Looking for an appropriate challenge to those who say poker's all luck

[NYCNative]

The Ohio AG made the following comment (http://www.ag.state.oh.us/press_releases/2005/pr20050307b.htm) in a release about what is and isn't considered legal gambling for charity in Ohio:[ QUOTE ]
A game of chance includes poker, black jack or any other game in which a player gives up anything of value in the hope of gain, the outcome of which is determined largely by chance.


[/ QUOTE ]I made the following overly emotional statement in another forum in response to this:[ QUOTE ]
If poker is "determined largely by chance," how is it that the same players are always on my TV? There are many pro poker players who make livings off of poker alone and the same can be said for blackjack - why are there no pro slot machine players?

I challenge Jim Petro to sit down at a poker table with two of his Neocon cronies and three of the best poker players in the Rat Pack [note: The Rat pack is a local group of poker players in central Ohio] in whatever games and stakes and formats they want. The money they win above their buy-in will go to the charity of their choice. The money we win above the buy-in will go to the Ohio Democratic Party. If it's "determined largely by chance," they have as good a chance as us, right?

[/ QUOTE ]Now, it occured to me that if I was going to want to initiate some kind of challenge that it should fit the following criteria:

a) Demonstrate that poker is not "determined largely by chance."

b) Do so in a relatively short period of time since politicians and the media are all about sound bites.

Is it possible that I can come up with some kind of challenge that would show that poker is a game of skill that still manages to hedge my bets against the luck factor which is admittedly more prominent with smaller sample sizes?

[silvershade]

[ QUOTE ]
b) Do so in a relatively short period of time since politicians and the media are all about sound bites.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that in the short run poker is indeed largely about chance. We should be thankful for that as it camouflages the good players advantage, I know I prefer my opponents to believe that I'm a luckbox rather than that any skill is involved.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
The money we win above the buy-in will go to the Ohio Democratic Party. If it's "determined largely by chance," they have as good a chance as us, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, they do.

The good players just know when their chance of winning is greater (and bet at those times), or when they're being laid sufficient odds relative to the amount wagered and the likelihood of winning. This is no different to sports betting.

[ QUOTE ]
A game of chance includes poker, black jack or any other game in which a player gives up anything of value in the hope of gain, the outcome of which is determined largely by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
This definition is perfectly accurate. On each hand you wager money on an outcome is unknown and determined largely by chance. The fact that good players bet on chances which are > 50% (or less than 50% getting X:1 odds), doesn't change that fact.

There is no challenge to come up with because you're missing the point of the above definition.

[einbert]

And why would you want people to think that poker is a game of skill?

[Guernica4000]

Remember Phil's quote "If it wasn't for luck, I’d win every time" Even the pros agree that luck is a big factor in the game, ESPECIALLY in the short run.

[NYCNative]

[ QUOTE ]
And why would you want people to think that poker is a game of skill?

[/ QUOTE ]So that it can be legalized here, of course.

[NYCNative]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no challenge to come up with because you're missing the point of the above definition.

[/ QUOTE ]So you have table A with Doyle Brunson, Phil Helmuth, Jesus Ferguson, Phil Ivey and Annie Duke and table B with five players who know the ryules to NLHE from playing free games online. You are asked, "which table would you like to sit down at," and your reply will naturally be "pick the table randomly from a hat because I stand an equal chance to win at either table."

[djoyce003]

well a headsup challenge with a significant amount of big bets in each persons starting hand should do the trick. Something like 1000 BB's and you play till someone has them all. That oughta cover any luck in the short term...assuming you know how to play headsup well because they certainly won't.

I think people are missing the point on whether it's determined by chance. The outcome of a HAND is determined by chance, but the amount won/lost on said outcome is determined by SKILL. That is the difference....yeah if you took doyle brunson, and some average moron, and just dealt hands to each one, the moron would win the same # of hands over the long term...but he'd lose more on his bad ones, and win less on his good ones because he's a moron.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
>And why would you want people to think that poker is a game of skill?

So that it can be legalized here, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]
This says it all. Why do otherwise intelligent people put blinders on when they want something?

[ QUOTE ]
So you have table A with Doyle Brunson, Phil Helmuth, Jesus Ferguson, Phil Ivey and Annie Duke and table B with five players who know the ryules to NLHE from playing free games online. You are asked, "which table would you like to sit down at," and your reply will naturally be "pick the table randomly from a hat because I stand an equal chance to win at either table."

[/ QUOTE ]
You can win money in the long term playing slot machines with a sound mathematical strategy. Are slot machines a game of skill? Or would they be better classified as gambling/a game of chance?

The bottom line is this:

In poker, you're wagering something of value where the outcome of each wager is largely determined by chance.

That you can do it a million times with a small edge each time doesn't mean jack. It's still a game of chance. You can do exactly the same with sports betting/ horse racing if you're intelligent, it's still considered gambling.

[mikehildebrand]

Its all moot anyway, there isn't a politician who is going to accept any challenge on this. I am 100% certain the AG knows that there is skill and intelligence involved in any game of chance (anything to get the edge), however, in his position do you really think there is a challenge that he will accept? Not in reality, usning his logic, he has an equal amount of a chance to lose the challenge and look like a fool as he does to win and prove his point. Not going to happen.
I do believe there is a lot of skill in poker, but I also dance with luck, because I tell you, there are times when i think it would be more profitable to flip a coin 100 times and take my 50/50.

[mikehildebrand]

Read the book "The Professor, the Banker and the Suicide King" and tell me if you stand by your post. Not flaming you, but it has opened my eyes.

[intheflatfield]

This is not a Democrat / Neocon? (So everyone that's not a democrat is a NeoCon?)issue or a Liberal / Conservative one for that matter.

[bobman0330]

In what way is poker less a game of chance than blackjack?? Just because one player can have a consistent edge doesn't change the nature of the game. The house has an edge in craps, roulette, and blackjack. You (and the house) have an edge in poker. However, the results of every hand are determined by chance.

I am also from Ohio and would like to see gambling legalized here. I know that when they made it legal in California to play flop games ( previously only draw was legal) their arguement was that it was a game of skill and they obviously won. I'm no lawyer but I guess there must be some ruling about this published somewhere.

[NYCNative]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a Democrat / Neocon? (So everyone that's not a democrat is a NeoCon?)issue or a Liberal / Conservative one for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]In Ohio it is.

[Miles Ahead]

You're not saying Andy Beal is or played like a moron are you?

That's certainly not what I took away from the book.

[johnc]

Poker and blackjack are games of chance with luck factoring in massively into outcomes. Now, skilled poker and blackjack players use their knowledge and talents to take advantage of the odds being in their favor and avoid situations where the odds are against them. Still, luck plays into it but that's really a moot point here.

In California (outside of Indian casinos and the lottery), casions offer no games which the players gamble against the house. The casinos provide the fair and safe environment for these gambling activities (poker and blackjack) to take place (for a healthy fee of course!). This setup more or less provides for gambling with less of stigma of "big casino fleecing the poor gambler" image that prevails in LV (BS, I know) so the anti-gambling boo-birds can be somewhat ok. NYC pps, IMHO, should approach legalizing poker in this fashion, using CA (and many other states) an example of how it can be done.

[NYCNative]

[ QUOTE ]
This says it all. Why do otherwise intelligent people put blinders on when they want something?

[/ QUOTE ]As another poster mentioned, the changing of the minds in a few people that poker is a game of skill made a profound difference in at least one jurisdiction.[ QUOTE ]
You can win money in the long term playing slot machines with a sound mathematical strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]I would like to see a citation for this.[ QUOTE ]
Are slot machines a game of skill? Or would they be better classified as gambling/a game of chance?

[/ QUOTE ]The world must be black and white where you live. The issue is the word "largely." I disagree with the term as it relates to poker and blackjack for that matter.[ QUOTE ]
In poker, you're wagering something of value where the outcome of each wager is largely determined by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]The verbiage in the AG's annoucement doesn't say anything about each hand. It says the "game" of poker (and blackjack) is "largely determined by chance." I would not argue that winning a single hand is largely determined by chance, but that's not the issue, nor is it what the AG says. The "game" of poker is not "largely" determined by chance in my opinion any more than the "game" of football is largely determined by luck even though I could mention numerous plays that succeeded or failed "largely" because of luck.

It is because I can see the difference which is why I asked this question in the OP (remember that) looking for a game that would have the least variance in the shortest amount of time. That is mathematically an oxymoron, I realize, but at some point the two extremes have to merge and change places.

Possibly you missed the forest for the trees, so I shall try and reword this question in a manner that will hopefully be pedant-repellant:

GIVEN: Winning one hand of poker is luck.
GIVEN: Winning over the course of an infinite amount of poker hands is skill.

MY POSITION: Somewhere between those two extremes, skill overtakes luck as the determining factor for profitability.

YOUR JOB: Find it.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CHALLENGE: Can a relatively short-term session be set up that will allow for the skillful player to have enough of an edge to beat the game. It might be impossible to come up with this scenario. Saying so would answer the question just fine, incidentally, but do it for the right reasons.

You also never answered which of the two tables I mentioned above would be +EV to play at. I think I know why.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
Its all moot anyway, there isn't a politician who is going to accept any challenge on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. The logical thing to do is often not the politically expedient thing to do.

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is "determined largely by chance," how is it that the same players are always on my TV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Survivorship bias.


Now, let's start from the beginning of a hand. You don't know what the others' cards are. So you cannot know your chance of winning. You can estimate, but not know. Then comes the flop and yet you can't know the chance of winning (don't know others' cards). And then the turn (same thing). And the river the same (if you have FH, he can have 4 of a kind). Only way to know is with royal flush.

Now you are going to argue to me that bets/raises/your opponents' past behavior etc. give a you better estimate. Maybe and maybe not. Inductive reasoning has its weaknesses.

So in the end you do not know your chances. With roulette you always know chances. So it is perhaps even more of a gambling game than a game with known chances.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
GIVEN: Winning one hand of poker is luck.
GIVEN: Winning over the course of an infinite amount of poker hands is skill.

MY POSITION: Somewhere between those two extremes, skill overtakes luck as the determining factor for profitability

[/ QUOTE ]

yuk

one hand of poker is not luck or chance - its all skill because poker is a game of skill not a game of chance

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[yvesaint]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
GIVEN: Winning one hand of poker is luck.
GIVEN: Winning over the course of an infinite amount of poker hands is skill.

MY POSITION: Somewhere between those two extremes, skill overtakes luck as the determining factor for profitability

[/ QUOTE ]

yuk

one hand of poker is not luck or chance - its all skill because poker is a game of skill not a game of chance

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[/ QUOTE ]

deal out one hand to Doyle Brunson, and one hand to another to a donk. 50% of the time, the donk's hand will be the winner, 50% of the time, Doyle Brunson's hand will be the winner. the part that IS skill is that the pro will bet his money when he's the winner, and not bet his money when he's the loser.

[JonPKibble]

Poker will not be legalized, neither will marijuana. At least in the USA. People who enjoy either of these things will just have to stay in the basement. That's life.

[Nalapoint1]

just finished sixth in local B&M MTT $35 buy in.I only played about 15 hands TAG.I thank you all for the advice given.

At first table one guy built massive chip lead and blew it all in 15 minutes.He would call any raise with any paint or ace with any kicker and suck out.

At second table we were near bubble and one lady had one chip left in BB. Blinds were T4k/8k.She just started going all in pre flop with every hand until she had t85k. There were 228 players that started with t2200.There were two other people at this table that were calling every bet with any paint or ace and had big stacks.I am BB with 99. 2 callers to SB who pushes all in for t12k.I call and other 2 call.SB has JAo, the other 2 A4s. A7o and they both laugh at me for calling with "just a small pair". Pair wins 2 players gone and one cant make the next blind.

We get to the final table of 8 and 3 of the other 7 were from the last table. They were calling stations that got there on 100% pure luck.Blinds were t10k/20k and I only had t80k. I was card dead. I am BB with 34s and saw free flop with button. Flop 456. I had flush draw, open ended str8 draw and bottom pair. Button goes all in for t15k I call and miss and she has K5o.

I didnt realize how much luck was involved in making final table. Me, for dodging bad beats and at least 3 others for playing any 2 cards and wishing.

Post Extras

[erby]

[ QUOTE ]
You are asked, "which table would you like to sit down at," and your reply will naturally be "pick the table randomly from a hat because I stand an equal chance to win at either table."

[/ QUOTE ]

...did the article you referenced claim that poker is a game of "equal" chance, or just chance?

"Dumb and Dumber"

"what are the chances of a girl like me and a guy like you ending up together? Like, One in a thousand?"

"more like one in a million."

"SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A CHANCE!!!!!"

ERBY /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Alex/Mugaaz]

No, unless you show them your PT database of 30k + hands.

[oneeye13]

challenge them to a hockey game. that'll confuse them and buy you time.

[XlgJoe]

[quote.[ QUOTE ]
You can win money in the long term playing slot machines with a sound mathematical strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]I would like to see a citation for this.[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume he is talking about video poker. In Vegas there are machines with over 100% payout if correct stategy is used. Again that is long term, short term you will be a loser.

[SycoFrogg]

Stu Ungar said something like "You think poker is a game of luck? Heh, I'll prove you wrong."

Proof enough for me.

[mudbuddha]

hockey is all luck.. so is golf

[KidPokerX]

But I would choose the table with 5 random players only because my chances of winning are greater. This does not, however, change the luck involved with short term. The point you are tyring to make with this competition sounds like an attempt to prove that the short term luck involved in poker must be mastered before the long term can take place.

i cant remember exactly the quote by doyle brunson
In a single session poker is 80% luck 20% skill
In a year poker is 80% skill and 20% luck
In a lifetime, its 100% skill.

i firmly believe this. i could end up winning a session against that first table full of pros if the cards broke my way in a huge manner. I could also lose a session against the second table of donks if the cards went against me. The 120k hands in my PT database show that I am a winning player. I have had 125BB downswings, but that is variance. BR management is THE most important aspect of your game if you are a winning player.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
i cant remember exactly the quote by doyle brunson
In a single session poker is 80% luck 20% skill
In a year poker is 80% skill and 20% luck
In a lifetime, its 100% skill

[/ QUOTE ]

there are several offensively misconceived things in this post and this gets my vote as the worst

poker is a game of skill whether it be 1 hand, 1 session, or 1 lifetime

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

Is sportsbetting illegal in the US ? Cause I don't see the difference if you compare betting a sportsresult and the result of a poker hand...??? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[wtfsvi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
I assume he is talking about video poker. In Vegas there are machines with over 100% payout if correct stategy is used. Again that is long term, short term you will be a loser.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, short term you'll be a loser. Since a negative number multiplied by a lot has to become positive somewhere.

Either it has +EV or it has not +EV.

[DrunkHamster]

Imagine a hundred sided die, and you make a bet with someone. If it lands 1-99, you pay them a dollar. If it lands on 100, you get paid $200. It is +EV, but in the short term you are most likely to come out a loser. Same with these video poker machines, where much of the EV comes from a royal flush which obviously occurs rarely.

[Guernica4000]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i cant remember exactly the quote by doyle brunson
In a single session poker is 80% luck 20% skill
In a year poker is 80% skill and 20% luck
In a lifetime, its 100% skill

[/ QUOTE ]

there are several offensively misconceived things in this post and this gets my vote as the worst

poker is a game of skill whether it be 1 hand, 1 session, or 1 lifetime

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[/ QUOTE ]

Strips,

You can be serious. If your statement is true then there would never be bad beats.
Are you saying that if player "A" best player in the world played against player "B" worst player in the world one hand player "B" would have a 0% chance of winning?

Think of it this way Player "A" greatest player in the world goes all in with Ad Ac after a Ah As Th flop. Player worst player in the world calls with Kh Qh. Is there a 0% chance that a Jh will hit the turn or river?

It is only in the long run that Poker is a game of skill and in a way that is the beauty of it.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
poker is a game of skill whether it be 1 hand, 1 session, or 1 lifetime

[/ QUOTE ]

You really have no clue do you? If every hand was skill do you think an Aussie could have ever won the WSOP this year?

[Wacken]

Skill vs Luck stands best in No Limit games.
The longer the game, the beter it is for skill to beat luck.
The Bigger the difference in skill, the smaller the chance for luck to win.

You can easilly offer to double their winnings from your own pocket.

So chalenge them to join WSOP. It is no limit, it has long rounds and skilled players. They will have virtually no chance to get near the final table /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[XlgJoe]

As DrunkHamster stated it comes down to hitting the natural royal flush, which happens once in about 45,000 hands depending on the variation you are playing. Which is enough to put you from 98% payback to over 100% payback.

[Quicksilvre]

It is legal in all the usual places (Nevada, Atlantic City, certain reservations, etc.) and illegal everywhere else.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of it this way Player "A" greatest player in the world goes all in with Ad Ac after a Ah As Th flop. Player worst player in the world calls with Kh Qh. Is there a 0% chance that a Jh will hit the turn or river?

[/ QUOTE ]

i would say that player A was skillful enough to read the board and work out that he had a positive expectation of winning chips if he put them all in now - probably when player A made that decision he worked out that only the straight flush could beat him and that in addition to player B having to have the cards that make a straight flush he would require 1 or 2 specific cards to fall to complete such a hand - that the Jh might then come on the turn or river is utterly unremarkable and irrelevant to the skill exercised by player A - it probably wasnt luck that caused player A to make the choice that would result in him making the most money

roulette is luck - when i put my chips on 27 i exercise my belief that a former captain of the geelong football club was a great player - if the number 27 comes up then i know it was nothing to do with skill but in fact my special mind powers that caused me to win

there is a fundamental distinction in games - there are games of chance and there are games of skill - poker is a game of skill - if you call it skill and chance then you fail to distinguish it from other games - a whale swims in the ocean but that doesnt make it a fish

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Guernica4000]

Strip,

My point was the other way around. I agree with you that player "A" made a great read but what I am saying is that player "B" could by luck and luck alone win. He has a 5% chance to get his lucky card.

Let's use my same example with chess. You would agree that the best player in the world would never lose to the worst player in the world. Player “B” would have a 0% chance of winning.

So even though a whale is not a fish I still disagree with your statement: “poker is a game of skill whether it be 1 hand, 1 session, or 1 lifetime”

And I believe that anyone can win one hand, most players can win one session but only the great will post a “W” in the long run.

[RedManPlus]

For an average player...
And that means 90%+ of all players...
Including most of the traffic at 2+2...
Whose EV is near ZERO minus the rake...

Poker is very definitely almost a pure game of chance.

I'm sure that the Ohio State AG is not an idiot...
And is making laws for typical citizens of Ohio...
And not for some tiny, elitist group of poker pros.

rm+

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[subzero]

300 non-professional golfers, playing a golf tournament with Tiger Woods every day for a year, will not beat him. Tiger will win every one because he is far more skilled at golf than the other players.

If 300 non-professional poker players played a poker tournament with Phil Helmuth every day for a year. One of the non-professionals would beat Helmuth x% of the time (and what a site that would be!). Helmuth is much higher-skilled than the non-pros, but luck allows them to compete and even win against him at times.

I've always thought that poker is 40% skill and 60% luck. If you watch enough TV poker they take the chance and the win is from the luck of the cards that come out.

[Quicksilvre]

That 40/60 number is a good estimation for one tournament. For one tournament (even the longest ones) the run of cards is somewhat more important than skill. Even rank amateurs are occasionally winning big-money tournamnets.

However, year after year, the same players are posting big wins in the side games and are near the top of the myraid tournament player-of-the-year lists. The more hands that are played, the less importance luck has.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
For an average player...Poker is very definitely almost a pure game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. A strong-average player will defeat a weak-average player after years and years of play. The difference is much smaller between a fish and a pro, to be sure, but it's still there.

[ellipse_87]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because one player can have a consistent edge doesn't change the nature of the game. The house has an edge in craps, roulette, and blackjack.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that doesn't mean that the business of building and running casinos is a game of chance. Casino owners' fortunes have a positive correlation with their skill at running casinos. Playing the role of "the house" in a poker game for carefully selected +EV transactions is the definition of winning poker; the winning poker player is no more involved in a game of chance than Donald Trump is.

[ellipse_87]

But of course I just realized that this means that the Ohio AG is correct. Poker, defined in its entirety, is a game of chance for the majority of its participants.

you really want to give money to democrats ?
yuck
/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

That letter from the Ohio AG is almost verbatim the one from the Massachusetts AG. I agree that the law needs a major revamp. The problem I see here is that they've lumped poker in with games of chance such as Bingo and lottery. The law here actually says nothing about poker but limits/restricts lotteries and that's the law the AG here is throwing poker in with. Here's the deffinition of skill.

Skill: Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience.

According to the dictionary anything a person does can be considered skill. However the AG is narrowing the meaning down and painting with a broad brush that narrow deffinition. The difference between a game of chance and poker comes down to a couple of key differences.

1. In poker the odds are in no players favor before the cards are delt. In black jack, roulette, craps, bingo, keano, or any other game the odds are in the favor of the house and the player before he even puts his money down is at a distinct disadvantage and remains that way (except for specific bets in craps and card counters in black jack. the later only after he's played a few hands to get his count, he's already played as a dog though)

2. In depth knowledge of the game, odds, and opponents creates a distinct advantage for the perosn with these skills. This is similar to a person playing any sport. Take Tiger Woods in golf. Tiger has played countless rounds, spent countless hours at the range, and has the skills to be the best. He is better than any other player out there because he is more prepared and trained better than any other player. Being born with talent doesn't hurt but talent only gets you so far, skill is something you learn through practice and study.

3. While chance does play a factor in a poker hand, chance plays a part in everything, chance does not negate the ability of the card player. The player still has the ability to reason and apply their skills through out the game. In a game of chance there is no ability to modify a game plan or use a skill set. The only time this is the case in poker is in a no-limit game and the player goes all in pre-flop. Otherwise reads, odds determination, bluffs, etc. can be made and refined.

It is these 3 points (possibly some other but this is what I've come up with so far) that makes Poker different form all forms of games of chance. It is the reason that a player can be a long term winner. Because to be a long term winner you must have the skills to play well. Without those skills you WILL be a loser. To this point William Baxter Jr took the US Internal Revenue Service to court regarding his poker winnings. Under US tax law unearned income (dividends, interest, lottery winnings) is taxed at a much higher rate than earned income. The US Federal court ruled that his winnings were earned income. Now if poker was a game of chance how is it that his income is considered earned? To collect dividends from a comany stock or intrest from a savings account one needs some knowledge of the investments. But once that investment is made there is no more skill involved that would allow someone to earn more or loose less in these types of earnings (i know there's more to investing in stocks and such but i'm not trying to write a treatise here). Poker on the other hand allows for a player with sufficient skills to do both.

Okay so now that I've ranted to a paragraph or three, what do you do about laws like these. Well, playing a game to show case skill vs. chance is not the way to go. As someone else mentioned already politicians will not go for it (no politician wants to be made to look like a fool). The only way to go about it is to create a bill and get enough support for it that it passes through the legislation. Writing a bill sounds difficult but it's not really. Getting the support is what's difficult. But it is the only way to get it changed. I am working with a friend of mine (he's a lwayer, that helps a lot) on creating a bill for MA. We're crafting it so that it allows charity torunaments. We were going to go whole hog and make Poker legal, card rooms and all, but decided small steps first. If it passes then a couple of years down the road once the average citizen has gotten used to the idea of legal poker then we go the rest of the way.

My $1.50 on the subject.

[maybedinero]

&gt;I'm in an office full of statisticians so maybe I'm biased&lt;, but:
Why not look at this from a different angle. We have on this site online poker players with massive PokerTracker databases of thousands and thousands of hands of online Texas Hold 'Em (and to a lesser degree Omaha).
Perhaps it is possible to use the data in these databases to statistically show that play within certain parameters (VP$IP, PFR, PFA) is +EV compared to play outside those parameters?