Is Poker Gambling?

When I win it isn't but last night proves it is lol...........In all seriousness poker is gambling because we are not guaranteed a favorable outcome despite how skilled we self profess to be.........

The best answer I heard to this question is poker is luck and skill combined. It doesnt have to be a black or white issue.

I have often thought that poker is mostly skill right up to the time that the dealer turns the river card. Lady Luck owns the river. Skillful players rake in the pot long before the river.

Just because something requires skills doesn't mean it's not gambling. blackjack requires skills also but it is one of biggest gambling games in the world. Anytime you're putting money into the pot or wagering the money where you're not guaranteed to win your money back, then it is a form of gambling. Skill portion only applies over long period of time. Skill is only determined through long term result. Skilled players gamble towards their favor while unskilled players gamble against their favor. But it is still gambling. Case closed.

What's next? Sportsbetting is not gambling also since skills are required to research the teams, their stats in certain environment and against certain teams, etc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling

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. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize.[1] Typically, the outcome of the wager is evident within a short period.

When I go all-in with a flopped straight/nuts against someone with a flush draw or a set, I am gambling. I am gambling towards my favor but I am still gambling because if the board pairs or another suit that completes their flush falls, I lose the pot. I flopped the best hand but I had no guarantee that I was going to win the pot although I was favorite to win it. FAVORITE does not mean it's not gambling.

Amsterdam's Court Rules Poker to Be a Skill Game, Not a Game of Chance
January 24, 2014
Frank Op de WoerdGiovanni Angioni

After a seven-year trial, Amsterdam's court dismissed charges against three men accused of violating the national gambling law with a verdict that finds poker to be "first and foremost a game of skill, not of chance".

The decision has been based on research conducted by a group of independent experts and, although it is still too early to understand how this will change the poker industry’s future in the Netherlands, is a significant step towards the legalization of the game, according to Amsterdam-based lawyer Peter Plasman.

Right after the verdict was made public, PokerNews contacted Mr. Plasman and discussed with him the ruling and its possible consequences for Dutch poker players.

PokerNews: This is the second time that a court in the Netherlands drops charges against people accused of violating gambling law by organizing poker tournaments. Is thinking that we can now organize events without a license going too fast?

Plasman: The issue is that the Dutch gambling law is not clear and it does not offer a precise definition of which games should be considered of chance and which ones should not. As for the spirit of the law, organizing activities related with gambling games without a license is to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.

Hence, regarding poker, organizing a tournament can only be punished as long as poker is considered a game of chance. Now, the court ruled that poker is not, and things are meant to change as the court has the last word.

gam·ble [gam-buhl] Show IPA


verb (used without object), gam·bled, gam·bling.

1.

to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.


2.

to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance: to gamble on a toss of the dice.

The law is what I'm going with.

PoKeRFoRNiA said:

For those who try to justify poker that it's not gambling or that it's a sport, you're fooling yourself. Get a job. Play some REAL sports. People who think poker is not gambling, remind me of degenerates at casino who are constantly gambling, losing money, but yet, they delude themselves that they're not gambling but they're investing on their skills and that they'll get their money back.

Only thing skill does is reduce the risk of losing compared to others but it is STILL gambling.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_Factor_Test

"The California Supreme Court said:

The term 'game of chance' has an accepted meaning established by numerous adjudications. Although different language is used in some of the cases in defining the term, the definitions are substantially the same. It is the character of the game rather than a particular player's skill or lack of it that determines whether the game is one of chance or skill. The test is not whether the game contains an element of chance or an element of skill but which of them is the dominating factor in determining the result of the game." (source)


As for other states, it depends on what test they use to define gambling.

I believe poker is very comparable to trading stocks... It has a lot of skill, research, and perception involved.. IMO stocks trade based on perception of that stock and market kinda similar to how poker hands are played and bet based on what you can perceive other players have and what you can make them perceive you have.

In my opinion any time you put up something of value for a chance (no matter how small of a chance) at something else of value it is gambling. Which by that definition would fit every type of transaction in the world from purchasing stocks, to buying wholesale items and selling them at retale (which would include any store almost), and even buying seeds to grow into products to sell... All business small or large has some type of risk involved which turns it into a type of gambling

rifflemao said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_Factor_Test

"The California Supreme Court said:

The term 'game of chance' has an accepted meaning established by numerous adjudications. Although different language is used in some of the cases in defining the term, the definitions are substantially the same. It is the character of the game rather than a particular player's skill or lack of it that determines whether the game is one of chance or skill. The test is not whether the game contains an element of chance or an element of skill but which of them is the dominating factor in determining the result of the game." (source)


As for other states, it depends on what test they use to define gambling.

Click to expand...

I'm not debating here whether poker requires skills or not. Yes, poker requires skills. However, it is also gambling. Just because something requires skills does not mean it's not gambling. I love how people can become very narrow-minded and automatically assume that if something requires skills, then it's not gambling. Blackjack requires skills also, but it's still gambling.

When you're placing money into the pot where you have no guarantee of the outcome, then you are gambling. However, it is a different type of gambling where you play against each other instead of the house. If you go all-in with AA and I call you with 22, then sure, you'll win 80% of the time but at any given time, can you guarantee that you'll win? NO. You're putting your money in as favorite but there's a limit to how much skill can apply. In order to determine the skill portion, it's measured through large volume of hands, hence why all the regulars discuss win rates, bb/100, ROI over thousands of tourneys or millions of hands, etc. When you're bluffing, you're also gambling on the tendency that your opponent folds based on his range and his fold equity. It's not guaranteed that you'll win hence the reason why it's gambling.

It is a gambling game that requires skills, unlike other gambling games where no skills are required. Gambling that requires no skills are games such as lottery, slots, bingo, etc where everyone has equal chance of winning. Games such as poker, blackjack are games where better players will profit over the long period of time but the skill portion is only determined through long period of time. When it gets down to one game, one session, one tournament, you better believe it or not, luck plays bigger role than skills.

I'm done with this discussion. No use debating with people whose only logic is "skill game = not gambling".

PoKeRFoRNiA said:

I'm done with this discussion. No use debating with people whose only logic is "skill game = not gambling".

Click to expand...

There is an undeniable element of luck to poker. Both statements, "poker is gambling" and "poker is not gambling", contain a flaw in reasoning. This statement about poker avoids that pitfall, and accounts for how the game has evolved:

Poker is predominately a game of skill.

It also helps properly (and legally in some cases) distinguish poker from games of pure chance.

theeButcher said:

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)

Click to expand...

...For what it's worth...

Against seasoned vets, they will make their bet sizes to disguise the strength of their hand (ie, make their value bets look like bluffs and vice versa).

I can't imagine a scenario where you would rather play against seasoned vets than against a bunch of rookies.

-----

I realize the above is a side-track from the discussion.

IMO, poker is still technically gambling, but you have so much control over when it is a "good" idea to put your chips in and when it is a "bad" idea to put your chips in.

If you commit to playing a million hands, it is ultimately a skill game.

rifflemao said:

There is an undeniable element of luck to poker. Both statements, "poker is gambling" and "poker is not gambling", contain a flaw in reasoning. This statement about poker avoids that pitfall, and accounts for how the game has evolved:

Poker is predominately a game of skill.

It also helps properly (and legally in some cases) distinguish poker from games of pure chance.

Click to expand...

For the last time, I'm not debating here whether poker is a skill game or not. I've mentioned this in EVERY post that Poker is a skill game. However, it is also gambling. Just because something requires skills does not mean it's not gambling. Gambling has two genres, which are games that require skills and games that require no skills. Gambling Games that require skills are games such as poker and blackjack. Gambling Games that do not require skills are games such as slots, lottery, roulette.

Anyways, what's wrong with gambling? Most of you view gambling like it's a bad thing. Gambling is an entertainment. Most people tend to only relate gambling with games that don't require skills such as slots, lottery, bingo, and roulette. I love gambling. I gamble and bet against my friend for NFL Super Bowl this year and lost my $100 bet because I bet on Broncos when SeaHawks crushed them. Is it bad to gamble? Gambling is simply where you wager on something where you have no guarnateed outcome. People view gambling negatively because some people ruin their lives through gambling. But that's as ridiculous as viewing alcohol negatively because it has caused high number of violent accidents and made someone alcoholic.

If I flop a nut straight and skillfully get my villain to move all-in with a flush draw while I'm holding a nut straight, you think I'm not gambling? I am gambling because I am wagering my money into the pot, hoping for my 65% equity to hold up. Over the large volume of hands of running this scenario, I'll come out ahead with a profit over the long term if I run this scenario hundreds of times but during that one hand, IT IS GAMBLING because I do not know if I will win that hand. However, I am gambling towards my favor, which I would really much appreciate and take this gamble anytime, anyday.

When I am bluffing, I am skillfully trying to play my opponent's tendency to fold, hence the fold equity. But I have no guarantee that my villain will fold, hence being a gamble. I am gambling on his tendency to fold because I wagered my money into the pot.

I love the insecurity people have against gambling that they try to justify poker as not gambling as if gambling is an evil thing to do or that it only applies to games where everyone has equal chance of winning. Gambling is fun. But it's even more fun when you are able to tweak things towards your favor rather than playing against a house under same odds as everyone else.

PoKeRFoRNiA said:

For the last time, I'm not debating here whether poker is a skill game or not.

Click to expand...

Me either- that debate has been resolved for years. What I am debating is how poker players should answer the gambling question, and imo saying "Yes, it's gambling. Just because having skills gives you edge doesn't mean it's not gambling. It is gambling." tends to emphasizes the element of chance and gambling over skill. So does this, which is blatantly wrong:

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

One of the key points about skill in poker is that we are not always reliant on the fall of cards in order to win.

I'm arguing that poker players should emphasize the dominant factor (skill) when answering the gambling question. States that use the DF test are essentially saying that just because a game involves an element of chance doesn't mean it should legally be considered gambling. You are free to use another test, but it seems we should prefer one that portrays poker more positively and accurately. I believe that's what the OP was after...

theeButcher said:

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)

Click to expand...

If you can determine the strength of a hand by the size of the bet.... it's a weak player, seasoned or not. Why would strong players "tell" you the strength of their hands?

SpookMBluffwell said:

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!

Click to expand...

It takes skill to deal with your opponents play. It's always gambling because you don't know what cards are coming.

SpookMBluffwell said:

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!!

Click to expand...

But tighter doesn't equal better. Yes, you can get more cash, but with deep stacks you can lose much more. Playing a deep stack properly is a skill most tournament players don't need to develop. They just play tight until the antes kick in and almost everyone is getting short stacked - Which depends more on luck than skill.

lilnewtdog said:

Poker Is More a Game of Skill Than of Chance, a Judge Rules

Click to expand...

Don't you understand that that statement and most of the rest of what you posted, says that poker IS A GAME OF CHANCE? No if ands or buts.

It is skill and luck - both. The ruling is that the skill involved is GREATER than the luck. Not that luck isn't involved.

It must be obvious that poker is luck in the short term. Over time, the skill will prove itself. But on any given night, luck can rule.

lilnewtdog said:

gam·ble [gam-buhl] Show IPA
verb (used without object), gam·bled, gam·bling.
1. to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
2. to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance: to gamble on a toss of the dice.

Click to expand...

#2 clearly describes poker.

When you hold AK and see on an Ace on the flop, you figure it unlikely that anyone at the table holds both of the remaining Aces. So you make your bet based on that. But, in this particular hand you could be wrong and be totally dominated. Luck.

Or you have pocket Jacks and based on the stack sizes the correct play puts you all in. Your opponent has AK. That is a coin flip, in which your advantage is very small. You couldn't complain about losing that hand. Luck.

You are playing the odds. Whether it's the odds of what possible hands your opponent can have or the odds of someone making their hand.

Your expected value is based on everything that might happen. Over time, if you get your money in at the right times, you will win. But I don't comprehend how anyone can deny the luck of any given hand.

rifflemao said:

Me either- that debate has been resolved for years. What I am debating is how poker players should answer the gambling question, and imo saying "Yes, it's gambling. Just because having skills gives you edge doesn't mean it's not gambling. It is gambling." tends to emphasizes the element of chance and gambling over skill. So does this, which is blatantly wrong:

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

One of the key points about skill in poker is that we are not always reliant on the fall of cards in order to win.

I'm arguing that poker players should emphasize the dominant factor (skill) when answering the gambling question. States that use the DF test are essentially saying that just because a game involves an element of chance doesn't mean it should legally be considered gambling. You are free to use another test, but it seems we should prefer one that portrays poker more positively and accurately. I believe that's what the OP was after...

Click to expand...

Reliant on fall of a card doesn't always mean underdog. If you have an equity that is not 100%, then you're relying on the fall of the card to work towards your equity. If you get your chips in with AA against someone with 22, you're relying on the cards to fall towards 80% of your equity.

Only time you're not reliant on cards is when you are bluffing or taking down the pot uncontested. But even then, you're still gambling because you're wagering money into the pot on your villain's tendency to fold. But you have no guarantee that your villain will fold, hence being a gamble.

Yes, poker is gambling, it's also a game of skill for some and luck for others. I also think there's different types of gamblers that play. You have the skilled players that take poker very seriously, (some, very seriously), then you have the retired folks that like to play, you have that play and hope they get lucky and win big, then you have those like myself that play as a hobby, don't take it too serious when I lose, or win.

We can all agree to disagree. the law is the law and that is what I abide by.

lilnewtdog said:

We can all agree to disagree. the law is the law and that is what I abide by.

Click to expand...

1. It is illegal to skateboard without a license.

2. When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.

3.You may not fart in a public place after 6 P.

4.It is considered an offense to shower naked.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/florida

These are some laws of the state of flordia.

Gamble-n.noun

1. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture.
2. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk.

This should be the perfect example of rather the law or the dictionary is correct. Considering the question asked what Gambling was which clearly means what is the definition not the understanding based upon locations

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION

In my opinion the only type of poker that is not gambling is when you have ZERO money or objects of value at risk. Even if you are playing with Fritos you still have to gamble something to win something no matter what the percentage of win is. Also it would be impossible to have 100% to win preflop. So no matter if it only cost you 1 penny preflop to see flop, and have that 100% win (if you could some how know that you did) it would of still been a gamble of that penny to get to that point.

My in-laws said to me when my wife was relating some poker story from an event I played in " we don't know anything about poker...we don't gamble" I stated: with all honesty " I don't like to gamble much either, but I don't mind taking some well calculated risks. " So ended the conversation.....that's not awkward hahaha

PoKeRFoRNiA said:

Reliant on fall of a card doesn't always mean underdog. If you have an equity that is not 100%, then you're relying on the fall of the card to work towards your equity. If you get your chips in with AA against someone with 22, you're relying on the cards to fall towards 80% of your equity.

Only time you're not reliant on cards is when you are bluffing or taking down the pot uncontested. But even then, you're still gambling because you're wagering money into the pot on your villain's tendency to fold. But you have no guarantee that your villain will fold, hence being a gamble.

Click to expand...

I thought you meant how the cards fall preflop. I think we can all agree that simply paying the blinds is a gamble, so no dispute.

As for the perception problem the OP alluded to, and "changing the way we refer to poker", I repeat that we're better off emphazing the non-gambling aspects of the game. I constantly have to do that with family who assume that when I leave to play poker that I'm "going on a gambling spree", as if poker is no different than slots or roulette. :banghead:

Interesting article