Is "working for a living" considered gambling?

[rifflemao]

It does in Joe Public's case. Actually, Joe Public is probably worse off playing poker than he is playing roulette - at least playing roulette he's only giving up an edge to the house of 2.7 or 5.26%. If he sits down in a poker game against a bunch of much better players, chances are he's giving up a much bigger edge than that.

That may be true of Joe Public, but you're attributing something about him to the game of poker as a whole, which is a logical fallacy. I'll try to break it down:

roulette is predominately a game of chance.
Poker is predominately a game of skill.
Joe Public has no skill at poker, and relies on chance to win.
Joe Public is gambling at poker; therefore, poker is gambling. :icon_scra

You can exchange Joe Public with Phil Ivey and the fallacy is still there:

Phil Ivey has been gambling at poker all night by playing against the odds; therefore, poker is gambling. :icon_scra

I'm not saying it's a bad argument, and it might actually be effective in court (or the court of public opinion who may also view Joe Public as a victim of the poker community, despite all the free information available to him), but imo it's flawed in the way that some antiquated legal definitions of gambling are when they don't take predominance into consideration.




As far as "skill" being a helpful point, a writer at Law360.com thinks that Judge Weinstein's skill-game ruling in the DiCristina case could matter in some US States (Google "poker game of skill" if necessary to see the full article):


"...since the underlying framework on which IGBA cases stand or fall depends on how individual states treat gambling, judges in other states whose statutes take less stringent approaches toward what constitutes illegal gambling could find use in Judge Weinstein's opinion, according to Fleming.

'Whether poker is skill or chance does matter under other states,' Fleming said.

About 25 states, for example, have laws requiring that luck 'predominate' and not just exist in a material degree for a game to be considered gambling.

'We hope that, in other states, courts will be swayed by Judge Weinstein's opinion,' Fleming said.

State lawmakers, too, could take cues from the 'game of skill' ruling, according to Daniels College of Business risk analysis and gaming professor Robert Hannum.

'Right now it's a gray, nebulous area as you go from state to state,' Hannum said. 'But I'm convinced that poker should be characterized as a game of skill.' "

-Pete Brush


I do see that as an uphill battle where I live (Texas), but I don't see Judge Weinstein's ruling as a legal dead end (for reasons stated in the article), despite the reversal in NY. Either way, it may not directly matter to the fight for legalization of online poker, but as I mentioned the PPA is well aware of that (even if I initially wasn't) and are promoting more effective arguments in the political arena.

 

[rifflemao]

I think poker CAN CERTAINLY BE gambling but IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE! Proper money management and risk management can curb the risk to create positive expectations over the long run.

I agree, and even if I didn't, lots of players have proven this.

In the same sense, WALKING ACROSS THE STREET can be a gamble. Suppose you choose to walk across a busy street blindfolded.....that is certainly one way you can choose to walk across the highway.....another way is without the blindfold. so WALKING ACROSS THE STREET CAN be a gamble, but it doesn't have to be. You can just play poker without any practice, reading, or any effort.....that would be, in my opinion, GAMBLING in poker. However, if you put your time and effort into learning the game and becoming better than most people at it, then POKER is no longer a GAMBLE for you.

Crossing while texting is a more likely scenario, but I get it.

I also understand that your income is not guaranteed in a regular job. People change jobs a lot more often today than they did years ago, often from getting laid off. I worked for one company for 10 years and every year the Christmas dinner and white elephant gift exchange got smaller and somewhat more depressing. Some of the people left for other jobs, but several of them were laid off. One of our guys committed suicide within 6 months after his layoff because he couldn't find work.

I've experienced that leaving one job for another (without a layoff) can be a big gamble. You never know what kind of situation you're getting yourself into, and sometimes it doesn't work out for you or them. But in my case I wouldn't go back to the old "comfortable" job even for the money.

I've actually been working part time and test-driving poker on the side via Bovada, live league, and an occasional live tournament. I'm finally showing a profit due to better bankroll management and studying, but I have a long way to go before figuring out if it's something I can do for a living. I also have some cushions in place that came from working a regular job for 10-12 years, so I'm more inclined to respect the benefits you get from working a 9-5 grind for a while.

I'll say this: I'm having a blast after partially making the jump you're talking about, and I don't see myself ever going back to Corp America as an employee (I didn't enjoy it). There are tons of ways to make money that don't include selling your soul (or any other part of you lol). Poker is definitely one of those ways, but I believe this old quote:

"Poker is a hard way to make an easy living."

I suspect it's the same for staring a small biz too:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/

 

[OzExorcist]

That may be true of Joe Public, but you're attributing something about him to the game of poker as a whole, which is a logical fallacy. I'll try to break it down:

Roulette is predominately a game of chance.
Poker is predominately a game of skill.
Joe Public has no skill at poker, and relies on chance to win.
Joe Public is gambling at poker; therefore, poker is gambling. :icon_scra

You can exchange Joe Public with Phil Ivey and the fallacy is still there:

Phil Ivey has been gambling at poker all night by playing against the odds; therefore, poker is gambling.

I'm just suggesting that you can't say anything one way or the other about poker without taking the player into account. Which is why I argued that it's always wrong to say "poker is not gambling" without at the very least including a rider on the statement ("poker is not gambling for skilled players in the long term", for example).

 

[angelluv725]

Where I live, just walking out my door and getting into my car, is a gamble.

 

[rifflemao]

Why saying "Poker Is Gambling" is wrong.

I'm just suggesting that you can't say anything one way or the other about poker without taking the player into account. Which is why I argued that it's always wrong to say "poker is not gambling" without at the very least including a rider on the statement ("poker is not gambling for skilled players in the long term", for example).

It's wrong to say "poker is not gambling", and wrong to say "poker is gambling". The former doesn't account for the element of chance, and the latter doesn't account for the predominance of skill.

But enough of this. Let's just play headsup4rollz and be done with it. :shakehand

 

[Arjonius]

Poker is gambling since there is an element of luck, but not "pure" gambling where the outcome is completely due to luck.

As for whether working for a living is gambling, I think you'd have to use pretty loose definitions of one or both to answer in the affirmative.

 

[rifflemao]

Poker is gambling since there is an element of luck, but not "pure" gambling where the outcome is completely due to luck.

I guess it depends on what test is applied.

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."

I agree with that, but I'm not sure if all states apply the same test.

 

[OldDog456]

Life in general is a gamble and each decision you make has an effect of the outcome of your life and those around you, only your knowledge and skills will improve the outcome.

 

[terryg642]

is working for a living considered gambling

Playing poker for a living is the same thing as running your own business plane and simple ,in fact, starting your own business and being a successful poker player probably have about the same success rate ,of course ,you have more opportunity as business owner in the states because of legal issues with online poker.

 

[jashiggs]

I think we everyone needs to take a deep breath and then go back to read the actual definition of "gambling". This is a pretty good 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. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize.​

Does employment pass that test? You're not actually wagering any of your own money on it - quite the opposite. For it to qualify as gambling, you'd be relying on time and effort to count as the "stakes".

The outcome doesn't have any uncertainty either, in most employment situations. Work X hours, get paid Y dollars. The length of time for which you'll be offered that deal is uncertain, but while you're actually doing the work there's no uncertainty.

It is, of course, a no brainer that employment passes the third test. But you've gotta draw an incredibly long bow to get it to pass the first two. And keep in mind that even if you do get fired, you're only losing your future potential to earn money - they don't take away the money you've already earned.

Compare that to poker, where you can very easily end up with less money than what you started with.

And even if someone were to concede your previous arguments about employment being a gamble, there's still no way you can ever reduce the risks in poker to an extent where it's less "risky" than employment.

So... long story short, I'm not really sure what your point is. If your point is that everything in life is a gamble then yes, if you stretch the definition of "gambling" far enough then you could make that argument. I don't know what that's supposed to prove though.



Until the PPA successfully manages to get the definition of gambling changed to something other than the one above, then they're barking up the wrong tree. Poker is gambling, cut and dried. Consideration, chance, prize. Passes all three tests with flying colours. You might as well try to argue that marijuana isn't a drug

It isn't a drug!! Its a plant !

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Propane Goat]

Regardless of your source of income, the biggest amount of risk you can generate for yourself IMO is to allow your expenses to rise beyond the level of your income and to use consumer debt to keep them there.

I see so many people living like this. They make damn good money but are a knife-edge away from being bankrupt and homeless because if they lose even one month's salary, everything is in default because they have zero cash reserves and a monumental amount of debt service payments due every month. If you're running your financial ship in this manner, now you're really gambling.

 

[rifflemao]

Regardless of your source of income, the biggest amount of risk you can generate for yourself IMO is to allow your expenses to rise beyond the level of your income and to use consumer debt to keep them there.

I see so many people living like this. They make damn good money but are a knife-edge away from being bankrupt and homeless because if they lose even one month's salary, everything is in default because they have zero cash reserves and a monumental amount of debt service payments due every month. If you're running your financial ship in this manner, now you're really gambling.

Reminds me of the US Govt. But seriously, this is a crucial point and a great post regarding business and personal finance. Faraz Jaka blogged a while back on the topic of "balling on a budget", suggesting that poker players live within their means, and try to be frugal.

 

[lilnewtdog]

You're not comparing the risks of not working vs working, so no need to go there, but it's worth looking at some of the financial benefits one loses as a full time poker player in the US who quits a good-paying job.

A full time poker player:

--doesn't have a steady income.
-has to pay the full FICA (social security) and Medicare payments of 15.3% of income, whereas an employer would pay half of that.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't go for it if you're a great player who couldn't be happy doing anything else, but is a list of risks you have to mitigate by working very hard at your game.doesn't get paid health, vision, and dental insurance.
-can't contribute to a 401k with matching.
-doesn't get paid vacation.
-doesn't get paid sick days.


BTW, there are some great players on the WSOP Circuit who either work full time or run businesses, and have taken down some impressive cashes. It's entirely possible to earn life-changing money (pay off the house etc) from poker and still have a traditional career.

Most jobs don't offer;
doesn't get paid health, vision, and dental insurance.
-can't contribute to a 401k with matching.
-doesn't get paid vacation.
-doesn't get paid sick days.

With Obamacare paid insurance is a thing of the past.
The 15% to half is made up with gas money

 

[lilnewtdog]

Reminds me of the US Govt. But seriously, this is a crucial point and a great post regarding business and personal finance. Faraz Jaka blogged a while back on the topic of "balling on a budget", suggesting that poker players live within their means, and try to be frugal.

Living outside those means (having bad bankroll management) is the real gamble.

 

[strodawg]

I don't think working for a living is gambling by any means. No matter what job it is and if you can get laid off at any given time does not make it a gamble if it was it would be the best bet in the world because it is guaranteed money as long as you show up and even attempt to get done what they want to get done.
Now if something with work is gonna be a gamble, it would be whether or not if switching jobs is better or for worst. There you are gambling whether the company is gonna go under or stay afloat, if your new boss isnt or is gonna like they way you get things done, and if you are gaining or loosing benefits.

 

[SANDYHOOKER KY]

A pretty lively thread, this one. So what definition of "gambling" do you accept? Gambling could be applied to any thing that has more than one possible outcome from one set of circumstances. So the guy that says you "gamble" with your life when you get behind the wheel of a car, is correct, because you take a "chance" that you may be involved in a fatal accident. Chance and gamble can both be used loosely as the same meaning. Gambling in the gaming world means particularly playing games, so all debate and discussion will be on gaming, nothing else. The American political system are the biggest "gamblers" of all, but no one seems to care about those "gamblers". And crooked gamblers too. Working cannot be thrown in the kettle with poker, or any other game, just because there are chances of 'this'and 'that.' A good comparison is made, but it just can't be used to down play all the hullabaloo about gambling in the gaming world.

 

[TetraMinbet]

Poker is gambling. To do well you have to make good informed(if you're lucky)decisions.

Investing in the stock market is gambling.

One of these is more socially acceptible in the eye of most than the other.

I believe poker and poker players will probably always be stigmatized as outlaw outsiders.

People hate what they don't understand.

People hate people who don't conform. Poker players are probably the ultimate nonconformists.