Tournaments

I had a friendly debate over this and we both seem to have a good point so I thought I'd ask for other opinions.

The debate started with me saying that I never really liked gambling but for some reason, I really do enjoy playing poker SNGs and MTTs.

The definition of gamble- To play a game of chance for stakes.

Now here is the question. Are poker tournaments really gambling?

It seems like a silly question, but when you think about it a little more the answer becomes a little bit questionable. By definition of the english language, it is gambling but that really doesn't mean much because language is interpreted differently by everyone. The one I'm asking about is the type of gambling that is considered 'bad' gambling by society in general.

The basic point is that if you look at it very simply, you pay to enter a tournament for a chance to win the prize. So how is this any different from any other type of tournament? For game tournaments like chess, the concept is the same so I honestly don't think poker tournaments are any more gambling than chess tournaments. So what do you think?

We also stretched this idea a bit. For spectator sports, the investment is years and years of hard effort. If you look at it from another angle, they are putting a whole lot more at stake. I'm not saying that's a bad thing or anything because sports is a big part of culture.

But wait, poker is becoming a spectator 'sport' too. In that sense, I do not think tournament poker is morally unethical in any way either.

[mmmmmbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not think tournament poker is morally unethical in any way either.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you think tournament poker is 'ethical' and other poker isn't then...no

[Duffman]

If you play a tournament for money, you are gambling.
Whether it be chess, checkers, pool, rock paper scissors. As long as you put up money and expect to win in return you're gambling.

It is different for athletes, because they get paid to play. However if there was a one-on-one basketball tournament, and it was $10 to enter, and winner gets $100, it's still gambling.

[JohnnyHumongous]

There is almost nothing that can't be expressed in terms of probabilities and risk/reward, may it be the choice of college, a decision to start a business, or even belonging to a religion and the investment of time and energy therein. All of this is 'gambling' in my eyes.

The key is to maximize your overall utility. Phil Ivey may decide to shoot off $20K at craps one night with his buddies rather than play winning 4K/8K, because the utility of the fun they have is worth more than the money spent and the opportunity cost of not playing the poker game. Or, he might pass up what appears to be a great game this morning for a much tougher game later tonight because his sister is in town and he can only see her during the daytime. His apparently irrational decisions are actually ones that maximize his overall utility and happiness.