Newsflash- poker IS gambling

[Easy E]

[Card Player magazine]: Do you consider yourself a gambler?

[Phil Ivey]: Yes. Some people might be very good poker players, but I’ll end up winning because I’m a better gambler. When I say that, I mean that I know when to quit, when to keep playing all night, when my opponent’s off his game, and when I’m off my game. It’s just knowing when to stay in the game and when you’re not doing as well as you can be doing. That’s all part of gambling. People say, “Oh, I’m not gambling when I’m playing poker.” Yes, you are. But you’ve got to know how to do it. You’re going to win in the long run if you’re a better player than your opponents, but if you don’t make better decisions, it’s going to make it tougher for you to win

[Turning Stone Pro]

Is it gambling when the house deals blackjack with, at the very minimum, a 52-48 edge over those playing perfect basic strategy, and a much higher edge against those who don't?

That ain't gamblin, IMO.

Gambling is going to work for a big corporate firm, sitting there every day, taking your paycheck every two weeks, after they gaff you for every tax possible, hoping you'll make it through the week without being fired, hoping your measly 401k account won't tank.

To me, that's gambling. Betting on yourself? That's investing.

TSP

[Easy E]

Is it gambling when the house deals blackjack with, at the very minimum, a 52-48 edge over those playing perfect basic strategy, and a much higher edge against those who don't?

That ain't gamblin, IMO.

Of course it's not gambling... for the casino!


To me, that's gambling. Betting on yourself? That's investing.
There's a lot of bad investments out there, then.

As to the rest... you're awfully cynical. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Turning Stone Pro]

It is clear you misunderstood my entire thread.

TSP

[Easy E]

for us dummies

[Joe826]

he's saying that by this defintion of gambling, even the casinos themselves are technically gambling when they offer games like blackjack since they aren't guarenteed to win, they just have a percentage edge.

this is correct of course, that's why most casinos have tables limits and such (i think). theoretically they could go broke if someone was betting enough and running really hot.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it gambling when the house deals blackjack with, at the very minimum, a 52-48 edge over those playing perfect basic strategy, and a much higher edge against those who don't?

That ain't gamblin, IMO.

Gambling is going to work for a big corporate firm, sitting there every day, taking your paycheck every two weeks, after they gaff you for every tax possible, hoping you'll make it through the week without being fired, hoping your measly 401k account won't tank.

To me, that's gambling. Betting on yourself? That's investing.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on the specific rules and decks in play, the house edge in blackjack over a basic strategy player is more like 50.2-49.8. Even those horrendous 6-5 blackjack tables are better than 51-49.

[wacki]

Funny thing is that in the long run I don't consider poker any more of a gambling sport than chess.

[piggity]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny thing is that in the long run I don't consider poker any more of a gambling sport than chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you define "gambling"?

[imported_CaseClosed326]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, that's gambling. Betting on yourself? That's investing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. I like that line alot.

[imported_bingobazza]

For me, the difference between gambling and playing poker is like the difference between speculating and investing. Gambling and speculating have two things in common, neither has an edge and the outcome is uncertain in the long term. Good poker players and investors arent gambling in that sense, as the outcome is certain in the long run...it can be predicted. Is something with a relatively predictable positive long term outcome gambling? No. What Phil Ivey is talking about is his edge, or lack of it, over otherwise good poker players in a session. He is a good player as he can define that edge himself and get up or stay at the table based on his measurement of it on a given night.

[MrMon]

Me vs. Phil Ivey = Gambling
Me vs. $20 SNG Crowd = Investing

[Snoogins47]

I never figured out why people think that making wagers on an even money proposition, or worse, is gambling... but when you have an edge, it ceases to be gambling? It's a pretty ludicrous point of view.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
How would you define "gambling"?

[/ QUOTE ]

A game of chance. While poker is a game of chance, skill far outweighs the chance element.

[Dan Mezick]

here's my definition:

Gambling:
The wagering of money at unfavorable odds.

[Gamblor]

Gambling: The wagering of money. At any odds.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
here's my definition:

Gambling:
The wagering of money at unfavorable odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your definition is wrong.

Definition of Gambling (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gambling)

Favorability has nothing to do with it.


(And yes, by extension, investing is gambling)

[BlackAces]

[ QUOTE ]
this is correct of course, that's why most casinos have tables limits and such (i think). theoretically they could go broke if someone was betting enough and running really hot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. The casinos are "guaranteed" to make money only because they risk such a minute percentage of their total bankroll on each decision. Every decision they play is a gamble, but they play so many decisions and have so much money compared to the amount of the average decision that their risk of ruin is satisfactorily close to 0. They must come out ahead.

If some multi-billionaire came in and was betting $10 million a hand at blackjack, the number of decisions the casino would play for would be exponentially lower for the same amount of money. The casino's expectation would remain the same, but the risk of ruin would shoot through the roof.

The activity is still gambling, though, no matter how much you play for.

[MaxPower]

This is a very profound statement.

I think you guys are missing the point of what Phil Ivey is saying. In a situation where all of your opponents are excellent card players, the key thing is recognizing situations when you have an advantage and also when you don't- that's gambling.

Your gambling ability is not necessarily related to skill. Let's say I'm capable of shooting 95 in golf. If I were to play golf for money against Tiger Woods and I get him to give me 10 strokes, I'm a bad gambler. If I got him to give me 40 strokes, I'm a great gambler.

He is not talking semantics.

[Easy E]

The activity is still gambling, though, no matter how much you play for.

The bigger question is, why don't people realize that so many "normal" activities are gambling, at their base level?

Life insurance, for one, is generally a "bad" gamble from an EV perspective...in more than one way /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[masse75]

What's the difference between gambling and gamb00ling?

[BlackAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Life insurance, for one, is generally a "bad" gamble from an EV perspective...in more than one way /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. People buy it, though, for the same reason people don't play NLHE...they can't handle the swings. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Yeknom58]

So here we go again...

So over the "average" player what do you figure your edge is?

[chucksim]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a very profound statement.

I think you guys are missing the point of what Phil Ivey is saying. In a situation where all of your opponents are excellent card players, the key thing is recognizing situations when you have an advantage and also when you don't- that's gambling.

Your gambling ability is not necessarily related to skill. Let's say I'm capable of shooting 95 in golf. If I were to play golf for money against Tiger Woods and I get him to give me 10 strokes, I'm a bad gambler. If I got him to give me 40 strokes, I'm a great gambler.

He is not talking semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point, and good example. The smarter the wager, the lower the risk, and the smarter the gambler (who takes the best of it). The actions themselves are all gambling, though, because there is some chance you will still lose, even if Tiger gives you 40 /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Easy E]

People in gambling-type careers, especially poker players, seem to have this phobic fear of being associated with "gambling" (see the "we're in the gaming industry" move over the last X years).

Until someone can remove all risk from a game, making results solely dependent on skill and capitalizing on mistakes, poker is always going to be gambling.

This, by the way, is why chess is NOT a gambling game.