Is Poker Gambling?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blown01Cobra
  • Start date Start date
running cold

its hard not to feel like its gambling sometimes when your running cold. unless you have the nutz than your gambling for the win. Although playing against hacks seems to be more of a gamble in my opinion. atleast w seasoned vets you have a decent idea of the strengh of a hand based on the way a bet is made(size wise)
 
A2345Razz said:
Im sort of baffled as to why you seem to believe the two to be mutually exclusive.

You can be skilled at gambling ala card counters....

Its a gambling game of skill.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is a game of skill yet it becomes a gamble because you can't be certain what your opponent will do. Yopu can try to force their hand but if theyre on tilt well good luck!

dasher said:
It is simply not true that cash games require less skill than tournaments. You can play deep stack in cash games and keep topping off if you have to. So that factor works against your argument, since the antes and escalating blinds can turn everybody's stack into a short stack. When knowing when to shove is a important skill... admit that it's called knowing when to gamble.

And if tournaments weren't gambling (plus skill), then why don't the best players cash every single time? Why don't we see all the top players in the final table at the WSOP?
Click to expand...

I think tournament play differs because when your chips are gone, your done. You can't just sit down with more of them like you can with cash. So you have to play tourneys much tighter or youll find yourself going home in a hurry!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's clear that with some people poker is much more of a gamble than others... I think professional poker players and even some of us micro grinders who work hard to improve their game skills rely less on gambling than skill.

The less you know about the game, the more of a gamble it is to play!
 
In my personal opinion I think there is a percentage of each thing in a greater degree than others, but if there is a 1% chance it can happen lol. as a wise man said, poker is a "mixture of both," said another. A third said is a game of skill but depends on the other player. "The skill is only good if a donkey is not random."

, "60 ability, 40 Random", "70 skill, 30% luck", "80 skill 20 chance."
 
I really enjoyed this thread as it was well written with many good points.

I've been playing poker for many years and I don't consider myself a gambler. I agree that poker is looked upon by outsiders as more of a degenerate form of gambling. There are players who have made decent to big profits each and every year since they started playing. They have deposited on sites years ago and never re-deposited, only have made many countless withdrawals. For these type of players, its hard for them to consider themselves as gamblers.

On the other hand, for those players who lose almost every year, who constantly deposit and never withdraw, its hard not to view them as gamblers.

In my line of work, I meet a lot of new people frequently... and when I tell them that Im highly into poker, I always feel the need to explain further.

Luckily for me my Family and friends understand how I could have an edge in poker and believe me when I say I have only profited from the game. I think it would really get under my skin if it was otherwise.

I think since most people who play this game are NOT profitable, it will always be viewed as gambling. I agree that it should not be in the same category as slots, roulette, or even blackjack, but until they change the language of the definition, it will continue to be viewed as the same as these other gambling games.
 
yes it is a game of luck.you have to be lucky in the right moment to win lot of money no matter how good you are
 
When poker is considered gambling. One has to consider athletic events or tournaments gambling when there is an entrance fee. This argument is way to logical for me. Hard to find a difference there but easy to find a difference between poker and games of chance like the loto or slots. There is no other conclusion games of skill, basketball, bowling, and poker are completely different than games of chance. Why would someone who likes to play poker argue the same point that the legislation argue. All games of skill have an entrance fee with a chance to win money. Are they all gambling?
 
lilnewtdog said:
When poker is considered gambling. One has to consider athletic events or tournaments gambling when there is an entrance fee. This argument is way to logical for me. Hard to find a difference there but easy to find a difference between poker and games of chance like the loto or slots. There is no other conclusion games of skill, basketball, bowling, and poker are completely different than games of chance. Why would someone who likes to play poker argue the same point that the legislation argue. All games of skill have an entrance fee with a chance to win money. Are they all gambling?
Click to expand...

WTF? Entrance fee? How is that any relavant to gambling? Entrance fee exists for any event because it is to cover the cost for hosting the event. Entry fee in poker is to cover the cost it takes to host it. Nobody is going to host it for free. casinos charge entry fee because they need to hire dealers, tournament director, etc while using their own properties.
 
PoKeRFoRNiA said:
WTF? Entrance fee? How is that any relavant to gambling? Entrance fee exists for any event because it is to cover the cost for hosting the event. Entry fee in poker is to cover the cost it takes to host it. Nobody is going to host it for free. Casinos charge entry fee because they need to hire dealers, tournament director, etc while using their own properties.
Click to expand...

No that's a rake. When you play in a bowling tournament you pay to enter hence entrance fee, which goes in the prize pole just like poker. So to say poker is gambling then what separates it from most athletic tournaments (unless highly spectated)? I'm not sure why you have to try and make me out that way. What I said is correct and you should know that.
In case I was misunderstood. I was saying that poker should not be considered gambling just because of the definition (Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods). If so than other tournaments golf, bowling, fishing, and so on should be as well.
 
lilnewtdog said:
No that's a rake. When you play in a bowling tournament you pay to enter hence entrance fee, which goes in the prize pole just like poker. So to say poker is gambling then what separates it from most athletic tournaments (unless highly spectated)? I'm not sure why you have to try and make me out that way. What I said is correct and you should know that.
Click to expand...

Entrance fee = rake. Rake = hosting fee because casinos collect rake to cover the cost of running the tables and their workers.

Poker is gambling because you are reliant on fall of the cards you have no control over.

I go 1 on 1 against Lebron James right now for one game, I'm gonna get schooled big time, no questions asked. I'll gather up my friends and play against Miami Heat and we'll get schooled big time, whether it be 1 game or 100 games.

I go 1 on 1 against Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, Daniel Negreanu, I have a good chance of crushing them or beating them in one game. They would only beat me over long period of time, if we were to play mass volume of hands.

See the difference?

If you're betting or putting money into the pot over something where you are no guarantee of winning the pot regardless of good decisions you make, then it is gambling.

Since blackjack also requires skills too, such as card counting, bet adjusting, etc, are you going to say blackjack is not gambling also?

I read that craps can require skills too since you can toss the die in certain way where you'll get consistent number of what you seek over the long run. So i guess craps must not be gambling also.

Sportsbetting must not be gambling also since you can research the teams and athletes before you make your bet, right?

Slot machine must not be gambling also since there's supposedly a book where it advices that you can scope around, look for a "sucker" who loses lot of money in a certain machine and then after that person leaves, use that machine and you have high chance of winning. So I guess if you do that for over period of time, you will profit compared to other people.

So no. I don't believe what you said is correct and those are the following explanations why.
 
These things you speak of are not competition vs others. They are games against the house who is supposed to win. Lebron James is in a spectator sport there is no entry fee in the games people go to see him play which pays his salary, true that is not gambling. Yes on any given night he can and has many times lost against others that are not near as good as him. Others play basketball for money and are not in a league with spectators, then they have to pay a fee that is tallied up for a grand prize at the end. Thence putting up money without a guarantee of the outcome. What a horrible analogy, those Poker Pros would crush you, and you probably never played basketball.
 
Poker isn't gambling - there is far too much skill involved for it to be gambling.

/end thread.
 
lilnewtdog said:
These things you speak of are not competition vs others. They are games against the house who is supposed to win. Lebron James is in a spectator sport there is no entry fee in the games people go to see him play which pays his salary, true that is not gambling. Yes on any given night he can and has many times lost against others that are not near as good as him. Others play basketball for money and are not in a league with spectators, then they have to pay a fee that is tallied up for a grand prize at the end. Thence putting up money without a guarantee of the outcome. What a horrible analogy, those Poker Pros would crush you, and you probably never played basketball.
Click to expand...

LMAO, this guy thinks any non-professional basketball player can possibly school up and ball up Lebron James but yet, thinks professional poker player will crush amateur on any given day. LMFAO. Want me to show how amateurs and average joes school up Ivey and other pros on certain given day? Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3kNegroit8 Part 1 - Amateur schools up Ivey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQUn7_RKBv8 - Part 2 - Amateur schools up Lindgren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQUn7_RKBv8 - Part 3 - continuation of part 2 where amateur schools up Lindgren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge8ctOK0PrE - Part 4 - Amateur schools up Howard Lederer
Amateur schools all 4 pros in one night easily heads-up.

Chris Moneymaker was an average joe accountant from Nashville, Tennessee and he owned and played circles around Sammy Farha, PROFESSIONAL poker player and won wsop 2003 and also, crushed Farha again 10 years later during rematch event, winning 2 of 3 games.

Or how about Leonidas crushing Phil Hellmuth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5lWbCBNy-c

You're too naive to think that pros will crush amateur on any given day. It's very clear you haven't played enough poker to realize how much luck and variance is involved to not think that poker is gambling. It's why there are lot of new bracelet winners every year and every new event. Poker is a game where you have to risk a lot to win little. Many regulars clearly know this and they know that only way they'll come out on top is fight through the variance and put in large volume of hands. Your justification to prove that poker is not gambling is a joke.

Just because skills are involved doesn't mean it's not gambling. It's a different form of gambling compared to other games such as slots, craps, blackjack but when you're placing your bet into the pot where you're not guaranteed to win, then it is gambling.
 
It is a game of skill, but it is 110% absolutely gambling if your wagering money... Even if you were playing pool (which pool is not gambling) but if you made a wager over a pool game you would be gambling, even though the winner would most likely be the one more skilled!
 
This is a debatable issue.
I believe gambling is when luck a coinflip toss or 50 50.
I would consider poker as 60%=skill and 40%=luck.
 
PoKeRFoRNiA said:
LMAO, this guy thinks any non-professional basketball player can possibly school up and ball up Lebron James but yet, thinks professional poker player will crush amateur on any given day. LMFAO. Want me to show how amateurs and average joes school up Ivey and other pros on certain given day? Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3kNegroit8 Part 1 - Amateur schools up Ivey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQUn7_RKBv8 - Part 2 - Amateur schools up Lindgren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQUn7_RKBv8 - Part 3 - continuation of part 2 where amateur schools up Lindgren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge8ctOK0PrE - Part 4 - Amateur schools up Howard Lederer
Amateur schools all 4 pros in one night easily heads-up.

Chris Moneymaker was an average joe accountant from Nashville, Tennessee and he owned and played circles around Sammy Farha, PROFESSIONAL poker player and won WSOP 2003 and also, crushed Farha again 10 years later during rematch event, winning 2 of 3 games.

Or how about Leonidas crushing Phil Hellmuth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5lWbCBNy-c

You're too naive to think that pros will crush amateur on any given day. It's very clear you haven't played enough poker to realize how much luck and variance is involved to not think that poker is gambling. It's why there are lot of new bracelet winners every year and every new event. Poker is a game where you have to risk a lot to win little. Many regulars clearly know this and they know that only way they'll come out on top is fight through the variance and put in large volume of hands. Your justification to prove that poker is not gambling is a joke.

Just because skills are involved doesn't mean it's not gambling. It's a different form of gambling compared to other games such as slots, craps, blackjack but when you're placing your bet into the pot where you're not guaranteed to win, then it is gambling.
Click to expand...

You don't listen to what people write. I'm done going back and forth with you. I'm glad some poker players argue for the rights of poker. Its awesome.
 
lilnewtdog said:
You don't listen to what people write. I'm done going back and forth with you. I'm glad some poker players argue for the rights of poker. Its awesome.
Click to expand...

Actually, I do, which is why I directly contradicted your statement of pro crushing amateur or beginners on any given day. And yet, all you do is fail to provide reasoning and proofs behind why poker is not gambling. You can't logically explain why poker is not gambling. You fail to provide any proof and examples behind your statements. I'm done arguing here as well. And you completely miss what the poker players including myself argue for in terms of rights. Poker players argue for the right to play a game where skills are involved while they're not playing against the house but almost every poker player knows that when it gets down to one game, one tournament, one session, heavy amount of luck is involved, hence the gamble. Skill portion is only determined through long period of time through mass volume of hands. When you're placing money into the pot where you're not guaranteed to win, then it is still gambling. Skilled players just means they gamble wisely and put odds into their favor.
 
Poker Is More a Game of Skill Than of Chance, a Judge Rules

By MOSI SECRET

Published: August 21, 2012

The game was Texas Hold ’Em. About $300 bought a place at the table in the back room of a warehouse on Staten Island, where waitresses floated around with food and drinks and the play lasted until breakfast.

The pot went not to the luckiest among them but to the most deft — the player who could guess his opponents’ intentions and disguise his own, make calculated decisions on when to hold and fold, and quickly decide how much to wager. That, anyhow, is how one federal judge saw it from his chambers in the Federal District Court in Brooklyn.

In a ruling that goes to the heart of what it means to play poker, Judge Jack B. Weinstein tossed out the conviction and vacated the indictment of the man who ran that gambling business. The judge’s reason: poker is more a game of skill than a game of chance, so game operators should not be prosecuted under the federal law the prohibits running an illegal gambling business.

“The most skillful professionals earn the same celestial salaries as professional ballplayers,” he wrote in the exhaustive 120-page ruling that detailed the history of poker in the United States. The decision comes as state courts across the country are grappling with whether playing poker defies the law. No federal court had ever ruled directly on whether poker constituted gambling. The United States attorney’s office, which was reviewing the decision, did not say whether it would appeal the case.

The Poker Player’s Alliance, an organization that works to decriminalize poker and that filed an amicus brief in the case, released a statement lauding the decision.

“As we worked for years defending players against vague gambling laws, we have patiently waited for the right opportunity to raise the issue in federal court,” John Pappas, the executive director of the organization, said in a statement. “Today’s federal court ruling is a major victory for the game of poker and the millions of Americans who enjoy playing it.”

Lawrence DiCristina ran the warehouse where the games took place — that was not in dispute — taking 5 percent of each night’s pot to cover the cost of his staff and profit for himself. He was arrested last summer, charged with operating an illegal gambling business, of which he was convicted in July. He faced up to 10 years in prison.

But Mr. DiCristina’s lawyer, Kannan Sundaram, a public defender, said poker was not a game of chance and therefore not subject to the law. He called an expert witness, Randal D. Heeb, an economist, statistician and poker player in national tournaments, who testified in a special hearing about the skill involved.

Judge Weinstein put off ruling on the issue until after the trial, allowing the jury to render its verdict first.



A version of this article appeared in print on August 22, 2012, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Poker Is More a Game of Skill Than of Chance, a Judge Rules.

________________

Men Acquitted as Dutch Court Rules Poker is a Game of Skill

Posted by Matt Holden on January 27, 2014 |

Three men have been acquitted by an Amsterdam court after being charged with violating the country’s Gambling Act. The men were caught seven years ago arranging a live poker tournament, however, the judge has now ruled that poker is a game of sill, not chance, and therefore the men did not break the law.


Men Acquitted as Dutch Court Rules Poker is a Game of Skill
Three men were acquitted last week when a court in Amsterdam ruled that poker is a game of skill, not chance.
The ruling took such a long time as a group of experts was given the task of conducting extensive research into the game. The Dutch Gambling Act says that offering or promoting games of chance without a license is prohibited.

After the verdict attorney Peter Plasman who represented the three men said, “The game of poker has evolved tremendously over the years. Many people play the game today, study books and experts acknowledge the skill level has increased to a point where one can no longer speak of a game of chance.”


There's many more where those came from (Internet)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the best cash game players on the planet, Ben Tollerene had a Q&A thread on bodybuilding.com a while back.

Here's some quotes from the thread:

  • I've always been a logical thinker. The stuff just makes sense to me. Thinking through a poker hand is like a really long geometric proof: if this than this, and if that then this, and it goes on for like 2 pages if you do it correctly
    smile.gif
    . Also just trying harder than everyone else, think through every possible option. I realize a lot of this doesn't make sense to those that don't play though. Also, I usually control myself better than others. It's very common to see the good regulars to go on a 10 buy-in downer and lose their mind and drop another 10 buy-ins spewing / tilting. If you don't do that, and your opponents do, you have a reciprocal edge.
  • The math is very important, namely combinatorics (sp?). For example there are 4 aces in a deck which makes 6 combinations of pocket aces. If you hold 1 ace, there are now only 3 aces in the deck and 3 combinations of pocket aces. This is v important when assessing an opponents range, how many combinations of made hands, bluffs, semi bluffs, and air (air = bluffs) does he have?

    Then the other part is how will he act with each part of his range? How does he think I will act with each part of my range? Is he more or less likely to be bluffing after just losing a huge pot? Is he going to play scared at higher limits or is he going to try and flex and show he wont be pushed around?

    "The stuff that goes through our mind in a hand is pretty endless.

  • some of my friends are "forbidden to play" by their parents and stuff. I don't think its their fault when people think its wrong, they are just ignorant. I personally feel 0% need to gamble. I spent 2 months in vegas and I played pit games 1 time when i flew my buddy out to hangout. we just play mini stakes and get drunk. "

    "I dont feel like im gambling when I play. I feel like im playing a strategy game where I win by making the best possible decisions, and in my strategy there is a "luck factor" that makes it where sometimes the best decision still loses"
So, yeah, that was a top player's input on the matter.

Also, this may have been posted up before on CC but here you go:

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/16547-norwegian-politician-throws-in-towel-in-poker-battle - pro cash player from Norway offered a politician a $170k freeroll as an incentive to play him and test the amount of skill needed.


I find nothing more frustrating than having a conversation with someone who knows nothing about poker and them telling me how "it's all luck, that I have a gambling problem" etc.
 
In my opinion, it's gambling but it's not depending on luck for 100%. it's up to your skills and especially patience.
 
Well in poker there is randomness, so i believe that if players let that randomness take control of course it could be defined as gambling. However that's not what happens in most of the cases, therefore the ability of each player is crucial to win the game.
 
Poker is not a gambling, it's a pure skill..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top