Is poker a game of chance or a game of skill

[SlimJim]

does anyone know for sure if US regulations sees Poker and any of its variations as a game of skill or a game of chance.

If you know ... drop a link of the actual regulation.

Thanks

[cardcounter0]

There isn't an overall Federal Law that defines what poker is, it is left up to the States. So you have 50 different definitions for it.

[stripsqueez]

this topic has been thrashed on these boards although i havent seen refernce to legal regulations about it - use the search function

games of skill and games of chance are mutually exclusive concepts - poker is plainly a game of skill

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Poker is a game in which skill will make you a long-term winner but chance will occaisionally cause short-term frustration.

Wow, I should be a politician. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Seriously, though, I just got Ed Miller's book, and one of the best parts of it is the section where he stresses that one of the keys to long-term success is the understanding that poker *is* gambling, and proper decision making at the table takes that fact into account.

In short, one of the *skills* of the winning poker player is how to use the *chance* aspect of the game to his advantage.

[deacsoft]

Well put. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[AncientPC]

If you think poker is a game of chance . . . I'd like to play at your table. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
games of skill and games of chance are mutually exclusive concepts

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree -- i don't think it's inconsistent in the least to say that poker is both. To some people it's a game of chance, but to others, including almost everyone at this forum, it's a game of skill. But in the short term despite the obvious skill needed to, say, make a WSOP final table, it's obvious that luck plays a big role. This isn't chess.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

For the occaisional player you run into in a big casino, it *is* a game of chance, since he'll never see the long run. That's why the games are good. If everybody played the game properly, nobody would make much money.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
...If everybody played the game properly, nobody would make much money.

[/ QUOTE ]

... except, of course, the casino.

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think poker is a game of chance . . . I'd like to play at your table. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it back, like others have stated skill only comes in to factor during the long run.

However in SNGs or perhaps even for the duration of a tournament chance comes into play because if you just don't get the cards or a consecutive of bad beats, there's nothing you can do about it.

[Fiery Jack]

US regulations for what?

I think the question is badly put, you may as well ask is football a game about offense or defense?

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont really play chess but i'm pretty sure it is - it isnt roulette

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Atropos]

Well I think that there surely is a skill component in poker, but the major part, even in the longrun is luck.
Of course a player who doesnt know the basics, and has no experience will lose in the longrun, but if you compare two good players, the luck will make the difference I think.
Here's an example what I mean:
- Two very good players lets call them Mr.Right and Mr.Wrong. Both have a bankroll of 500$, both are playing the 0.50/1 games at party, both beating the game for 3BB/100. Now they both decide to take a shot and play in a 30$ MTT, Mr. Right gets hit in the face by the deck, Mr. Wrong busts with AA against 72o. Mr.Wrong has the exact same skills like Mr.Right but he had some bad luck. Now Mr.Right takes first in the tourney, gets 3000$ and can now play 5$/10$ Limit... He makes 2BB/100 there, plays in some more tourneys, makes some good finishes since he is very skillfull. Mr. Wrong gets a real bad run of cards and suckouts and is down to 200$. Since he doesnt want to take some risks he steps down and plays 0.25/0.50.
Do you think he will ever be able to catch up to Mr. Right, considering they have exactly the same skills and play the same amount of time?
I dont think they will ever meet at the tables in their lifetime again.

[Koller]

Well I think that there surely is a skill component in poker, but the major part, even in the longrun is luck.


I agree. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Poker is much more like roulette than it is like chess. The difference with roulette is that the payouts are rigged to favor one player. That being said, both games are keyed off the act of a random generator; in roulette the spin of a wheel, in poker the distribution of the cards.

There is no random factor at all in chess. Chess is 100% a game of skill. Poker is a game of chance, where skillful play allows you to benefit from your understanding of when the intrinsic randomness favors you and a specific course of action.

Where poker varies from roulette is that you have multiple opponents none of whom has a built in statistical edge. Hoewever, in poker, you can do everything right, your opponent can do everything wrong and the random generator can make you a loser. In chess if you do everything right and your opponent does everything wrong you will win 100% of the time.

[cardcounter0]

Why does Phil Helmuth have 9 WSOP bracelets? Is he just more lucky than all the other players year after year?

How does Phil Ivey make a living at all those high stake games he plays? Does he know Phil H's luck secret?

Doyle Brunson -- that guy has been lucky his whole life.

Stu Ungar only entered something like 9 major tournaments and won 5 of them. Just a short term streak of luck, I guess.

Yeah, luck. That's just about all this game is.

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]
For the occaisional player you run into in a big casino, it *is* a game of chance, since he'll never see the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta disagree. One's perception of a game doesn't change the nature of the game. It's a guarantee that over infinitely many hands, the more skillful player will win. How can that be chance?

For someone that doesn't believe that poker is a game of skill, good 'ole reductio ad absurdum (sp?) works well. Imagine player A, who never plays anything but AA. Let's agree he won't win in the long run. Imagine player B, who plays every hand. Let's agree he won't win in the long run. Somewhere in between these two extremes, then, is the proper number of hands to be played. What is the proper number? Well, that's where your skill as a poker player comes in.

It's a game of skill, and that's precisely why the casino won't play poker against you. Ever think of it that way?

[mwilli31]

Slanksy states on the second page of ToP:
"It is a game of skill."

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It's a game of skill, and that's precisely why the casino won't play poker against you. Ever think of it that way?

I'm not saying that poker isn't a game of skill, of course it is. But it's the random factor that makes it so profitable. If bad players always lost, there would be far fewer opportunities than there are now.

Read the rest of my posts here. I have never once said that poker is not a game of skill. What I have said is that it's not 100% skill (like chess), and I stand by that. In the long run, skill should make you a winner, but the long run is a very long time.

[Atropos]

"Why does Phil Helmuth have 9 WSOP bracelets? Is he just more lucky than all the other players year after year?"

No matter how good a poker player may be, my 4 year old nephew could beat anyone, even the best poker player of all times in heads-up nl holdem, can you say that about chess too???

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
In the long run, skill should make you a winner, but the long run is a very long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

"In the long run we're all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes.

Chess isn't 100% skill and 0% luck, but it's probably something like 99.5 - 0.5. (If my opponent just happens to unwittingly play an opening that i was studying before the game, that's lucky -- but i still have to know the opening inside and out if i'm to succeed at a high level, which is why i'm no chess champion!)

Because there's no chess equivalent to "catching a lucky card on the river," you're absolutely right: bad players don't want to play because they know they'll lose. That's why casinos don't spread chess. Sure, the hustlers in Washington or Harvard Squares will play you for money, but you don't people flocking there like they do to casino poker rooms.

Ever think of it that way? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is much more like roulette than it is like chess

[/ QUOTE ]

apples and oranges - when you use the expression "game of skill" or "game of chance" what are you hoping to define ?

every game has elements of chance in it - even chess in my view - if i'm wrong about chess then it sits alone in what ordinary people might say are "mind" games - it would therefore be pointless to use either expression to describe a game if the games we are talking about have elements of both - in short for the expressions to have meaning they must be mutually exclusive

what defines a game of chance ? - any game where skill is not a factor

[ QUOTE ]
There is no random factor at all in chess. Chess is 100% a game of skill

[/ QUOTE ]

like i said i dont play chess but i take an interest in chess theory - i suspect an expert chess player would disagree - chess has a human element that is open to manipulation - that element by neccesity involves chance

i dont wish to sound like the grand pooh-baa of this debate but i have had cause to research the use of the expressions for the purposes of my work as a lawyer - the expressions game of chance and game of skill were used in early english gaming law and therefore pervade several common law jurisdictions - it is certainly accepted in this context that the expressions are mutually exclusive - there are several precedents that define poker as a game of skill

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[cardcounter0]

I'll take that bet. How much money you want to put on it?

[Ray Of Light]

Poker is like any other game out there, when it is played skillfully you will win, and when it is played badly, luck is all that you have going for you...

The aim to winning any game is to play against someone who isn't as good at the game than you. Find your straight loose/passive tables, play them with skill and you will always walk away a winner in the long run...

[Atropos]

"I'll take that bet. How much money you want to put on it?"

Well depends on how much money you got, I would put that amount on it. I would even give you 4:1 on that bet, or 100:1 whatever you want. Have I mentioned my 4 year old nephew doesnt know the rules of poker? I bet he would still be possible for him to beat the best players of the world combined in a nl heads-up match, after I practise with him maybe 5 seconds.

[cardcounter0]

If that were even remotely possible, it kind of negates the purpose of this board, or all those books on poker, or all those hours all those people spend studying the game, don't you think?

SO why are some people consistent life long winners and others consistent life long losers? Do the winners just use the 5 year old nephew strategy, or do you think some people just have charmed lives?

[cardcounter0]

You can actually get 500 to 1 odds.
Simply enter your nephew in the WSOP at Binions for $10,000. After he beats all those pros at NL, he will get $5 Million for first place. Sign up now, before all the seats are taken!

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
If that were even remotely possible, it kind of negates the purpose of this board, or all those books on poker, or all those hours all those people spend studying the game, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. You've created a non-sequitur.

Suppose that we invent a new form of poker and calculate that in a three-way tournament among Doyle Brunson, David Sklansky, and the 5-yo nephew, that the chances of the kid winning the tournament on dumb luck are 5%.

Then i would argue that it's well worth our effort to study poker so as to be part of the 47.5%, not the 5% depending on dumb luck to win. But you would argue that the mere fact that winning on dumb luck is "remotely possible" -- not only remotely possible, but actually should happen 1 time in 20!-- makes it worthless to study this game.

By reducing this argument to two extreme positions, "Poker is all luck," and, "Poker is all skill," you've made your probability of arriving at the truth precisely zero.

[Rudbaeck]

You said everything I wanted to say! I wholeheartedly agree. Give this man a beer!

[Fiery Jack]

Most poker boils down to making one right choice from three.

Raise call or fold. Repeat ad nauseam.

You can make the correct choice due to skill, or you can make it due to luck.

It doesn't matter one bit, but I'd rather rely on the skill.

[Atropos]

"If that were even remotely possible"

What if my nephew goes all-in in a heads-up match against doyle brunson every hand?? Even in the worst case, when he got A2 against doyles AA on the first hand of the game, he would still have a 10% chance of winning. It's impossible to have a worse chance than that. Do you have a 10% chance of winning against a pro in any serious sport??

[cardcounter0]

I thought you might be suggesting that. You are missing one thing.

You are assuming Doyle would be stupid enough to call the 'all-in' every time. The other player can always fold, until he has the nuts or catches you with 72o since you are going 'all-in' every time.

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]
What if my nephew goes all-in in a heads-up match against doyle brunson every hand?? Even in the worst case, when he got A2 against doyles AA on the first hand of the game, he would still have a 10% chance of winning. It's impossible to have a worse chance than that. Do you have a 10% chance of winning against a pro in any serious sport??

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your definition of winning may differ from most others on this board. What you're saying is that your 5 year old nephew can outdraw a professional player. Well, duh.

But let's say Brunson and your 5 year old nephew played for five hours a day for a week. I *probably* put my money on Brunson. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It's really not hard to see that poker has a combination of luck and skill, but that the more skillful player has a greater chance of winning. Therefore if you have to choose one or the other definition, you call it a game of skill.

[Atropos]

You cant have the unbeatbale nuts preflop, there is always a chance to outdraw even if he catches you going all-in with 72o...
I dont say that poker is no skill, if I said that I wouldnt be posting here. But it surely isnt chess, its a much more complicated beast, and the luck plays a greater role than many may believe.

[moondogg]

In the shortest of runs (i.e. one hand), poker is all luck.

In the longest of runs (varies depending on your game, variance, edge, etc), poker is all skill.

In between, poker is a balance between luck and skill, where luck decreases and skill increases as hands go by.

In 1 hand, or 50 hands, if someone consistently has a 20 to 1 chance of winning, you cannot predict what will happen.

However, even if you have a 49% chance of winning heads up in the short run, you have a 100% chance of losing in the long run.

Your 5 yr old nephew might win a tournament here or there by dumb luck, but he cannot beat Sklansky or Doyle for any sustainable period of time. After several tournaments, your 5 yr old nephew is doomed to fail and lose everything. Despite the fact that he has a 5% chance of winning, he is guaranteed to lose.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
"In the long run we're all dead." -- John Maynard Keynes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer "Over a long enough timeline, the survival rate of everyone drops to zero" - Tyler Durden

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
You cant have the unbeatbale nuts preflop, there is always a chance to outdraw even if he catches you going all-in with 72o...
I dont say that poker is no skill, if I said that I wouldnt be posting here. But it surely isnt chess, its a much more complicated beast, and the luck plays a greater role than many may believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was just posted in another newbie thread.

You hold 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif6/images/graemlins/heart.gif

2/images/graemlins/heart.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif4/images/graemlins/heart.gif

What could beat that?

[KenProspero]

Poker is a game of skill. The operative word here is "Game". By this I mean, there are strategies that will work and which will depend on probability.

The fact that you can't win every hand doesn't make it any less a game of skill.

Earlier in this thread Poker was compared to Chess. Wouldn't a better analogy be to Baseball (or any other sport you care to consider).

Think of the 'stolen base'. A runner WILL be thrown out a certain percentage of times. However, if employed correctly, trying to steal bases carries a positive expectation for the manager. Similarly, let's say a Pitcher's best pitch is the fast ball. If he throws it every time, batters will catch up on it. He has to throw other pitches (which may have a lower overall rate of sucess in the short term) for the fast ball to work. I don't think the luck component to baseball makes it any less a game of skill.

Similarly, game theory is applicable to Poker. Think of bluffing. If one never bluffs, one's expected return from poker will decline. Bluff too much, and likewise the expected return goes down. Game theory principles can lead to the right percentate of times to try a bluff (or any other specific play).

Now all of this doesn't answer the original question of whether Poker is a game of Chance or Skill for purposes of gambling laws.

In Connecticut (I believe, but check it out on your own), Poker is generally considered to be illegal gambling. However, there is an exception which makes social games legal. (Some restaurants tried to expand this and run NL Poker tournaments, they claimed that as long as all the prize money went to the players, i.e., no house rake, it wasn't gambling. Initially, it looked like the state would buy it, but the Atty General shut it down earlier this month.)

Of course, Connecticut does allow poker in its casinos (but last I checked, only Foxwoods has a Poker room).

Final aside, wholly irrelevant to the main point. Is Chess a "game" at all? I've always thought it was more of a mathmatical algorithm than a game. By this I mean, if someone were smart enough, there is always 1 or more 'best moves' in chess. There's no game theory or 'bluffing' that can entice a 'perfect player' to make a mistake. In a sense, it's like tic-tac-toe, there's always a right way to play. The only reason we think of Chess as a game, is that the Algorithm (ability to always find the correct move or moves) is so complicated that we mere humans haven't figured it out yet.

[Atropos]

"You hold 56
234"

You understand the meaning of the word preflop?? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[golFUR]

[ QUOTE ]
chess has a human element that is open to manipulation - that element by neccesity involves chance

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a chess player and I'm curious as to what you mean here. Yes, chess has a human element, it is loaded with psychology above and beyond the game.

But many chess players would argue that this is still covered under the skill aspect of the game, there is no chance to it. Many top players (most, if not approaching all) do just as much physical and mental preparation for a match as they do studying their opponents games or theory work. They make sure they are rested, fed properly, no weird internal distress is going to bite them. They prepare as much as possible if they expect to be intimidated or if they plan on doing the intimidation.

When Robert Fischer was making his incredible run the term "Fischer Fever" was coined to describe the terrible states he would put his opponents into. They came down with mysterious illnesses before or during matches with him, they made blunders that they could not later account for.

Fischer would probably argue that this was not chance. While he can not necessarily add 100 lbs. to his physique over night in order to be even more intimidating, he can certainly recognize what he has going for him and take advantage of it. Other players as well, either do their due diligence and prepare for intimidation or fail in that preparation and suffer a worse defeat.

Do you mean chance in some 'quantum' sense?

[Atropos]

@golfur:
I dont play chess myself but my father is a very good chess player, in his best times he played in the highest german league and the german national team. From his stories about his chess career I think that there is still some element of chance involved. For example in chess tournaments, you lose the first round, now you can be paired against a weak player who lost because he is bad, or you can be paired against one of the top players, who lost because he was unconcentrated or something. Or if you like my father only have a very good positional understanding of the game, but a big lack in opening strategies, because you have not worked on your game for 20 years, I think you can call it luck if your opponent doesnt come up with a risky but tricky opening.
One least anecdote, when my father was 16 he played in the finals of the championship of the german chess youth, against the best underage players of the country. In the last game he would have only needed a draw to take the championship, and that game took place in the casino of a hotel. Because after some time most of the casino players were rather drunk and getting louder, my father and his opponent felt unable to concentrate properly. The managers of the event decided to look for an empty hotel room, where they could play their game to an end. They had to search nearly 30 minutes before they found one, and then they placed the chess table between the two beds and continued playing. Of course this was a very strange situation, but guess whose turn it was?? My father was feeling uncomfortable in this strange situation, and in his move he quickly had to make, he made the error which cost him the whole tourney. His opponent would have probably made an error too, had he been in the same situation. Would you call this an element of chance??

[golFUR]

Having the match moved is an 'element of chance' that applies to any skilled enterprise, in that it is an outside interference not considered part of the 'game'.

Let's go back to the Tic-Tac-Toe analogy. Anyone who knows how to play this game 'skillfully' is always going to arrive at a draw. If we had a big Tic-Tac-Toe competition and the final match was underway and one of the competitor's broke his pencil while making his mark... It had nothing to do with his skill, he knew where the mark went, he had all the requisite skill. It was something outside the game, outside his skill set, which interfered. To compare this back to chess, I would say it is the player's pregame preparation which is at fault. He should have brought extra pencils.

As for your father being randomly paired in the second round, I'd suggest there is 'a chance' one way or the other as to who he is paired with, but it was his own skills or lack of them that put him in the loser's bracket. If he'd won his first game he would be in the winner's bracket and still have 'a chance' of being paired with a lucky inferior player or a much better player. The point is, the playing of the game itself and the pregame preparation are skills.

The only 'chance' involved in chess is too goofy to consider a part of the game. A player is moving his hand towards a piece in order to move it, there is a sudden quake, the table is jogged, he has palsy, whatever... he accidently touches another piece and his opponent suddenly shouts "touch move!". That might be considered 'chance' interfering with skill, but how often does that happen and is it something you have to consider for every match?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

But many chess players would argue that this is still covered under the skill aspect of the game, there is no chance to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many chess players have a hard time accepting that there is luck in chess. Obviously, there is luck involved when you choose colors, when the draw is chosen in a tournament, and when you need a result on another board to get one prize versus another. However, you don't have perfect information about your opponent's preparation, or the strengths of the moves. You can stumble upon an area where your opponent is surprisingly strong or surprisingly weak. You may randomly blunder; your opponent may overlook your blunder. Imperfect information can be indistinguishable from objective luck.

If you insist, you can attribute all of these to skill. If so, the Elo formula says that a player rated 200 points greater will be more skillful 3/4 of the time (ignoring draws). Doesn't that seem silly? I accept that my friends who are rated 200 points higher than I am are more skilled all of the time, yet I win some of the time, and I'm willing to bet if they want to give me favorable odds.

----

'Chess,' said the Dutch grandmaster, Jan Hein Donner (http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/luck.html), 'is as much a game of chance as blackjack; or tossing cards into a top hat.'
...
It happened that the teleprinter tape had been torn off after Karpov's 54th move as Black ... They studied the position for a few moments, mated Karpov in four moves and were surprised when another whole sheet of moves was brought from the teleprinter.

When they saw Korchnoi's 55th move - Be4+ - Larsen's eyebrows went up.

'There you are,' Donner said, quietly and without triumph as though some self-evident truth had been revealed, 'pure luck'.

----

“Whether the game is poker, gin rummy, bridge, backgammon or chess, at the top levels of play the skills rewarded are all vitally important in business. Among them are discipline, memory, coolness under pressure, psychological insightfulness, a readiness to stick to a strategy even when it produces losing streaks in the short run, and rapid and intuitive calculation of probabilities - of spotting opportunities and balancing risks against rewards.” --
Forbes Magazine (http://coloradomasterchess.com/quotes.htm)

----

Kramnik (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992941) also said his opponent would have an advantage in preparing for the final showdown. "To be honest, the result will, to a large extent, be based on luck," he said. "The computer doesn't feel any pressure at all, and therefore has a real psychological advantage."

[golFUR]

Briefly first, later I will give your post the depth it deserves.

If we were to ask Korchnoi about his 55th move a few days after the match, or indeed any respectable professional after a blunder, was it bad luck or?

I'd like to think most of them would admit error and not blame ephemeral 'luck'.

As to the colors and other positions... Again, and maybe this is more theory than practice, too 'purist'. If you draw black, you earn a draw or admit he is better (if you need, mumble 'for now' under your breath). If you draw white, you win, or the same thing applies. As the matches are balanced over time, it is not luck that gives you one or the other, it is skill that makes either acceptable.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

If we were to ask Korchnoi about his 55th move a few days after the match, or indeed any respectable professional after a blunder, was it bad luck or?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you ask Karpov, I can imagine him saying, "I played poorly. I was lucky Korchnoi overlooked the mate in 4." I doubt Karpov knew Korchnoi would blunder. Since Karpov didn't know, Karpov was subjectively lucky on that move. Perhaps it looked the same from Karpov's perspective as though Korchnoi would roll two dice, and blunder on 6-6.

Korchnoi may say, "I found plays like that in 18 past games out of 20 opportunities. I don't know why I overlooked it there. Well, at least I drew the kid."

I think chess players have a distaste for acknowledging that luck exists because it is an unhealthy habit in chess to blame defeats on luck rather than poor preparation. (Instead, chess players blame distractions and physical illness.) Preparation is a factor over which one has control. Nevertheless, I have had opponents challenge me to a rematch after I won with black. Didn't that establish I am a better player? No, perhaps my strategy would not work 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time. Because we don't fully understand the game and don't play the same way each time, there is subjective luck in chess.

See this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=839165&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1) for more discussion.