is poker gambling?

[DerekTah 0]

I think someone else already said this to an extent, but, Poker in the short-term (individual hands, sittings, tournaments)is more gambling, but longterm quality play is much less so.  Two people roll a die, with 5 bucks on each roll. 1-3, you win. 4-6, they win.  However, you have "magic" in your fingers and can make the die roll 1,2, or 3 70-80% of the time. Are you really gambling long term? Can anyone really blame you for exploiting it?  And on the other hand, why isn't investing gambling to the extent that poker is? I don't care if you're doing low-risk mutuals or high-risk daytrading, there's always a notable amount of chance involved, and I argue that no less than a quality poker play faces at any given time.  Also, I would argue that activities such as  owning sports teams with the point of making money, etc. is gambling, as injuries, bad and good luck, etc.  That's my 7 cents.

Ok, the owning sports teams one is a bad analogy. Sports teams make money on managment period. For example look at the LA Clippers, one of the worst teams ever and yet the owner makes money year in and out. Even injuries and bad luck wouldn't stop him from making money.

[Abbaddabba 0]

I think you're a student, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt for these posts you've made within this thread.  you seem to have made a complete 180 in your posts without actually aggreeing to it being considered Gambling.  so i'll just sum up with a, Thank you for understanding that poker Is gambling to a much higher degree than trading.  comparing the two as career choices is crazy

What?I can promise you that everything that I've said about trading is entirely accurate. ... i thought most of it was pretty much common knowledge. I havent changed my stance at all. The entire issue is that it is not fair to say that it "is gambling". Poker isn't gambling to a higher degree than trading. It's just that it serves the function of gambling to more people than does poker.There are people who use the stock market primarily to gamble. The vast majority of people use it to accumulate wealth. There are people who play poker to accumulate money. The majority of people who play it in order to gamble. Saying that x IS y implies that it's nothing BUT y. I know you don't believe that it is by that standard. I know most people in this thread dont believe that it is, despite the fact that it probably serves no other function to the majority of them. It's fair to say that for the average person, poker is more likely to serve the function of gambling than is purchasing stocks and bonds. But there are definitely individual circumstances where that isn't true.And comparing the two as career choices is crazy. Purchasing and trading equity for your own portfolio isnt a career at all. It's something you can fall back on if you're already independently wealthy.

Ok, the owning sports teams one is a bad analogy. Sports teams make money on managment period. For example look at the LA Clippers, one of the worst teams ever and yet the owner makes money year in and out. Even injuries and bad luck wouldn't stop him from making money.

Im sure that they've experienced net losses in the past, and there is very obviously a risk of them going under. If you're buying treasury bills, then you can say that there's no risk. Or that it's close enough that you dont have to even consider it.A sports team is far from untouchable.

[MikeJohnson724 0]

Royal_Tour you have an astute mind..Btw i think j. harmon says something concerning luck etc, in the stacked profile. Although i disagree.

Ya, thats usually a good thing, and the 75% poll rate who voted Yes, to it being gambling help my case.I cant turn back now.

Kind of like the poll where people would like play less opponents with their aces than 9 opponents with there aces?

[blakheart 3]

Of course it is gambling. You are putting money into the pot with an uncertain outcome.Tournament poker even more so then cash games. Most pros will tell you they need to win a few coinflips every tournament the are in to make a final table. Picking stocks is also gambling. There are some forms of gambling that are more subject to chance, such as roulette. Poker has an element of skill, such as picking horses or sports gambling. Even Blackjack has an element of skill. But these are all situations where you bet money with an uncertain outcome.

[Skallagrim10 0]

Whether Poker is gambling or not depends upon the defeintion of "gambling."The defintion previously given, to wager upon an uncertain outcome, certainly makes much of poker "gambling" (sometimes you bet with the nuts). But that definition, as has been pointed out, would include a large number of activities, like stock market investing.Personally, I prefer the defintion of gambling that is part of my state's law : to risk something of value on an uncertain outcome, OVER WHICH THE PLAYER HAS NO CONTROL OR INFLUENCE.Thus when you and I bet on who will win the Super Bowl, we are gambliing, we do not influence the outcome of that game. But when we bet on who will have the best golf score between us, we are not "gambling" as our actions influence the outcome of that game. Also, when I drop a dollar in a slot machine, or on a craps table, I am gambling; nothing I can do will influence the outcome.But when I play poker, I definitely influence the outcome (defining outcome as being in the game at the end with the best hand): I may bluff out a better hand, or I may fold my better hand.If we all just got cards and waited for the outcome it would obviously be gambling, but by betting multiple times before the final outcome, we influence who will remain, and that influences the outcome.Consider Chess, a game with no luck really (unless you consider it luck when an opponenet makes a mistake); if we bet $5 on a chess game are we gambling? Even though the best player shold always win a chess game?Poker defintiely mixes skill (influence) with luck (the random cards) - but I think if there is skill involved it should not be considered "gambling," at least legally.In short, poker is gambling like life is a gamble, but poker is not the same as the lottery or the slot machines, and should not be treated the same.Skallagrim

[Abbaddabba 0]

Personally, I prefer the defintion of gambling that is part of my state's law : to risk something of value on an uncertain outcome, OVER WHICH THE PLAYER HAS NO CONTROL OR INFLUENCE.

I dont think that's a fair definition either.Under that definition, blackjack is not gambling.The reason for that is because, while the player does not have the ability to make it a winning proposition, he or she only has the ability to make it less of a losing proposition. You have some control over how much your expected losses are. For an individual to play it, the primary function that it serves is to gamble. And in that sense, i think it's fair to regard it as 'gambling'.To equivocate something to gambling requires that it's sole primary function is gambling, in my mind. Yes, roulette _also_ involves spinning a ball. And craps also involves tossing dice. But placing bets on uncertain outcomes really is the primary motive. For poker, gambling is the primary motive for some.But it isn't necessarily the case.

[blakheart 3]

Here is a list of the top 10 tournament money winners in 2005. Are the the best 10 players in the world? Joseph Hachem Melbourne, Australia 2,180 2 $7,614,022 Steven Dannenmann Severn, MD 1,820 2 $4,350,000 Tuan Le Los Angeles, CA 1,920 1 $2,863,430 John Barch McKinney, TX 1,280 1 $2,528,085 Michael Mizrachi Hollywood, FL 3,801 6 $2,472,439 Maciek "Michael" Gracz Raleigh, NC 3,840 4 $2,292,271 Nick Schulman Manhattan, NY 2,160 2 $2,241,995 Rehne Pedersen Aalborg, Denmark 1,920 1 $2,112,200 Mike Matusow Las Vegas, NV 688 2 $2,009,225 Aaron Kanter Elk Grove, CA 996 $2,000,250 Not on this list areDNPhil IveyDoyle BrunsonJenifer HarmonBarry GreensteinAnd many other very skillfull players. Of course their is luck involved and so therfore it is gambling! Otherwise how do you explain the names on the list versus the ones not? If only skill determined the outcome, would Kanter been the 10th highest paid tournament player last year?

[Royal_Tour 0]

Royal_Tour you have an astute mind..Btw i think j. harmon says something concerning luck etc, in the stacked profile. Although i disagree.

Ya, thats usually a good thing, and the 75% poll rate who voted Yes, to it being gambling help my case.I cant turn back now.

Kind of like the poll where people would like play less opponents with their aces than 9 opponents with there aces?

You're stupid.... seriously stupid.that thread serves itself. all my points were accurate and clear.aces are always a dominating hand regardless. and you are a very stupid fool to think otherwise, and at no point did i ever aggree to 9 players being a better EV.

[MikeJohnson724 0]

Royal_Tour you have an astute mind..Btw i think j. harmon says something concerning luck etc, in the stacked profile. Although i disagree.

Ya, thats usually a good thing, and the 75% poll rate who voted Yes, to it being gambling help my case.I cant turn back now.

Kind of like the poll where people would like play less opponents with their aces than 9 opponents with there aces?

You're stupid.... seriously stupid.that thread serves itself. all my points were accurate and clear.aces are always a dominating hand regardless. and you are a very stupid fool to think otherwise, and at no point did i ever aggree to 9 players being a better EV.

I just like seeing your responses to my stupidity.

[ForKeeps 0]

I think someone else already said this to an extent, but, Poker in the short-term (individual hands, sittings, tournaments)is more gambling, but longterm quality play is much less so. Two people roll a die, with 5 bucks on each roll. 1-3, you win. 4-6, they win. However, you have "magic" in your fingers and can make the die roll 1,2, or 3 70-80% of the time. Are you really gambling long term? Can anyone really blame you for exploiting it? And on the other hand, why isn't investing gambling to the extent that poker is? I don't care if you're doing low-risk mutuals or high-risk daytrading, there's always a notable amount of chance involved, and I argue that no less than a quality poker play faces at any given time. Also, I would argue that activities such as owning sports teams with the point of making money, etc. is gambling, as injuries, bad and good luck, etc. That's my 7 cents.

Ok, the owning sports teams one is a bad analogy. Sports teams make money on managment period. For example look at the LA Clippers, one of the worst teams ever and yet the owner makes money year in and out. Even injuries and bad luck wouldn't stop him from making money.

Touche, I had no idea.

[keith crime 8]

Here is a list of the top 10 tournament money winners in 2005. Are the the best 10 players in the world? Joseph Hachem Melbourne, Australia 2,180 2 $7,614,022 Steven Dannenmann Severn, MD 1,820 2 $4,350,000 Tuan Le Los Angeles, CA 1,920 1 $2,863,430 John Barch McKinney, TX 1,280 1 $2,528,085 Michael Mizrachi Hollywood, FL 3,801 6 $2,472,439 Maciek "Michael" Gracz Raleigh, NC 3,840 4 $2,292,271 Nick Schulman Manhattan, NY 2,160 2 $2,241,995 Rehne Pedersen Aalborg, Denmark 1,920 1 $2,112,200 Mike Matusow Las Vegas, NV 688 2 $2,009,225 Aaron Kanter Elk Grove, CA 996 $2,000,250 Not on this list areDNPhil IveyDoyle BrunsonJenifer HarmonBarry GreensteinAnd many other very skillfull players. Of course their is luck involved and so therfore it is gambling! Otherwise how do you explain the names on the list versus the ones not? If only skill determined the outcome, would Kanter been the 10th highest paid tournament player last year?

.extremely stupid post since the WSOP ME skews everything - best is clearly long term

[diablo01 0]

Actually the OP's question is flawed because it lets each poster answer in his own context.To the OP: In what context are you asking the question?Or more importantly: Why do you ask?If the OP answers the above question then maybe a more definative answer will arise.

[CardWarfare 4]

wadda ya think bone head !you starting this thread might have been a gamble!

Far more important than this discussion is giving you props for your avatar.Also, how did you get it that size?

[Royal_Tour 0]

wadda ya think bone head !you starting this thread might have been a gamble!

Far more important than this discussion is giving you props for your avatar.Also, how did you get it that size?

for the 150th time i saw someone ask him that, i'l finally answer,its a weblinked file.not a real uploaded avatar

[Guest]

Moe: Gambling here we come. Ananakooli, Makawani, Ana-ona, Nanawula Wa, Gambling...ha Homer: Gambling? What about Gambling? Moe? Who's going Gambling? Am I going Gambling?? Wiggum: Stop saying GAMBLING in there !

[Turbo Dog 1]

Information on this site is intended for news and entertainment purposes only. FullContactPoker encourages you to gamble responsibly. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, visit NCP Gambling or call 1-800-522-4700 (US Toll Free). Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2003 phpBB Group.

[FREDDIE MERCURY 0]

Is Anthrax bad?