Is playing poker gambling?

Dear players,

I would like some feedback on whether playing poker is gambling?

I'm speaking about a good player with a hefty bankroll who

makes fewer mistakes,on the average,than his opponents.

I'm also speaking about the long term. However,I'm still confused

about what is meant by "the long term".

Maybe you can present me with a workable definition of "long term"


Thanks


Sitting Bull

Poker is not gambling.


Unless you're playing for money. Then it's gambling.

the way i play it is...lol...gl

I can not put a number on it, but luck plays a substantal par in winning--- thus it is gambling


long term is anythig over 17 months and 4 days

Dear Jellow,

Thanks for your I/P.

However, I believe your definition of "long term" should be stated in "hours played" and not in months and days.

It's possible for a player to play 1 Hr. per month for 17 months. That's certainly not "long term".


I know that luck plays a substantial role in the "short term".

However, I also believe that if a player makes fewer mistakes

then most of his opponents every time he sits down at the poker table, then , in the "long run", with a bankroll of 2000 Big Bets

he is only a theoretical gambler with a probability of less than 10% of not winning.

I believe that his chances of not winning in the long run is about the same as a casino losing in the long run.


But keep in mind that my statements are pure speculations.

None of them is based upon any scientific data.


Sittinf Bull

The luck element is so large, even over the "long term," that even the best player can be a long term loser. Jim Brier, a frequent 2+2 poster (with excellent insights) and Card Player columnist, has frequently talked about a very good player (friend of his) who is a long term loser.


So, yes, poker is definitely gambling. Ask Jim for a definition of "long term."

it would be hard for me to disagree that skill plus big B/R may greatly reduce the gambling element in the long run.


but now we are back to the question of how long is long ? I do not know. i can tell you that I have seen more than 1 or 2 very skilled players get into a bad streak which lasted in excess of two years!!! guys who played 3,4, or more times per week. I am talking about pros. perhaps the fact that they played P/L and, or N/L had something to do with it--some feel these games require more skill than in limit--I do not know about that, perhaps it is just different skills for different structures??


anyway, my point is that long term would seem to be longer than two years, AND then that raises the question about bankroll size large enough to handle the extremes??


now let me disagree about the comparison to a casino. In addition to getting $$$ from weak players, the casino has

that "edge" in nearly all activities whic the poker player never has.

Dear Jellow,

Do you personally know of any good players who play only limit poker who have not won money after playing 2000 Hrs.?

Do you know of anyone who might know of such players?

Unless I receive some scientific data or a large enough sample of good players not winning after playing 2000 hrs. ,I'm going to


hypothesize that fewer than 10% of skillfull players do not win money.

By "skillfull", I mean that most of the time when a player sits down to play,he makes fewer mistakes ,on the average,than most of his opponents. Sitting Bull


aka doubting Thomas

The game is critical. Almost any good player can beat a 1-5 game, but of course a really good player isn't going to want to devote thousands of hours to a game where an hourly earn of $7.50 would be an outstanding result. Good players keep playing higher -- and the higher they play, the tougher the competition. What separates players at the higher limits I think is their ability to read people and situations. And when most everyone at a table is very strong in those attributes, we're back to gambling again. I do think that good players who focus on making a living from playing and pick their spots in mid-limit ($20-40/$50-$100) games will win over time. If you read Roy Cooke's columns, he talks about avoiding very tough line-ups, keeping to lower limits than his true peers, etc. Of course most good players want to get better and test their skills against other good players from time to time. But to consistently win at any level requires playing "down". Remember, if you can't spot the sucker in a game, you're it. In fact, if you can't spot at least three suckers in your game, and no more than two peers or superiors, look out!

Dear BillT.

Thanks for your insights. I agree with you that over the long

term, a player who makes fewer mistakes,on the average, than most of hid opponents,then that player will win with a high

probability after 4000 hrs of play.

Of course,by making fewer mistakes, I mean good table selection,

good line-up, correct decisions at the table most of the time,etc.

It's not always possible for a skillful player to move up.

There may not be any opportunity in his area for moving up.

He may not have the bankroll to play a higher limit game

although he's a favorite over the field.

If he travels or re-locate,his overhead may be so high that his

net profit will be zero.


Larry"Sitting Bull"Duplessis


of