Age Old Court Poker Argument

[dna4ever 2]

I know this has been discussed a few times in different threads, but I have been doing a little legal research on my bar poker league just mainly out of curiosity, boredom, self-interest, etcIt was interesting to see the actual state attorney general opinion in writing:While Tennessee courts have not yet addressed the question of skill versus chance in the particular factual context of a pay to play poker tournament for a chance to win a jackpot prize, other state courts have. The fundamental nature of such games (poker and blackjack) is chance — A player's skill, no matter how good or bad, does not and cannot control the randomness inherent in the ‘deal’ of the cards. Stated another way, the skill of the player may increase the player's odds of winning but ultimately the player's skill cannot determine the outcome, regardless of the degree of skill involved. Chance, being the nature of the determining factor of the game, dominates over skill.Using this argument (which is semi-valid) short term vs long term variance/skill, etc what is the best way to present to the court the Skill>Chance argument when clearly there is short term chance/luck/variance in a single hand/session. It will be interesting to see if the courts can ever look past the short term and see the game as a long term skill game."Why does this still seem like gambling to you? I mean, why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the world series of poker every single year? What are they, the luckiest guys in Las Vegas? It's a skill game Jo."

[vbnautilus 48]

I know this has been discussed a few times in different threads, but I have been doing a little legal research on my bar poker league just mainly out of curiosity, boredom, self-interest, etcIt was interesting to see the actual state attorney general opinion in writing:While Tennessee courts have not yet addressed the question of skill versus chance in the particular factual context of a pay to play poker tournament for a chance to win a jackpot prize, other state courts have. The fundamental nature of such games (poker and blackjack) is chance — A player's skill, no matter how good or bad, does not and cannot control the randomness inherent in the ‘deal’ of the cards. Stated another way, the skill of the player may increase the player's odds of winning but ultimately the player's skill cannot determine the outcome, regardless of the degree of skill involved. Chance, being the nature of the determining factor of the game, dominates over skill.Using this argument (which is semi-valid) short term vs long term variance/skill, etc what is the best way to present to the court the Skill>Chance argument when clearly there is short term chance/luck/variance in a single hand/session. It will be interesting to see if the courts can ever look past the short term and see the game as a long term skill game."Why does this still seem like gambling to you? I mean, why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the world series of poker every single year? What are they, the luckiest guys in Las Vegas? It's a skill game Jo."

That argument is not even "semi" valid. The chance factors cannot and do not favor any individual player. The only thing that explains the difference in outcomes across individuals the game is factors other than chance, aka skill. Just find a long-term graph of any winning player and challenge the court to explain the graph if the outcome is determined by chance.

[dna4ever 2]

That argument is not even "semi" valid. The chance factors cannot and do not favor any individual player. The only thing that explains the difference in outcomes across individuals the game is factors other than chance, aka skill. Just find a long-term graph of any winning player and challenge the court to explain the graph if the outcome is determined by chance.

Say what you will, but chance/luck and short term variance are very real and can not be disputed. It's what makes the game so appealing to the masses and amateurs. Pretty much the only sport where you can sit down with the best in the world and can beat them at their own game. If you win one heads up tournament against Phil Ivey does that mean you are better than him? If you get your money all in with KK vs AA and spike a K are you a better player? These are both examples of short term chance, variance & luck that exist no matter how skilled you areNo doubt over a period of time skill and percentages will outweigh the variances of short term luck and the better player will prevail, but there is no way you can argue against chance being a part of the game.

[vbnautilus 48]

Say what you will, but chance/luck and short term variance are very real and can not be disputed. It's what makes the game so appealing to the masses and amateurs. Pretty much the only sport where you can sit down with the best in the world and can beat them at their own game. If you win one heads up tournament against Phil Ivey does that mean you are better than him? If you get your money all in with KK vs AA and spike a K are you a better player? These are both examples of short term chance, variance & luck that exist no matter how skilled you areNo doubt over a period of time skill and percentages will outweigh the variances of short term luck and the better player will prevail, but there is no way you can argue against chance being a part of the game.

Of course it's a part of the game. I guess I am confused as to what you are asking then? Clearly chance does not favor any individual in the long run. If long-run performance differs among individuals then there must be another factor. There is irrefutable evidence that this is the case. Regardless, I don't see why this should matter for the law. But really now I think I don't understand what this discussion is about.

[Biff Goods 0]

No doubt over a period of time skill and percentages will outweigh the variances of short term luck and the better player will prevail, but there is no way you can argue against chance being a part of the game.

Yes, however, being "skilled" at the game does not just include how to properly play one hand in one situation. It includes other factors such as being properly bankrolled so you can sustain the losses chance deals out to you in the short term. Consider this. When you start a new business do you take out a loan for only the amount of money you need to initially start the business up (property rent, inventory, etc.)? No you take a loan out to sustain your business against any unfortunate losses that you don't see coming. Most small businesses fail within the first 5 years because they don't follow this plan. If it costs 50k to start the business up they take out 50k and hope they succeed in the first month. Then they are surprised when obstacles they had no control over surface and tank their business and they have to file for bankruptcy. If the PPA would relate playing poker professionally to starting a small business venture I think they may have more luck in proposing it to become legal on all fronts. The two are a lot more related than one may think. The problem is they are trying to relate it to a sport such as basketball or baseball. No one is ever gonna go for this. As far as 'chance' is concerned....'chance' can deal a 'bad beat' to anyone regardless of what the circumstance. Talk to the person who gets lung cancer but never smoked a day in their life or the family that gets mugged late one night. It's not their fault that those things happened to them yet they still have to deal with and overcome the fact that it did. Some can move on.....some can't....this is another "skill" great poker players possess that help them to become more successful at the game than others. The truth is...if knowing your fundamentals was the only wagon we are hitched to the Attorney General is right. But being fundamentally sound is not the only skill a poker player needs to be professional and successful in his/her career.

[dna4ever 2]

good post Biff, lots of good stuff in there.

[pbwl11 0]

I think it was Chris Ferguson that explained it as "10% short term luck and 90% long term skill" that prevails and gets you the money in the long run.Playing the proper cards, in the proper posistion, against the proper opponents, and excercising proper bankroll management that makes a winning player over the long term.Sounds logical to me.

[Arsenic 0]

Just lost a $38 2 table turbo sit and go on PokerStars. Had 77 in Big Blind, with about 1600 Chips, Blinds 50/100. The button is a loose player with about 2400 chips,and he pushes all in. I instant call and he's got 24 offsuit. Flop is K,9,3, turn 6, river 5. Think its time to take a little break............................Online Poker = 100% Luck. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fawk.

[Danege 1]

Just lost a $38 2 table turbo sit and go on PokerStars. Had 77 in Big Blind, with about 1600 Chips, Blinds 50/100. The button is a loose player with about 2400 chips,and he pushes all in. I instant call and he's got 24 offsuit. Flop is K,9,3, turn 6, river 5. Think its time to take a little break............................Online Poker = 100% Luck. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fawk.

Lol.

[Merby 3]

Just lost a $38 2 table turbo sit and go on PokerStars. Had 77 in Big Blind, with about 1600 Chips, Blinds 50/100. The button is a loose player with about 2400 chips,and he pushes all in. I instant call and he's got 24 offsuit. Flop is K,9,3, turn 6, river 5. Think its time to take a little break............................Online Poker = 100% Luck Rigged. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fawk.

FYP

[MaxStPolish 4]

Just lost a $38 2 table turbo sit and go on PokerStars. Had 77 in Big Blind, with about 1600 Chips, Blinds 50/100. The button is a loose player with about 2400 chips,and he pushes all in. I instant call and he's got 24 offsuit. Flop is K,9,3, turn 6, river 5. Think its time to take a little break............................Online Poker = 100% Luck. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fawk.

You are not real. So this post never even happened.

[profxavier9 0]

people love to talk about the long run, but never say how long that really is. 5k hands? 10k? 100K 1million? 2million? 1 brazzillion?!?! Lets say you started playing poker today and assume you were gonna start off on a 1 brazzillion hand downswing. Is it really a game of skill for that guy? I understand its highly unlikely, but it could happen. theoretically this guy could be playing his whole life just until any type of skill would ever factor in.don't really know where im going with that but it just "food for thought" i guessthoughts?

[fighter 4]

people love to talk about the long run, but never say how long that really is. 5k hands? 10k? 100K 1million? 2million? 1 brazzillion?!?! Lets say you started playing poker today and assume you were gonna start off on a 1 brazzillion hand downswing. Is it really a game of skill for that guy? I understand its highly unlikely, but it could happen. theoretically this guy could be playing his whole life just until any type of skill would ever factor in.don't really know where im going with that but it just "food for thought" i guessthoughts?

It is easy to say theoretically you could never win a hand again. When you start playing around with the numbers, it is so many standard deviations away from the mean that it becomes more likely that you will get hit by an asteroid then the chance of this happening. http://www.pokervariancesimulator.fr/ This tool is great for realizing just how unlikely it is for certain length down swings to happen. The bigger you win rate, the harder it is to have 100k hand downswings. You have to have a really, really small win rate for a 1MM hand downswings to be anywhere near a possibility.

[CoolHandKai 0]

While Tennessee courts have not yet addressed the question of skill versus chance in the particular factual context of a pay to play poker tournament for a chance to win a jackpot prize, other state courts have. The fundamental nature of such games (poker and blackjack) is chance — A player's skill, no matter how good or bad, does not and cannot control the randomness inherent in the ‘deal’ of the cards. Stated another way, the skill of the player may increase the player's odds of winning but ultimately the player's skill cannot determine the outcome, regardless of the degree of skill involved. Chance, being the nature of the determining factor of the game, dominates over skill.

The premise "A player's skill does not have an effect on what cards are randomly coming up." is correct (yet trivial). However, the conclusion "Chance dominates over skill." can't really be drawn from that premise. Thus, the whole thing is a strawman argument.

[tbrick412 0]

Just lost a $38 2 table turbo sit and go on PokerStars. Had 77 in Big Blind, with about 1600 Chips, Blinds 50/100. The button is a loose player with about 2400 chips,and he pushes all in. I instant call and he's got 24 offsuit. Flop is K,9,3, turn 6, river 5. Think its time to take a little break............................Online Poker = 100% Luck. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fawk.

nh

[vbnautilus 48]

people love to talk about the long run, but never say how long that really is. 5k hands? 10k? 100K 1million? 2million? 1 brazzillion?!?! Lets say you started playing poker today and assume you were gonna start off on a 1 brazzillion hand downswing. Is it really a game of skill for that guy? I understand its highly unlikely, but it could happen. theoretically this guy could be playing his whole life just until any type of skill would ever factor in.don't really know where im going with that but it just "food for thought" i guessthoughts?

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=101763

[mtdesmoines 3]

Just lost a $38 2 table turbo sit and go on PokerStars. Had 77 in Big Blind, with about 1600 Chips, Blinds 50/100. The button is a loose player with about 2400 chips,and he pushes all in. I instant call and he's got 24 offsuit. Flop is K,9,3, turn 6, river 5. Think its time to take a little break............................Online Poker = 100% Luck. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fawk.

Have said "rigged" approx 52 times in past 24 hours.

It is easy to say theoretically you could never win a hand again. When you start playing around with the numbers, it is so many standard deviations away from the mean that it becomes more likely that you will get hit by an asteroid then the chance of this happening. http://www.pokervariancesimulator.fr/ This tool is great for realizing just how unlikely it is for certain length down swings to happen. The bigger you win rate, the harder it is to have 100k hand downswings. You have to have a really, really small win rate for a 1MM hand downswings to be anywhere near a possibility.

For best effect, enter .001 win rate

[Balloon guy 158]

When I win...it's skillWhen you win...it's luck