Everyday decisions has a level of gamble to the degree of making the wrong decision when usable decision-making info is lacking). Even when presented with information, many of us see investing in stocks and/or day trading as gambling. It seems as if any activity with ANY level of gamble can conceivably be defined as 'gambling'.
Back to poker. I heard a definition of 'gambling' with respect to poker that was interesting (not necessarily fact though). Ok, Forget about winning, let's focus on losing.
As it was explained, in roulette, craps, etc....it is NOT possible to NOT win at least once. If you choose a number or roll dice, eventually you will hit your number (through infinity). It IS possible to lose every time when you play poker. I believe this was only an illustration of the ability to affect an outcome between traditional gambling and games of skill like poker.
It's not necessarily the defining explanation (it's not perfect), but I think it's not too bad.
Why won't this thread die?
Anyone up for beating a dead horse?......oh wait, isn't that what we're doing.
Seriously though, gambling is an addiction and there are many players who just play poker for recreation and can go without it for long periods of time.
Poker is and isn't gambling, depending on who you talk to, there are several pros that make a comfortable living playing poker and those are the ones who play to make money, some players play to make a little extra income and then there are the gambling types who go through great lengths to chase after thier losses and those are the types you can consider gamblers.
I will come to beat this horse more when I look back in here at another time. 😉
Anyone up for beating a dead horse?......oh wait, isn't that what we're doing.
Seriously though, gambling is an addiction and there are many players who just play poker for recreation and can go without it for long periods of time.
Poker is and isn't gambling, depending on who you talk to, there are several pros that make a comfortable living playing poker and those are the ones who play to make money, some players play to make a little extra income and then there are the gambling types who go through great lengths to chase after thier losses and those are the types you can consider gamblers.
I will come to beat this horse more when I look back in here at another time. 😉
I guess you could say it could be considered gambling since you don't always have control of the outcome. But what is the difference in buying in to a local golf tournament for $10 and not knowing if your gonna win and buying in to a poker tournament for the same amount. NO difference in my opinon. and also if you were to win the main event for 9 million dollars and helped fund your local church with the money to build a new building i'm sure they wouldn't mind.
Pot odds is best explained with a cion toss. Let's see if you can fallow.
There is a 50% win chance. If a player gets 2:1 odds and plays 100 times how much will that player win on an average? OK, let's say the player is unlucky and loses 60%. At a dallor each toss, this player loses $60, but wins $80. This is clearly not gambling.
If a weak player sits with sharks, that is gambling. Rocks have a long chance to win against me. I'll see that they are only waiting for strong hands and I'll take every pot the rocks do not want by bertting into them, and let the rocks have every pot they want. Since all players miss more flops than they hit, I'll just bleed the rocks dry. Loose and crazy player, I'll just play tight and trap them. There is a way to beat every poker style, hence change gears or playing style often.
Besides, every year it's the same five guys making it to the final table of the world series of poker. Are they the luckest guys in the world? Winning the main event twice in a row, is like winning the lottery twice in a row, if it was luck. However, there are players (plural) who have won the wsop main event twice in a row - two years back to back. Does that sound like luck? Only a fool thinks poker is a game of chance. Tell that to your self rigious friends.
Poker is a game of skill, and only the losers call it chance. Fact, there are profession players. How can that be if it's gambling.
There is a 50% win chance. If a player gets 2:1 odds and plays 100 times how much will that player win on an average? OK, let's say the player is unlucky and loses 60%. At a dallor each toss, this player loses $60, but wins $80. This is clearly not gambling.
If a weak player sits with sharks, that is gambling. Rocks have a long chance to win against me. I'll see that they are only waiting for strong hands and I'll take every pot the rocks do not want by bertting into them, and let the rocks have every pot they want. Since all players miss more flops than they hit, I'll just bleed the rocks dry. Loose and crazy player, I'll just play tight and trap them. There is a way to beat every poker style, hence change gears or playing style often.
Besides, every year it's the same five guys making it to the final table of the world series of poker. Are they the luckest guys in the world? Winning the main event twice in a row, is like winning the lottery twice in a row, if it was luck. However, there are players (plural) who have won the wsop main event twice in a row - two years back to back. Does that sound like luck? Only a fool thinks poker is a game of chance. Tell that to your self rigious friends.
Poker is a game of skill, and only the losers call it chance. Fact, there are profession players. How can that be if it's gambling.
Last edited:
That's a really funny way to put it, dakota-xx! It definitely highlights how subjective the definition of "gambling" can feel, especially when we're talking about a game like poker where skill plays such a huge role. I think the core of the debate often comes down to intent and the potential for financial loss, which can vary wildly from person to person. It's interesting to consider how even when playing with a strategy, the inherent randomness of the cards can still feel like a gamble to some.dakota-xx said:
https://apkfreecine.com/
Is spades or hearts gambling ? No poker is not gambling . Now if you play for money it's definetly gambling. Now if you are a christian don't play for money because you have to be deceptive and tell lie's to be successful at the game.
For infinite sample size certainly not because real world value has to converge with expected value .Its pure mathematics ,If infinite sample size is taken in consideration so called luck or chance doesnt exist
