gamblind?

[jack spade23]

I got into an argument recently with someone who said that when im playing poker, im just gambling away my money (they werent criticizing my play, they just think all poker is gamblinI responded by showing them that the definition of gambling is " betting on a game of chance." I said that if you want to, you can read literature on it, learn more, and make educated decisions that make it not gambling. He still thinks its like blackjack or craps. What should i say to convince him otherwise?

[steamboatin]

Nothing, you can't win, He won't change his mind.

[ElSapo]

Poker is gambling. Believing anything else is deceiving yourself.

That said, better players have a long-term advantage over poorer players. Explaining this to someone, and having them really understand why, is also a long-term thing.

I wouldn't worry about it.

[Noo Yawk]

Poker is gambling. Period. If you get great at it, keep your emotions under control, and make good decisions about game selection, play, finances etc., you will have a small edge that will gain you a profit over time. But poker is now, and will always be gambling. Worrying about what others think will not change this.

[dfscott]

I most certainly is gambling, but that doesn't mean you can't make money at it. Every casino participates in gambling, and how many of them do you think are "gambling away their money"? Their edges are better and easier to see, but it's just on a different scale.

[27offsuit]

Either say

"You sir.....are a dumbass."

or

"Poker is a lot like golf. There are low-handicappers, and there are high-handicappers. Without the handicap system in place, a low-hadicapper will beat a high-handicapper literally every time. A high-handicapper may win a hole, but over 18 holes, the low-handicapper will win every time. Now apply this to poker and the fact that there is no handicapping system. The better player will win, virtually every time, in the long run."

BTW, I just came up with the above analogy last night. I think its pretty true across the board.

[Al Schoonmaker]

His reaction is very common, and it was the subject of my "Nobody understands us." It's at cardplayer.com. Click magazine, writers, and my name.
Regards,
Al

[Al Schoonmaker]

You wrote: "The better player will win, virtually every time, in the long run."

That statement is internally inconsistent. "The long term" does NOT mean "every time."

Incidentally, poker IS gambling. Read SSH by Miller, Sklansky, and Malmuth. However, it is not JUST gambling. There is a large skill element.

Regards,

Al

[cardcounter0]

Actually Poker is gambling, and it is almost like Blackjack.

[27offsuit]

Duly noted. Thanks Al.

Yes, poker is gambling. Totally agreed. But this is one of the few forms of gambling that will give you more positive odds of winning the better a player you are. Most other forms can have house odds attached, according to perfect play. Poker deals a lot more with the human aspect of the game, especially NLHE.

Respectfully,

27o

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Poker is gambling, and it is almost like Blackjack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than the fact that wagers and cards are used, it is nothing like blackjack.

Blackjack has no bluffing (an overrated element of poker, but an element nonetheless). More importantly, blackjack opponents act predictably, while poker opponents are anything but.

Blackjack is more like roulette than poker.

Edit: spelling

[cardcounter0]

No. Both blackjack and poker can be beaten with skill. No matter how 'skillfully' you try to play roulette, you have a 5.26% house edge against you.

With blackjack, like poker, the more skillful you become the more you can win. Blackjack and Poker are dependent event card games, which is nothing like Roulette, an independent event game that doesn't even use cards, other than it is another form of gambling.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Both blackjack and poker can be beaten with skill. No matter how 'skillfully' you try to play roulette, you have a 5.26% house edge against you.

With blackjack, like poker, the more skillful you become the more you can win. Blackjack and Poker are dependent event card games, which is nothing like Roulette, an independent event game that doesn't even use cards, other than it is another form of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken, but I still think poker is a long way from BlackJack. Blackjack is a mechanical game. At any given point, there is an optimal play that maximizes your EV.

Poker is not as clear-cut, because your opponent is not constrained by rules. He can also be influenced by your actions. I've never seen a BJ dealer bust because he was intimidated by my double-down bet.

[cardcounter0]

I re-read my original post, and I didn't see where I said that Blackjack and Poker where so exactly alike you couldn't tell one from the other.

But as you point out, Poker is not as clear cut, so playing Poker is actually a BIGGER gamble than playing skilled Blackjack.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
I re-read my original post, and I didn't see where I said that Blackjack and Poker where so exactly alike you couldn't tell one from the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not get into a battle of semantics here -- I obviously misunderstood your "almost like" to mean "is analogous to." My mistake.

Edit: moved my follow-up to a new post so as not to hijack this thread.

[BasketballNYC]

What I try to say to people who say it is gambling is that it is exactly as much as a casino gambles offering blackjack. They have a statistical advantage over the players and will always win in the long run. I have a statistical advantage in the long run over the players who do not play as well as me. There is virtually no difference. A casino risks going broke if they get unlucky but they have a gigantic "bankroll" so it is not a realistic risk.

Still not going to convince anyone though.
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Matt F.

[Cerril]

I guess it just comes down to poker being a game of chance. There's an element of skill in it, but all that does it make your EV better.

By way of comparison, if you were to spin a roulette wheel and get paid 50:1 if your number came up (rather than 35:1), you'd be a huge winner over time, the odds would be massively in your favor.

At the same time, it's still gambling, because you can quite easily (playing this same game that you have an advantage in) lose a whole lot of money over the short run.

So if you can get him to agree that gambling entails a negative expectation then you might be able to convince him that your poker isn't gambling (while the LAG's poker is). But I'm more inclined to just put it at one end of a spectrum with games of negative expectation on the other end.