is poker gambling?

[justblaze 0]

well, some moron happens to be a significant part of our society. Nothing is certain in life. you put a dollar into a vending machine, are you certain a snack will come out?If you take definitions so literally, you couldnt tell me you are certain. And yet, we dont see GA reps handing out flyers at your local pepsi machine.The salient point is that you're not betting a dollar that the snack will come out.Understand?

no, i dont. why arent i betting a dollar? i put in a dollar, with the expectation that some item of a value greater than $1 will come out. It might not. The snack must be of greater personal value to me than $1 because i am not indifferent to which snack comes out. some have higher value, some lesser value.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Despite this, we can all agree that betting on sports, and games like blackjack and roulette are most definitely gambling. So, it is clear that the textbook definition of gambling is incomplete.No.It's clear you're persuig a pointless semantic argument in an attempt to appear "Deep".Just go smoke some pot and expound to your buddies that the universe might just be an atom in a blade of grass in another universe or something and stop wasting our time with this crap.

hah. I really couldnt give two censored about whether or not you think im deep. To me, its not a pointless semantic argument. This issue has personal relevance to me, for reasons i dont care to divulge. Im sure it affects some other posters here, too. No one is asking you to respond. If the issue is too complicated for you, just go back to quipping one liners at those asking how to play AK from UTG. So far, you've given me the same argument as my mother: "its gambling, i dont have to explain why. its obviously gambling."

Blaze I understand where your coming from, My poker related business venture has been on IDLE because of the Ontario Government.And they're views on Poker and other casino games is all the same. "Gambling".. and like your mother, the government only has to tell you once.Its gambling, because we say so.

[justblaze 0]

To wager money on an uncertain outcome.Is sky diving gambling? No, the person sky diving takes the risk for reasons other than monetary interests, as the person who eats the sandwich does. In my opinion, gambling must involve money.

so refute the logic that post-secondary education is gambling in the same sense that poker is.

[krup24 0]

Gambling does not have to involve money. FACT.

[justblaze 0]

Despite this, we can all agree that betting on sports, and games like blackjack and roulette are most definitely gambling. So, it is clear that the textbook definition of gambling is incomplete.No.It's clear you're persuig a pointless semantic argument in an attempt to appear "Deep".Just go smoke some pot and expound to your buddies that the universe might just be an atom in a blade of grass in another universe or something and stop wasting our time with this crap.

hah. I really couldnt give two censored about whether or not you think im deep. To me, its not a pointless semantic argument. This issue has personal relevance to me, for reasons i dont care to divulge. Im sure it affects some other posters here, too. No one is asking you to respond. If the issue is too complicated for you, just go back to quipping one liners at those asking how to play AK from UTG. So far, you've given me the same argument as my mother: "its gambling, i dont have to explain why. its obviously gambling."

Blaze I understand where your coming from, My poker related business venture has been on IDLE because of the Ontario Government.And they're views on Poker and other casino games is all the same. "Gambling".. and like your mother, the government only has to tell you once.Its gambling, because we say so.

the interesting thing about that is that the Quebec government refuses to allow poker in its licensed casinos. the reason? "theres too much skill involved." they're afraid average joe has too little a chance of winning, and this will affect their bottom line. no one likes to be a consistent loser.

[Royal_Tour 0]

well, some moron happens to be a significant part of our society. Nothing is certain in life. you put a dollar into a vending machine, are you certain a snack will come out?If you take definitions so literally, you couldnt tell me you are certain. And yet, we dont see GA reps handing out flyers at your local pepsi machine.The salient point is that you're not betting a dollar that the snack will come out.Understand?

no, i dont. why arent i betting a dollar? i put in a dollar, with the expectation that some item of a value greater than $1 will come out. It might not. The snack must be of greater personal value to me than $1 because i am not indifferent to which snack comes out. some have higher value, some lesser value.

No. you are exhanging for goods., The value of 1$ is what the candy bar is worth.Its like trading 25 , 1 dollar chips for 1 25., its not gamblng., and if you want to eat that 25 dollar chip. .go for it., Your idea that some items have higher value is a personal preferance to types of snacks.

[justblaze 0]

well, some moron happens to be a significant part of our society. Nothing is certain in life. you put a dollar into a vending machine, are you certain a snack will come out?If you take definitions so literally, you couldnt tell me you are certain. And yet, we dont see GA reps handing out flyers at your local pepsi machine.The salient point is that you're not betting a dollar that the snack will come out.Understand?

no, i dont. why arent i betting a dollar? i put in a dollar, with the expectation that some item of a value greater than $1 will come out. It might not. The snack must be of greater personal value to me than $1 because i am not indifferent to which snack comes out. some have higher value, some lesser value.

No. you are exhanging for goods., The value of 1$ is what the candy bar is worth.Its like trading 25 , 1 dollar chips for 1 25., its not gamblng., and if you want to eat that 25 dollar chip. .go for it., Your idea that some items have higher value is a personal preferance to types of snacks.

ok, but theres still a chance that i might not get that $1 worth of goods. i can expect it on a balance of probabilites, but i can also make the same statement of various combinations of cards in a poker game.

[Royal_Tour 0]

well, some moron happens to be a significant part of our society. Nothing is certain in life. you put a dollar into a vending machine, are you certain a snack will come out?If you take definitions so literally, you couldnt tell me you are certain. And yet, we dont see GA reps handing out flyers at your local pepsi machine.The salient point is that you're not betting a dollar that the snack will come out.Understand?

no, i dont. why arent i betting a dollar? i put in a dollar, with the expectation that some item of a value greater than $1 will come out. It might not. The snack must be of greater personal value to me than $1 because i am not indifferent to which snack comes out. some have higher value, some lesser value.

No. you are exhanging for goods., The value of 1$ is what the candy bar is worth.Its like trading 25 , 1 dollar chips for 1 25., its not gamblng., and if you want to eat that 25 dollar chip. .go for it., Your idea that some items have higher value is a personal preferance to types of snacks.

ok, but theres still a chance that i might not get that $1 worth of goods. i can expect it on a balance of probabilites, but i can also make the same statement of various combinations of cards in a poker game.

This would be a flaw in the machine.This is like comparing a black out during a poker hand, where you have the nuts, but all games must come to a stop., and the casino then shuts down due to a nuclear attack, which caused the black out. and all panic breaks loose and you lose your chips.This is something taht COULD happen. But as far as investing 1 dollar into a vending machine, your taking the chance, that your candy bar will come out. but in the unlikely event that it does not, with proper notifications to the distributors or machine operator, you can get your money back. But u cant do this after getting a runner runner suck out

[JBradburn6 0]

To wager money on an uncertain outcome.Is sky diving gambling? No, the person sky diving takes the risk for reasons other than monetary interests, as the person who eats the sandwich does. In my opinion, gambling must involve money.

so refute the logic that post-secondary education is gambling in the same sense that poker is.

If you go to college only to get a high paying job when you graduate, you can do enough work to make it almost certain that you will have a job when you graduate. If you get a 4.0 every semester, you will get a good job when you graduate.Also, not everyone goes to college solely to make X number of dollars a year. Certainly people go to school wanting to become a doctor, lawyer, stock broker, etc. College is necessary in many professions, but the reasons the people want to be doctors or lawyers aren't always financial reasons. People aren't all thinking, "If I pay $30,000 a year in school, maybe I can get a job that will pay me $75,000 a year when I graduate." And for those that are, they have the ability to work hard and make the outcome certain.

[TS Clark 0]

well, some moron happens to be a significant part of our society. Nothing is certain in life. you put a dollar into a vending machine, are you certain a snack will come out?If you take definitions so literally, you couldnt tell me you are certain. And yet, we dont see GA reps handing out flyers at your local pepsi machine.The salient point is that you're not betting a dollar that the snack will come out.Understand?

no, i dont. why arent i betting a dollar? i put in a dollar, with the expectation that some item of a value greater than $1 will come out. It might not. The snack must be of greater personal value to me than $1 because i am not indifferent to which snack comes out. some have higher value, some lesser value.

Take Smash's sentence literally. When you put a dollar in the vending machine, you are not betting on anything. You're paying a pre-defined amount of money with full expectation of goods/services being exchanged. There is no betting or wagering involved. Of course, the outcome of the transaction is unknown to a small degree -- but that doesn't make the transaction "betting" or gambling.If you're going to reduce the definition of gambling or betting to apply to any circumstance with less than a 100% outcome, then practically everything in life will fall under that umbrella. But what lots of us are saying is that gambling is wagering (think of this as an active verb) on an event with an uncertain outcome -- whether you're wagering money or not.

[kindofblu 0]

You are betting that the food you eat is not poisoned.

This is not the expectation of buying food. Like Royal Tour said its an exchange of goods. And food isn't exactly caveat emptor. You would be entitled to some remedy.

[JBradburn6 0]

Gambling does not have to involve money. FACT.

If it's a fact, prove it.By the way, I've looked it up in 3 dictionaries, all of which say in some way or another that it must be played with money or for stakes.

[krup24 0]

4 entries found for gamble.gam·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gmbl)v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles v. intr.To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. To play a game of chance for stakes. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke. v. tr.To put up as a stake in gambling; wager. To expose to hazard; risk: gambled their lives in a dangerous rescue mission. n. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk:

[Royal_Tour 0]

Gambling does not have to involve money. FACT.

If it's a fact, prove it.By the way, I've looked it up in 3 dictionaries, all of which say in some way or another that it must be played with money or for stakes.

your car, house..

[justblaze 0]

Gambling does not have to involve money. FACT.

If it's a fact, prove it.By the way, I've looked it up in 3 dictionaries, all of which say in some way or another that it must be played with money or for stakes.

stakes need not be monetary.

[JBradburn6 0]

So by finding one definition that supports your claim you state it as fact? To many people, if not most (including most definitions), gambling must involve money. You said it is a fact that it does not have to. Please offer more proof than one definition, if it is a "fact."

[justblaze 0]

To wager money on an uncertain outcome.Is sky diving gambling? No, the person sky diving takes the risk for reasons other than monetary interests, as the person who eats the sandwich does. In my opinion, gambling must involve money.

so refute the logic that post-secondary education is gambling in the same sense that poker is.

If you go to college only to get a high paying job when you graduate, you can do enough work to make it almost certain that you will have a job when you graduate. If you get a 4.0 every semester, you will get a good job when you graduate.Also, not everyone goes to college solely to make X number of dollars a year. Certainly people go to school wanting to become a doctor, lawyer, stock broker, etc. College is necessary in many professions, but the reasons the people want to be doctors or lawyers aren't always financial reasons. People aren't all thinking, "If I pay $30,000 a year in school, maybe I can get a job that will pay me $75,000 a year when I graduate." And for those that are, they have the ability to work hard and make the outcome certain.

the outcome is far from certain. the demand for employees in many fields can fluctuate wildly within 4 years. As for the argument that some go simply for the knowledge, most of that knowledge can be obtained for free in your local library. Why would they pay so much for it, then? its because the degree has some monetary expectation. An expectation which is far from a certainty.

[JBradburn6 0]

Gambling does not have to involve money. FACT.

If it's a fact, prove it.By the way, I've looked it up in 3 dictionaries, all of which say in some way or another that it must be played with money or for stakes.

your car, house..

Your car and house are goods that can be exchanged for money, and when gambled for are essentially money.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Gambling does not have to involve money. FACT.

If it's a fact, prove it.By the way, I've looked it up in 3 dictionaries, all of which say in some way or another that it must be played with money or for stakes.

stakes need not be monetary.

did u come to your senses now?i know where you were trying to go with this. But your looking at it in a whole different context.Your trying to say that because there is a skill involved, that it should not be considered gambling. Because the slight chance, (like the candy machine) that your opponent sucks out on you, (candy no come). can be less often than when you win (candy make me happy).Which makes sense, but is not proof that Poker is not gambling.

[justblaze 0]

So by finding one definition that supports your claim you state it as fact? To many people, if not most (including most definitions), gambling must involve money. You said it is a fact that it does not have to. Please offer more proof than one definition, if it is a "fact."

he just did. you made an exclusionary statement. "gambling must involve money" indicates that any activity not involving legal tender is not gambling. He provided one example of an activity which falls under the dictionary definition of gambling, but does not involve legal tender. Your statement is proved to be false.

[shpaget 0]

Technically, and literally, playing poker (for money) is gambling.As Smasharoo has stated, this is undeniable fact and arguing it is fruitless, pointless and just plain stupid. Would you also argue that water is a liquid?LEGALLY, my understanding is poker is not gambling. That is, legally, if I were to put up $50000 and you were to put up $50000 and we play each other at poker (or arm-wrestling, basketball, crib, chess, backgammon, croquet, golf, tiddly-winks, etc) it would not be gambling.If someone else bet on who would win, that would be gambling.But like I said, that is all legal mumbo jumbo and it's based on the government's assessment that poker is NOT a game of chance.Technically, poker is gambling.Gambling is playing the odds, and wagering based on those odds.Gambling does not require you to be an underdog to be a gamble.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Gambling does not have to involve money. FACT.

If it's a fact, prove it.By the way, I've looked it up in 3 dictionaries, all of which say in some way or another that it must be played with money or for stakes.

your car, house..

Your car and house are goods that can be exchanged for money, and when gambled for are essentially money.

No no.. Your car or house are usually assets, which can be gambled for other forms of assets, or good or services or money..Example . joe his porsche, that cindy cant jump over the moon, but if cindy loses she has give joe her watch. This is a wager, This is gambling

[JBradburn6 0]

To wager money on an uncertain outcome.Is sky diving gambling? No, the person sky diving takes the risk for reasons other than monetary interests, as the person who eats the sandwich does. In my opinion, gambling must involve money.

so refute the logic that post-secondary education is gambling in the same sense that poker is.

If you go to college only to get a high paying job when you graduate, you can do enough work to make it almost certain that you will have a job when you graduate. If you get a 4.0 every semester, you will get a good job when you graduate.Also, not everyone goes to college solely to make X number of dollars a year. Certainly people go to school wanting to become a doctor, lawyer, stock broker, etc. College is necessary in many professions, but the reasons the people want to be doctors or lawyers aren't always financial reasons. People aren't all thinking, "If I pay $30,000 a year in school, maybe I can get a job that will pay me $75,000 a year when I graduate." And for those that are, they have the ability to work hard and make the outcome certain.

the outcome is far from certain. the demand for employees in many fields can fluctuate wildly within 4 years. As for the argument that some go simply for the knowledge, most of that knowledge can be obtained for free in your local library. Why would they pay so much for it, then? its because the degree has some monetary expectation. An expectation which is far from a certainty.

Knowledge can be obtained at the library, but in order to become a doctor you must go to medical school, in order to become an accountant you must have X number of college credits to sit for the CPA exam.If you are at the top of your class, regardless of fluctuations in fields, you will get a job.

[justblaze 0]

Gambling does not have to involve money. FACT.

If it's a fact, prove it.By the way, I've looked it up in 3 dictionaries, all of which say in some way or another that it must be played with money or for stakes.

stakes need not be monetary.

did u come to your senses now?i know where you were trying to go with this. But your looking at it in a whole different context.Your trying to say that because there is a skill involved, that it should not be considered gambling. Because the slight chance, (like the candy machine) that your opponent sucks out on you, (candy no come). can be less often than when you win (candy make me happy).Which makes sense, but is not proof that Poker is not gambling.

no, thats not what im saying. All im saying is that everyone is quick to point out why certain things ARENT gambling, and yet no one has been able to provide a definition of gambling which includes poker as well as traditionally accepted gambles like blackjack, but which excludes more acceptable activities like paying for post-secondary education, or buying into a mutual fund. Look - the argument most people come up with is that gambling is wagering (money or stakes) on an event with uncertain outcome. they then say that things with 'almost certain' outcomes like university, or fixed rate bonds, are not gambles because they are close enough to certain outcomes. So, what is the cutoff of certainty? is 90% enough? 80%? 50%?

[Royal_Tour 0]

Gambling does not have to involve money. FACT.

If it's a fact, prove it.By the way, I've looked it up in 3 dictionaries, all of which say in some way or another that it must be played with money or for stakes.

stakes need not be monetary.

did u come to your senses now?i know where you were trying to go with this. But your looking at it in a whole different context.Your trying to say that because there is a skill involved, that it should not be considered gambling. Because the slight chance, (like the candy machine) that your opponent sucks out on you, (candy no come). can be less often than when you win (candy make me happy).Which makes sense, but is not proof that Poker is not gambling.

no, thats not what im saying. All im saying is that everyone is quick to point out why certain things ARENT gambling, and yet no one has been able to provide a definition of gambling which includes poker as well as traditionally accepted gambles like blackjack, but which excludes more acceptable activities like paying for post-secondary education, or buying into a mutual fund. Look - the argument most people come up with is that gambling is wagering (money or stakes) on an event with uncertain outcome. they then say that things with 'almost certain' outcomes like university, or fixed rate bonds, are not gambles because they are close enough to certain outcomes. So, what is the cutoff of certainty? is 90% enough? 80%? 50%?

How about this then99% of everything is a gamble. In everyday life.Yet some activities are defined y law as illegal form of gambling, and can only be legally played within set confinds.