Is Poker Gambling?

[OzExorcist]

I like this quote in particular

But others, notably Saint Doyle of Texas, is on record as saying (paraphrasing now), "Of course it's gambling. Are you some kind of bozo? Although that doesn't mean that some folks aren't better at it than others."​

Doyle Brunson identifies himself as a gambler. Phil Ivey (in the few interviews he does) identifies himself as a gambler. Those guys have the luxury of having won so much damn money that they don't have to care whether other people think less of them for being "gamblers".

That's what I find most interesting about this: for the most part, the people who are most concerned with "proving" that poker isn't gambling are the ones how are worried that it will negatively affect their image with friends / family / the man / whoever - that people will think less of them for being a "gambler".

In most cases if you just care less about what people think, and just get on with the business of actually winning money, you'll find it quickly becomes a non-issue

 

[PoKeRFoRNiA]

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

It's not just pre-flop. Even on post-flop, or any street of the game, when you're placing chips into the pot where you are not guaranteed to win, you are gambling as long as both sides don't have 100% equity.

Let's say you have AA and raised pre-flop while I called your raise off with J2s, and flop comes out As 3h 9s. You and I both get it all-in. Sure, if we repeat this type of scenario and situations hundreds of hands, then you'll definitely come out on top and profit over me in the long run. But during that specific hand, can you guarantee that you'll win that hand? You played your hand really well, got me to make a horrible decision and make me commit all of my chips. But can you beat me? Are you confident that you'll win the pot? It's not only me who's gambling to suckout and hit my 26% equity by hitting the flush without pairing the board. You're also gambling, hoping that your 74% equity holds up by hoping that I don't hit my flush and if I do, then at least the board pairs. You're relying on the cards to fall in your favor and hope your favorite equity holds up, hence the gamble. But of course, you would love this scenario to happen and take that gamble anyday. Anytime you're wagering money into the pot where you have no guaranteed outcome, then it's simply a gamble. However, it's gambling with skills involved where better players will come out on top in long term through putting in large volume of hands. Skilled players gamble wisely while horrible players don't.

 

[PoKeRFoRNiA]

I like this quote in particular

But others, notably Saint Doyle of Texas, is on record as saying (paraphrasing now), "Of course it's gambling. Are you some kind of bozo? Although that doesn't mean that some folks aren't better at it than others."​

Doyle Brunson identifies himself as a gambler. Phil Ivey (in the few interviews he does) identifies himself as a gambler. Those guys have the luxury of having won so much damn money that they don't have to care whether other people think less of them for being "gamblers".

That's what I find most interesting about this: for the most part, the people who are most concerned with "proving" that poker isn't gambling are the ones how are worried that it will negatively affect their image with friends / family / the man / whoever - that people will think less of them for being a "gambler".

In most cases if you just care less about what people think, and just get on with the business of actually winning money, you'll find it quickly becomes a non-issue

Perfectly stated. Lot of insecure people on this thread who have negative view towards gambling and think as if gambling is an evil thing or a bad thing. I am proud of gambling. Whether it be poker, blackjack, sportsbetting, I love to gamble bcz it's a fun entertainment. Lot of gambling degenerates try to justify it as not gambling so they don't need to look like a degenerate while not noticing that they became one because they lacked bankroll discipline and couldn't keep their entertainment within their financial means, not because of the games.

 

[lilnewtdog]

A lot of places including the USA state that internet gambling is illegal, so yes I will argue and use facts to back up my argument that a game I love, poker, is not gambling to me or the two judges I mentioned. I do have a negative view, yes putting up money on an outcome I'm not sure I'll come out ahead. If some people like it for fun like my mother likes to go play slots and its a good time for her. That's fine I don't see any harm in that ether, the law of the country I reside does. Insecurity has what to do with what. I believe ones who have bankroll problems will be the first to say its gambling seen that a couple of times. Win a lot in one game and then just raise the stakes to what you won and there it goes that's a gamble for sure.

 

[OldDog456]

Every sport is both skill and luck, those with better skill will prevail in the long run...so what sport does not have something to lose? I see no difference it is our money and we should be able to do what we want with it.

 

[tazer]

The way I look at it is that when I have control over my money (having the choice to bet or not on any given hand) it is skill based. I think about it in terms of slots where you place your bet and have absolutely 0% knowledge of the outcome in terms of winning would be. You have no control over what happens nor is there any information given to the player that could give them an edge over the machine.

With that said I see poker as a skill based gamble, but I would not classify it as "gambling". I see any type of card game or even a dice game as a game of statistics or of odds.

If I may make a hangover quote here:

"It's not gambling if you know you're going to win."

 

[RickH1983]

It is gambling because you don't know what is going to happen at any given time. Just because you can calculate the odds doesn't mean that it isn't gambling. You can count cards in blackjack and that is still considered gambling.

 

[OzExorcist]

A lot of places including the USA state that internet gambling is illegal, so yes I will argue and use facts to back up my argument that a game I love, poker, is not gambling to me or the two judges I mentioned. I do have a negative view, yes putting up money on an outcome I'm not sure I'll come out ahead....

So what you're saying is that you like playing poker, but you don't like breaking the law, and the two are in conflict.

That gives you a very good reason to write to your congressman and lobby to have the law changed. It does not, however, give you a very good reason for classifying poker as "not gambling".

 

[rifflemao]

That's what I find most interesting about this: for the most part, the people who are most concerned with "proving" that poker isn't gambling are the ones how are worried that it will negatively affect their image with friends / family / the man / whoever - that people will think less of them for being a "gambler".

In most cases if you just care less about what people think, and just get on with the business of actually winning money, you'll find it quickly becomes a non-issue

I thought you would enjoy Doyle's quote.

Actually, the people most concerned with proving that poker isn't gambling are those facing legal action, but I take it you mean those of us in this thread. I don't let other's opinions deter me from playing poker, but it's annoying to hear things like "it's just luck" or "you're just gambling", as if it's a mindless game. But yeah, winning money tends to make it a non-issue on both sides. Funny how that works.

In the big picture, there are good reasons for wanting to wrestle poker away from gambling. From the threadstarter:

It is this general consensus that poker is gambling that I believe there is such a strong push to control, monitor, and restrict players ability to do so. And this assumption is only reinforced by the idea that many poker players, including professionals, contine to refer to the game as gambling.

I generally agree, and suspect it's why those in the political fight for online poker tend to disassociate poker from purely chance games, even though that alone is not enough. No doubt it's partly because Sheldon Adelson lumps poker into his war against online gambling, with propaganda like this:

It's fine to be a proud gambler and all, but the fact is online gambling is getting an increasingly bad rep in US politics right now, so it only makes sense to emphasize how poker is different, and exceptional to chance games.

 

[OzExorcist]

Actually, the people most concerned with proving that poker isn't gambling are those facing legal action...

Surely that's just a small number of poker site owners though, and TBH I really don't care about what happens to Ray Bitar

AFAIK people in the US who just play poker aren't facing any legal action: if the government actually wanted to punish you for playing, they wouldn't have even tried to give people their Full Tilt balances back.

What you have an issue with is what your government will and won't let you do online. I still maintain that getting poker classified as "not gambling" isn't going to prove much because those who oppose online poker and other forms of gambling 1: won't be convinced and 2: won't give up their other arguments, which the "gambling or not" argument does exactly zero to address.

You're up against an opponent who's infinitely better funded, much better connected and much better organised. And they already have the status quo on their side. And probably Jesus too, I hear he's quite popular over there.

Quibbling over whether or not poker is gambling is spitting in the ocean against these people. They'll never let you win the argument, and even if they did they'd just beat you to death with a dozen other points: money laundering, tax evasion, the moral decay of society, threats to jobs in the B&M casino industry, a rise in problem gambling and the related social issues, why is nobody thinking about the children...

 

[RickH1983]

Poker is gambling because no matter how good you become at it you can still lose. You can play a hand perfectly and do everything right and still lose. People can say that its a skill game. I agree to some extent. However you never know what cards are coming. Poker is like anything if you practice enough you will become better at it. Gambling is betting on things that you don't know the outcome. The people that think poker isn't gambling must be ****ing psychics. If there are any on this thread can I have the number to your hotline? I need some March madness picks.

 

[rifflemao]

I still maintain that getting poker classified as "not gambling" isn't going to prove much because those who oppose online poker and other forms of gambling 1: won't be convinced and 2: won't give up their other arguments, which the "gambling or not" argument does exactly zero to address.

You're up against an opponent who's infinitely better funded, much better connected and much better organised. And they already have the status quo on their side. And probably Jesus too, I hear he's quite popular over there.

Quibbling over whether or not poker is gambling is spitting in the ocean against these people. They'll never let you win the argument, and even if they did they'd just beat you to death with a dozen other points: money laundering, tax evasion, the moral decay of society, threats to jobs in the B&M casino industry, a rise in problem gambling and the related social issues, why is nobody thinking about the children...

Mentioned in the other thread:

"To be clear, the question of whether poker is a game of skill is a legal question. I don’t want it confused that this is the way we believe we are going to get regulation and licensing in the U.S. The reason you’re going to get licensing in the U.S. is because of consumer protection and potential revenues for states. And those are the arguments. I don’t go and talk to lawmakers and talk about poker being a game of skill. It is a talking point. It is a way we separate poker from casino-style games." -PPA Executive Director John Pappas, in an interview with Becky Liggero aka bodog Becky

 

[OzExorcist]

If that's the case, then I'm honestly not sure why they'd even want to separate poker from other casino games. Lumping them together and arguing for poker along with all other casino games (something that I note that consumer protection website you linked to does do) would only make their case stronger.

 

[rifflemao]

If that's the case, then I'm honestly not sure why they'd even want to separate poker from other casino games. Lumping them together and arguing for poker along with all other casino games (something that I note that consumer protection website you linked to does do) would only make their case stronger.

PPA supports C4COP's efforts, but I don't see how the case would be made stronger unless C4COP is doing significantly more than simply making their presence known. I understand the "united front" concept, but poker players appear to be more united than the full gaming\gambling crowd is under C4COP, at least based on social media follower counts.

The separation is potentially useful in legal situations and proposed legislation because supposedly the Illegal Gambling Business Act of 1970 was only meant to criminalize games of pure chance.

 

[rifflemao]

Speaking of united fronts, it's pretty cool how members of the poker community rallied around Lawrence DiCristina's case in NY, and in his appeal to the US Supreme Court after he passed up a plea deal.

Here is a document filed in the appeal: PPA Amicus Brief

It's an interesting read for those who wonder how the skill\chance argument is presented in US courts.

I realize Adelson is the chipleader in the fight against online poker, but every time a judge rules in favor of poker is step forward in public relations for us in my opinion. Even if Adelson wins the battle, it's going to be a long war, like it is for most grassroots efforts. I don't expect online poker to be fully available in Texas any time soon, and certainly not while Rick Perry is governor, but I believe it will eventually happen.

(Shakes fist in Adelson's general direction. Or better yet: :thefinger)

 

[lilnewtdog]

So what you're saying is that you like playing poker, but you don't like breaking the law, and the two are in conflict.

That gives you a very good reason to write to your congressman and lobby to have the law changed. It does not, however, give you a very good reason for classifying poker as "not gambling".

I'm saying the law classifies it as not gambling. The supreme court in fact.

 

[lilnewtdog]

PPA supports C4COP's efforts, but I don't see how the case would be made stronger unless C4COP is doing significantly more than simply making their presence known. I understand the "united front" concept, but poker players appear to be more united than the full gaming\gambling crowd is under C4COP, at least based on social media follower counts.

The separation is potentially useful in legal situations and proposed legislation because supposedly the Illegal Gambling Business Act of 1970 was only meant to criminalize games of pure chance.

Good point

 

[shaked9696]

no, poker is not a gambling game

 

[OzExorcist]

PPA supports C4COP's efforts, but I don't see how the case would be made stronger unless C4COP is doing significantly more than simply making their presence known. I understand the "united front" concept, but poker players appear to be more united than the full gaming\gambling crowd is under C4COP, at least based on social media follower counts.

If you lump in with all casino games then you give legislators the opportunity to deal with everything in one fell swoop.

If you ask for a special case to be made just for poker, you're asking them to pass special new laws and put in place new protections that will still leave the people that gamble online on things other than poker unprotected, unregulated and untaxed. It only addresses one part of the problem, from the legislator's / opposition's standpoint.

 

[rifflemao]

If you lump in with all casino games then you give legislators the opportunity to deal with everything in one fell swoop.

If you ask for a special case to be made just for poker, you're asking them to pass special new laws and put in place new protections that will still leave the people that gamble online on things other than poker unprotected, unregulated and untaxed. It only addresses one part of the problem, from the legislator's / opposition's standpoint.

In the tough situation we're in with Adelson, your first point looks like a good general argument for separating poker:

Q: Why make the case that poker is different from other casino games?
A: Because if you lump in with all casino games then you give legislators the opportunity to deal with everything in one fell swoop (via restoration of The Wire Act that Adelson is pushing for).

Aside from that, the core of what you suggest makes total sense. A centralized office for consumer and online protection is probably the best long term solution, and would be great for poker due to shared player pools between states. The problem is that President Obama (a poker player) has left decisions about online poker to the states:

"The Administration understands that many Americans engage in paid online poker games for entertainment purposes. Online gambling on sporting events or contests violates federal law. The legality of other forms of online gambling is dependent upon the law of the states where the bettor or gambling business is located. It is left to each state to determine whether it wishes to permit such activity between its residents and an online poker business authorized by that state to accept such wagers, but online gambling that is not authorized by state law may also violate federal statutes."-Official White House response re online poker

So it's an uphill grind. In the short term, we need current online poker regulation to be successful (Nevada, Delaware, New Jersey), and a version of The Wire Act or the UIGEA that makes a clear exception for poker, like it apparently does for fantasy sports. :icon_scra

 

[UtamaQQ]

My opinion is that the skills involved in poker are in maneuvering yourself into a situation where you get lucky.

The crackdowns, the restrictions, the condescension (on the part of governments/the DOJ) are that much more palatable to the public because it can be made to appear to be about a bunch of dumb gamblers being purged of their vices. Imagine poker online the public uproar and sympathy that would have ensued had Black Friday, instead, involved confiscating land from farmers, burning down shops of business owners, etc. But nooo... because the sphere in question can be couched poker online in terms of "gambling", it becomes unimaginable that perfectly upstanding livelihoods and innocent pastimes were lapak303 destroyed.

 

[Moonchild]

On this subject: what do you think about this: https://www.cardschat.com/forum/poker-rooms-10/promotions-integrity-ps-308896/?referrerid=148986

 

[Alex Sentsov]

Of course. As well as chess, checkers, football, basketball and other sports.

 

[BigJamo]

Is Poker Gambling?

NO

 

[dbchristy]

I think everything is a gamble. Poker yes, but more skill, unless you play like me.lol