I hope you're not getting addicted...

[luv2chkraze]

I'm wondering if anyone else has run into something similar to this:

I've been playing poker seriously for a few months now, and I'm doing OK...going up and down, but overall I've won more than lost. I'm like any new player; studying, practicing, making plenty of mistakes and learning from them. I think it's a great hobby, I'm having fun, playing responsibly (not with the rent money) and having a good time learing the nuances of this great game.

A couple of weeks ago, I won my first tournament and pocketed about $1400. Needless to say, I was ecstatic. I called my mom to tell her the good news. She says she's concerned that I've been playing so much, and she worries that I may be getting addicted to poker. I tried to reassure her that I'm just playing with my "fun" money, that I've been playing pretty well, and by-the-way-did-you-hear-that-I-just-won-a-damn-tournament?

She's still concerned...she thinks it's sleazy, etc. And this is a woman who, when I was in college, had no problems with me spending thousands of dollars getting a pilot's license...when I had no intention of ever becoming a pilot.

So here I am learning to play a +EV game and doing it while not risking any kind of serious money (I make 90k a year and will risk no more than a few hundred a month at the tables), and my mother thinks I've gone off the deep end, when she had no problem with me spending thousands (that I couldn't afford at the time) on a pilot's license that would do me no good.

So has anyone else run into similar situations as this? How do you deal with it??

[Sully]

Unfortunately, in some people's minds, poker is never going to be anything but gambling, the same as blackjack or roulette. It's next to impossible to change many people's opinion on this.

I've learned that sometimes you just need to accept that it's not an argument that you will win most of the time. Kind of like playing A-4 off....it's tempting to try, but usually only causes you grief.

Find good friends who understand, and use a place like this to get your fix of poker talk....zip the lips around the skeptical.

[slavic]

poker is never going to be anything but gambling

Poker is gambling.

[Sully]

[ QUOTE ]
poker is never going to be anything but gambling

Poker is gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't discagree with you there, Slavic, but my intent was to distinguish it from Blackjack & Craps, etc. I think you'd have to agree that they are quite a ways apart. I don't know very many craps professionals.

[Songwind]

Not *exactly*, though my wife did mention it in passing.

Not so much that she thought I was getting addicted, but that she wanted me to be sure I didn't.

[stupidsucker]

the word "Gamble" has a negative ring to it. It implies that luck is the main factor.

Yes poker is gambling because you wager money to win money, you cant argue with that at all.

In the stock market you invest money to make money... How is this any different? What about Pro Tennis players that have to pay a coach, get sponsers that put up money for them, pay travel expenses... They dont make money unless they win a tournament.(Unless you are Anna Kornakova)

Poker flat out is a game of skill provided that the blinds arent anything silly, or any other wacky situation.

Several words have two meanings, and gambling is one of them. Poker IS gambling because you wager money to win money. On the other hand it isnt a "Gamble" if you play the odds.

Let me ask you this...

Are casinos "gambling" when they deal each hand of blackjack or spin the roulette wheel?

I'll help you out... No they arent. They are playing the correct odds, and they make money from the people that do gamble. Poker is no different.


Sorry to get off on the tangent..To answer the original poster... I have the same trouble with it. I make half my income off poker nowadays, and I am having a very hard time dealing with my parents about it, and with my girlfriends parents. My dad doesnt think I will lose, he thinks I will win and get the snot kicked out of me in an alley because of the nature he thinks poker players have. You have to pick your battles.

[stupidsucker]

The biggest sign you are addicted are when you lie about losing. If you find you lose often , and you lie about it, then you may be in trouble. If you find yourself saying "I mostly break even" Then re-evaluate yourself and be wise.

Otherwise keep a stiff uperlip, be careful, stay educated and be smart.

[Michael Davis]

The solution is not to share this with your mother. It will save you both a lot of pain.

-Michael

[stupidsucker]

Keeping information away from my mother is easy.

All out lying is much harder now then when I was a kid.

Call me silly, but I want my parents to support me in my choice to play poker, and I want them to be proud of me if I do well in any of the WTP games. I am easing them into it. They know I play, but have no idea the extent.

[Skyler]

Just keep winning. That's all. They'll eventually come around when they realize that you haven't invited them to the lobster dinner that all of your poker accepting friends are coming to. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MicroBob]

my mom has actually come around quite a bit on this....VERY much to my surprise. i really thought i was going to have to lie about my new 'career' just to keep her happy. but she has proven to be more flexible on this.

my dad has always been okay with it because he knows that i am decent at math. he doesnt know anything about poker ("i saw some of it on the TV....they were playing Texas-something-or-other i think") but he knows that if you are able to push a small advantage over and over again it will add up profitably in the long-run.

my mom still sometimes worries if she calls during the day to say hi and asks how i'm doing at the tables and i happen to say 'i'm down a little'.

but she is even coming to grips with this as well.
i've been able to say 'if your stock is down 1/8 of a point in the first hour....do you just panic and sell it all??' and try to explain that worrying about the amount that i have won or lost after a couple of hours of playing poker is about as silly.
since she has traded stocks successfully in the past this is something she is able to understand.


was pretty funny when i visited a couple months ago and she sat and watched a WPT episode with me (the one with Gus and Paul and Dewey). she was really getting into it and i think THAT really helped her see it even moreso as a game of skill that one can actually succeed consistently in.

i've told other friends who aren't understanding it as well.
mentioned things like my poker database which i study quite a bit which tells me what areas of the game i need to improve.

as well as the 2+2 forums which i describe as "a bunch of people smarter than me analyzing every aspect of the game".
also mention things like 'poker-theory' and 'game-theory' and make sure to mention that 'game-theory' is the stuff that that John Nash guy from Beautiful Mind was working on.

i thought the movie sucked....but everyone seems to go 'oh yeah....Game Theory.....that's some really fancy-pancy intellectual stuff'


when they ask how well i'm doing i'll mention that i'm 'grinding' out $25/hr over the past 1000 hours of play.

i think using terms like 'grinding' and talking in terms of win-rate per hour (instead of 'i won $40k last year') can help SOME people see it in a more accurate light.

it just sounds so much more serious and so much less lucky then weekly or yearly win totals (or individual tourney wins).

anyway, if you want to continue to talk with your mom about this you need to find a way to come across in a way that she might have a better chance of understanding what is going on.
some of the above suggestions might be worth considering....or come up with some of your own.

if you think that none of those would even work...then just keep it a secret from dear old mom. she'll rest easier at night....mom's are born worriers anyway and you don't need to be feeding her ideas that her precious baby might need to go to GA.

[Rosie]

i have the same problem with my mum... (I'm 28) but she and my dad still call it gambling and think I have a problem. See my other post in this forum and you might agree with them?

Ultimately... its a fun game and is supposed to be a game of skill and mathematics. I am still learning a lot, but how to convince someone who doesn't understand the game that it is different to Roulette etc is not easy without sounding like the junkie crying "I can control it". If you find a way, please tell me!!

[Webster]

The Only thing you can do is keep records and every so often show her results.

AND - DO NOT become additced - I did. I stopped twice in my life when family started to be 2nd to poker. I was addicted to winning and things got out of hand.

I started AGAIN a year ago knowing this and not have regular times I play.

[Dov]

Blackjack is not like craps. Blackjack can be beaten.

[Dov]

I read a book called Poker Nation by Andy Bellin. In it, he says something to the effect of:

When you start thinking that going to a movie will cost you the admission price plus 2 big bets, you're screwed.

In addition, I have spoken with some friends of mine (college kids) who are pretty good poker players, about job interviews. I told them to take a break from poker for a while, b/c they described their salaries as Big Bets. (As in - they were offering me $8/hr. That's not even one big bet!) (These kids play 10-20 on a semi regular basis)

You aren't addicted as long as the game doesn't interfere with your life. If it does, then you need to start paying close attention and catch it early.

As far as your mom, just take it slow. Most people have an image in mind when they hear certain words. It may take a very long time to change that image - and it may never happen. Poker is getting a makeover, but it may still take a few years. Just like in the game, patience will pay off in the end.

Good Luck

[drdre2001mm]

You are doing nothing wrong and you are addicted in the right way. The key thing you said was that you were using your "fun" money. So instead of spending your fun money on bowling, golf, etc.. you decide to use it on poker which you obviously seem to enjoy. I think you made the right choice and I wish you the best of luck at playing the game. Congrats on your tourney win by the way.

[LSUfan1]

I would have to say my wife would want me to make poker my career slight more than she would want me to become a serial killer.

although the 2 are probably interchangeable in her opinion!

[Dov]

It took me 2 years, but now my wife sometimes SENDS me to the casino to play. She likes to shop sometimes.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we can classify poker as gambling without being more specific.

If I blindly throw thousands of dollars into the stock market or real estate in a bad neighborhood, my action could not be described as an investment - it's a gamble.

If I am getting 10:1 on my money over a fair coin flip, it certainly can't be called gambling.

If I have 200,000 hands in my PT at a given level and am a 2 BB/100 player, then surely my playing can't be called "gambling."

The casino isn't gambling when it offers odds on roulette. It has a long term edge and it's exploiting that edge. It's a business. It's an investment of money... as is poker for many of us on these forums.

Gambling could be defined as betting on an uncertain outcome. I don't know about you, but I'm certain of what the outcome of my poker session will be. (Not "a" session... "THE" session).

[junkmail3]

Ha, yeah. My wife is the same. It took me almost two years to win her over, and she still worries sometimes, says that she just doesn't feel comfortable with me losing $200 in one day. ("Just think of what you could do with $200) And then I have to explain all over again how there is variance, expectation, odds, long term profitablilty, then she calms back down. (until my next losing session)

Solution: Don't lose. It's worked for me. Helps me win more too. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
my mom has actually come around quite a bit on this....VERY much to my surprise.

[/ QUOTE ]

As has mine - to my surprise as well. She didn't like me going to the $1/$2 indian reservation card room, but doesn't seem to mind me playing $10/$20 online. I usually play a quick 1-hr session before dinner when I get home from work and a 2-hr deal before bed and report my big winnings (if any) in the morning.

My favorite, however, is when I have a losing night and nonchalantly report my big losses. I only do this when asked, though.

The key is to report your big wins and don't talk about your losses unless asked - and not to lie. If I can tell somebody with a straight face that I lost $500 of my own money in a matter of hours and not seem to care much at all, then that attitude will project onto the other person that everything is really OK.

The only time you DON'T want people supporting your poker hobby is when they start wanting free stuff because it's not like you "earned" this money or anything. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[charlie_t_jr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
poker is never going to be anything but gambling

Poker is gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't discagree with you there, Slavic, but my intent was to distinguish it from Blackjack & Craps, etc. I think you'd have to agree that they are quite a ways apart. I don't know very many craps professionals.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'd leave out blackjack in your quote, I'd agree with you.

[charlie_t_jr]

Good response, Warik.

I think it comes down to the individual. Someone could be a great poker player. But, if they're looking at short term results, and reacting to short term results, that person is probably just "gambling".

But if they have the discipline to play within their BR and skill, and not focus on the short term, and look at poker as a long term payoff, then a person could be identified as an "inverstor".

[IlliniRyRy]

I've been playing seriously for awhile now, and my mom still gets annoyed when I play for extended periods of time. I've showed her my account balance and told her how much I've made since I started, but its sort of in one ear and out the other. I guess some people just don't get it, you'll probably just have to accept that.

[gibs]

Poker is gambling and will always be considered gambling. Why? Just look at the definition of gambling: the playing of games of chance for money. No matter how much we would like to think it's not, poker is still a game of chance (i.e. luck). If this weren't the case, then we would never get to read all the "bad beat" stories on these boards. However, since poker is a game of skill and luck, some of us are able to neutralize the luck part over time. But any way you look at it, luck is still involved in poker. Therefore it is gambling.

[top2pear]

Hey, of course your mom is concerned about you. Addiction is a serious problem. You need to be able to tell her what you do and how that differs from gambling. Read what many of the intelligent posts already say about the difference between a regular poker player and a Gambler. Honestly assess whether you're more like one than the other.

Are you doing things like hiding how much you bet "because you're worried other people won't understand"? Do you lie about losing sessions, saying you broke even or came out a little ahead simply "because you're worried other people won't understand"? Are you risking more and more every time you play "because you know you can catch up"? Are your relationships with friends and family eroding because you're always lying to them about how much you play and how much you play for? Have you begun to risk the money of others or more than you can afford to lose? Are you switching from more "reliable" forms of gambling like poker and blackjack to more "action-oriented" games like craps, slots, and sports betting? If you said "no" to all of them, you're probably doing alright.

Also, it's not like addiction is something you "catch." Most people who become addicted to gambling seem to have a tendency toward addiction in general. If you've had problems controlling your alcohol consumption, for example, then maybe you're more prone to controlling your gambling.

Read a little bit about addiction somewhere so you can intelligently rebut and assuage your mom's fears. She only wants you to be safe--and she'd probably still be willing to cut the crusts off your PB&J samwiches if you asked her!

Love,

Yer Dad, (aka The Armchair Shrink)
(jk)

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

Just explain to her that it's usually cheaper and more gratifying and healthy than crack.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is gambling and will always be considered gambling. Why? Just look at the definition of gambling: the playing of games of chance for money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the definition of investing: to commit money in order to earn a financial return.

[ QUOTE ]
No matter how much we would like to think it's not, poker is still a game of chance (i.e. luck). If this weren't the case, then we would never get to read all the "bad beat" stories on these boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are fluctuations in a stock's price the result of luck or the result of a lack of information?

Suppose you invested your life savings in Enron. A few months later, Enron's stock goes kaput. Were you unlucky or did you make a poor decision due to a lack of information? Surely if you knew that Enron was being financially naughty, you would have made a wiser investment.

The same applies to poker. Suppose you have A/images/graemlins/spade.gif K/images/graemlins/spade.gif and the board is 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. You are drawing to top pair or to a flush. Your only opponent has 27 offsuit. The burn card is 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif and the next card to be dealt is J/images/graemlins/club.gif.

You call your opponent's bet.

Were you unlucky, or did you make a poor decision due to a lack of information? Surely if you knew that your opponent had a pair and the next card in the deck would not help you, you would have made a wiser investment, i.e. folding (or perhaps raising, if you again had better information regarding whether or not your opponent would fold.

[ QUOTE ]
However, since poker is a game of skill and luck, some of us are able to neutralize the luck part over time. But any way you look at it, luck is still involved in poker. Therefore it is gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have contradicted yourself. You said that some of us are able to neutralize luck over time. If we are able to neutralize luck, then luck cannot be involved in poker. If we are only able to reduce, but not neutralize luck, then there can be no such thing as a winning poker player, and thus, there is no point in playing.

[daryn]

slavic is right and you guys are all wrong. anytime you wager money on some outcome, you are gambling. it doesn't matter if it's + or - EV. yes, the casino is gambling when it deals you blackjack.

[MicroBob]

i moved to memphis to accept a job that i THOUGHT was going to pay me a certain salary.
i got fired a couple months later (as did several others) so what i thought was a 'sure thing' turned out to be an 'unlucky break'.

i fail to see how accepting a job where you can get an 'unlucky break' like this is very difference from playing poker with a positive expectation or 'investing' in the stock-market.

if i walk up the street to buy a gallon of milk i can't be certain that i won't get run over by a car.
am i gambling every time i get a gallon of milk?? or every time i turn on my computer (since i'm not certain that sparks will fly out of it, set my hair on fire, and kill me).

there is virtually nothing in this world where the outcome is certain....but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything you do in life is a 'gamble', although you can look at it that way if you like i suppose.

[MicroBob]

my biggest problem of late regarding my mom now stems from her brother-in-law that 'the fed-govt is trying to close down all of these illegal online-casinos so your son better get all of his money out of there'.


arrrgh....this is like starting all over again....because naturally my mom is going to believe her sister's husband who misinterpreted some story he saw on tv then she will believe her own son who is doing this for a career.

didn't take TOO long though....explained that i have probably made cash-outs 50 times or so at various casinos without a single problem and that i avoid the casinos that have a reputation of potentially providing serious problems.

also explain that they can make more money by staying in business then by shutting down.

then explain that i have my money distributed around to various sites....so that if one of them were to close down....i woudln't really lose that much....and it would be nothing compared with the amounts that i have already made off them (because i keep cashing out my profits).


she keeps asking 'but cant they close down with your money whenever they want' and i re-explain 'technically yes....but a lot of banks and investment firms have closed down too with people's life-savings....your money is never ENTIRELY safe'
and then confirm that i do quite a bit of research on any site before giving them my business....then re-explain that i have cashed-out 50 times successfully with no problems at all (she has a poor memory...it's helpful to repeat things).

when i talk with her again in a couple of days i suspect many of the same issues will come up....but slowly and surely she is learning that it really isn't something to be overly concerned about.

[Losing all]

I'm starting to wonder if my mom has a second family hidden away in Memphis, sounds just like her.

ps. I need a kidney, bro

[MicroBob]

i've only been in memphis for a couple of years.
my mom is in wisconsin.
i like my kidneys and you can't have them.

[Kevroc]

I forget who said it, I think Holden or Alvarez...

"Poker is not gambling, gambling is a style of playing poker"

[J.R.]

http://www.investorhome.com/gambling.htm

[goose58]

LIFE is a gamble. Every thing you do in life is a gamble from washing your clothes with a different detergent, to how you punish your kids, to driving to the store when you KNOW there are crazies out there.

When I went to the book store and I asked where the Poker books were located, the guy looked at me half crazy and said; "Poker is in the GAMBLING SECTION". I couldn't help but think how big of a jackass this guy was.

Most non-poker players think poker is a bad in one way or another.. no way around it.

[gibs]

So using your logic, nothing is gambling, just a lack of information? If this is true then the term gambling need not exist, because there would be no gambling. Using your logic, would it be gambling when you take your paycheck to the local casino and put it all on red only to see it come up black and lose it all? Nope. Just a lack of information, apparently. Had you known that it would come up black, then you obviously would have put it all on black. But wait, since you're making a decision without all the information, then isn't that gambling? Yes. Therefore poker is gambling. Because we are making decisions based on incomplete information. To take an example from your post: [ QUOTE ]
Surely if you knew that your opponent had a pair and the next card in the deck would not help you, you would have made a wiser investment, i.e. folding (or perhaps raising, if you again had better information regarding whether or not your opponent would fold.


[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, you are making a decision based on incomplete information. And that is gambling.

[JohnShaft]

Yeah but Daryn that's just pinning a definition on it without defining the extent of the gamble. And it's the extent that is the key.

If I offered anyone 10,000 to 1 odds on correctly guessing a coinflip is that gambling?
By your definition, Yes.
Would almost every person on this planet still want to play this game? Yes.

'Gambling' per se isn't bad.
Repeatedly playing in situations where you have the worst of it often is.

Since becoming a poker player I've now my own definition of gambling.
Gambling (to me) is making a bet where you do not have the best of the odds. (And you can control stake/number of times you play, etc.)

[stripsqueez]

whether poker is gambling is a topic that is pretty bland - i can tell you that poker is not gambling based on the historical defintion of the word gambling - gambling traditionally refers to games of chance and poker is not a game of chance

i bought my mums silence - she is a smart woman - about the time she was whining at me about playing lots of poker she was contemplating an overseas trip - i paid for her trip (via poker profits) in exchange for her silence - now when it comes up i just look at her and she just looks cross but shuts up

i also bought the silence of she who must be obeyed - that cost me a lot more - 1 carat near perfect diamond - stupid little pebble like things cost a fortune - unfortunately it didnt quite do the job so now i have her on a monthly hush money retainer

the coolest thing about poker in my view is that it is the only game you can play addictively and buy off the women in your life with the proceeds - its a win/win

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
So using your logic, nothing is gambling, just a lack of information?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Roulette and craps is gambling and so are a variety of other table games. When I'm talking about poker, I'm not talking about lack of information on what the next card is going to BE... I'm talking about lack of information on what the next card IS (because the next card is ready to come out). In roulette, when you talk about the ball landing on a number, you're talking about predicting the future. With craps, you're predicting a dice roll. It's information that will be unknown until it happens. The deck is already set up for the burn card and the turn card to come out, and all of the players already have their cards. All of these actions have already taken place, you just don't have information on them available to you.

[ QUOTE ]
Had you known that it would come up black, then you obviously would have put it all on black.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are talking about predicting the future. The river card is not the future. Once the deck is shuffled and all of the players are dealt in, the river card is etched in stone and will not change. The roulette ball's destination is not.

Why is poker, a skill game based on a lack of information on what has already happened gambling while buying stocks and real estate are considered investments?

By your flawed counter-logic, I could call chess gambling because you are making a decision on your next move not knowing what your opponent is going to do next.

What if we were being paid 5:1 on a coin flip by an opponent with an infinite supply of money. Are we gambling there?

Isn't a winning poker player a person with an edge over an opponent with an infinite supply of money (the opponent being all of the fish on Party and the infinite supply of money being their bank accounts).

To me, "gambling" has negative connotations suggesting negative expectation.

If I sat here playing roulette, I'd know that after an infinite number of spins I will be infinitely in the hole. That's gambling.

Instead, I'm here playing poker, a game in which I know (and hope /images/graemlins/smile.gif) that after an infinite number of hands I will be infinitely wealthy. That's not gambling. That's an investment of my time and money, which is paying off thus far.

[wabe]

Like a coin flip can statistically come up heads 20 times in a row, your pocket aces could lose 20 times in a row. That seems to be the epitome of a game of chance.

With the shuffling of the cards, the element of luck is introduced, which makes poker a game of chance. Isn't that correct?

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Like a coin flip can statistically come up heads 20 times in a row, your pocket aces could lose 20 times in a row. That seems to be the epitome of a game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to flip an infinite (or just simply large) number of fair coins, heads/tails would approach 50/50.

If you were to play an infinite (or just simply large) number of pocket aces, your wins would far outnumber your losses.

If, however, you played an infinite number of spins in roulette, the money in your pocket would approach negative infinity.

That is the difference.

[ QUOTE ]
With the shuffling of the cards, the element of luck is introduced, which makes poker a game of chance. Isn't that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe in "luck" in the traditional sense... so no - that's not correct. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[gibs]

[ QUOTE ]
When I'm talking about poker, I'm not talking about lack of information on what the next card is going to BE... I'm talking about lack of information on what the next card IS (because the next card is ready to come out). In roulette, when you talk about the ball landing on a number, you're talking about predicting the future. With craps, you're predicting a dice roll. It's information that will be unknown until it happens. The deck is already set up for the burn card and the turn card to come out, and all of the players already have their cards. All of these actions have already taken place, you just don't have information on them available to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

So would games like let it ride not be gambling then, since everyone already has their cards, and all the cards are etched in stone, just need to flip the cards over?
[ QUOTE ]
You are talking about predicting the future. The river card is not the future. Once the deck is shuffled and all of the players are dealt in, the river card is etched in stone and will not change. The roulette ball's destination is not.


[/ QUOTE ]
Either way, it is still predicting the future for a poker player. When you're faced with a decision on the turn, you do not know what the river will be (nor does anyone else), even though that card has already been decided.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead, I'm here playing poker, a game in which I know (and hope ) that after an infinite number of hands I will be infinitely wealthy. That's not gambling

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because you are winning does not mean it is not gambling. Anytime you risk your money without a guarenteed return, that is gambling.

And yes, if you bet on a game of chess it would be gambling. Playing chess alone is not gambling, just like playing play money poker on Party is not gambling.

I know what you're trying to say. That poker is not gambing in the sense of the word that many people see it (i.e. throwing your money on the craps table without any expectation of winning). That is just society's view of "gambling." But like I said, anytime you put your money on the line without a guarenteed return, that is gambling. And no matter how well you play the odds in poker, you still are not guarenteed to win. That is why you hear stories about pros going broke.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
So would games like let it ride not be gambling then, since everyone already has their cards, and all the cards are etched in stone, just need to flip the cards over?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not familiar with Let it Ride.

The point I was trying to make was that if the activity in question involves a wager and the expected value of that water is >= 0, then that activity should not be considered gambling. Maybe I went too far with my analogies, as I do from time to time.

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, it is still predicting the future for a poker player. When you're faced with a decision on the turn, you do not know what the river will be (nor does anyone else), even though that card has already been decided.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't know what it will be, but if you had this "insider information," you would be able to make the most +EV choice. This is UNLIKE a game of blackjack where you could still lose even if you knew the card that was coming out next... i.e. having 12 vs. the dealer's 7 knowing that his downcard was a 10 and the next card in the shoe is a 10. You can't fold, you can't stand, can't split, can't double. You're screwed. If you always knew how the cards were set in poker, you could always make the best decision. In a gamble, like a hand of blackjack, you can't make the "best" decision because it's likely that the only decision you can make is -EV.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you are winning does not mean it is not gambling. Anytime you risk your money without a guarenteed return, that is gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Positive infinity sounds like a guarantee to me. As time passes your bankroll grows infinitely and your RoR approaches 0%. If you want to maintain that a 0.00000000000000001% RoR is not a guarantee; however, then I suppose I don't have a foot to stand on anymore. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, if you bet on a game of chess it would be gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it a gamble when Gary Kasparov places the bet and I am his challenger?

[ QUOTE ]
anytime you put your money on the line without a guarenteed return, that is gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

By definition, every purchase could be deemed a gamble then. If we want to accurately classify all of these activities, then there needs to be more criteria set. When I buy dinner it could be a gamble because I don't know if the food is going to be any good. When I buy round of golf it could be a gamble because I don't know if it's going to rain or not. Obviously these things are not gambles, nor are they investments - they're just purchases... but if our definition of gambling is "putting money on a non-guarantee," then they would qualify.

[ QUOTE ]
And no matter how well you play the odds in poker, you still are not guarenteed to win. That is why you hear stories about pros going broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have my own theory on why that happens, but it goes beyond the scope of this thread and I think I'll get flamed heavily for it... so I'll hold off on that until I have a few hundred thousand 10/20 hands under my belt and can back up my theory with results. :

[gibs]

Your problem here is your view of the term "gambling." Like I said, society views gambling as something bad, and in your words see it as having a negative connotation. You can talk about the odds all you want, but when it comes down to it, there are no guarentees that you will win in poker.
[ QUOTE ]
No, you don't know what it will be, but if you had this "insider information," you would be able to make the most +EV choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no if here. Even though the next card in the deck is set, there is no possible way to know what it is (within the rules of the game) before it comes out. Therefore it is predicting the future.
[ QUOTE ]
Is it a gamble when Gary Kasparov places the bet and I am his challenger?


[/ QUOTE ]
If they bet on the game, then yes it is gambling. If I were to play Phil Ivey heads up in a $10,000 freeze out, he would definitely be the favorite and all odds would be in favor of him winning. But that doesn't mean that he would beat me. I could get lucky and draw out a bunch of times, and just have the deck hit me in the face. There is NO guarentee that he would win, although the odds would be in his favor. And you'd probably say that if we played over a long period of time, then he would probably come out the winner. Probably, but not guarenteed.
[ QUOTE ]
By definition, every purchase could be deemed a gamble then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not true, because you have already gotten a return for your investment.
[ QUOTE ]
... but if our definition of gambling is "putting money on a non-guarantee," then they would qualify.


[/ QUOTE ]
They would not qualify because you are getting something in return for your investment. By purchasing a meal, you are getting a meal in return for your investment. If you get your money in the pot on the turn when you have the best of it, and then your opponent draws out on you on the river, even though you played the odds right, you have gotten nothing in return for your investment. Buying a round of golf in not a gamble because you will get a round of golf for your money. If it rains that day, then you will get a rain check for a round of golf on another day when it is not raining. If you want to look at making a new purchase in the sense of whether or not you are going to like it, then that could be a gamble. If you buy a new flavor of chips not knowing whether you're going to like them or not, then that could be considered a gamble (not in the way society views gambling, but in the actual meaning of the word). But if you talk about the actual purchase, then it is not a gamble because you are getting something (a bag of chips) in return for your investment.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
Your problem here is your view of the term "gambling."

[/ QUOTE ]

It may very well be.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no if here. Even though the next card in the deck is set, there is no possible way to know what it is (within the rules of the game) before it comes out. Therefore it is predicting the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way to know about the internal finances of a company within the rules of the game, but if you cheat without being caught, you can make the best decision. In games like roulette you can't cheat because the outcome hasn't happened yet. In blackjack you can't cheat because even if you knew the next card, the fact that you have lost doesn't change. Same goes for craps dice rolls.

[ QUOTE ]
If they bet on the game, then yes it is gambling. If I were to play Phil Ivey heads up in a $10,000 freeze out, he would definitely be the favorite and all odds would be in favor of him winning. But that doesn't mean that he would beat me. I could get lucky and draw out a bunch of times, and just have the deck hit me in the face. There is NO guarentee that he would win, although the odds would be in his favor. And you'd probably say that if we played over a long period of time, then he would probably come out the winner. Probably, but not guarenteed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. You view gambling as the wagering of money on an outcome that will not result sufficiently in the long run to be profitable.

To you, Gary Kasparov vs. Me is a gamble for Kasparov because I could beat him eventually (maybe he'll fall asleep and I can move the pieces). To me, it's an investment of Kasparov's money because he's so good that if he did fall asleep, he'd probably wake up and realize that I've been up to no good.

To you, Ivey vs. You is a gamble for Ivey because you could get lucky and beat him. To me, it's an investment of Ivey's money because he will whoop you over the longrun (I assume. I don't know what your skill level is vs. Ivey, but I will voluntarily admit that I stand no chance against Kasparov... in case nobody knew that already. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[ QUOTE ]
Not true, because you have already gotten a return for your investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! But not the return I expected. If I go to a restaurant and pay $60 for dinner for two, I expect our food to be yummy and our service to be good. But it's a gamble - I don't know if the food will be yummy. Maybe the chef is out sick... maybe the chef is in a bad mood and puts boogers in my veggies... maybe it's the waitress' first day and the other wait staff is placing bets on how many times she will piss off customers (which, by the way, wouldn't be a gamble for them either /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

When you buy something, you have a certain expectation on your purchase. If I buy a CD player, I'm not expecting to get a CD player - I'm expecting to get a good quality CD player that functions as it should. The gabmble is not in what I'm getting - it's in the quality.

When I have a 4-flush on the turn facing a bet, I'm making a $20 purchase for the next card, which I expect to be the 5th of my suit. Sometimes the quality of this card will not to my liking, but if I buy it enough times, then it will be a good quality card most of the time.

Same deal with a restaurant. If you go to place offering fine dining and pay over $100 for your meal and get a crappy meal, you can rest assured that if that place has been in business long and has a good reputation, then if you keep going back and buying the same meal it will be yummy more often than it is not.

If, however, you keep buying lunch at restaurant known to be the worst in town, your meal will be awful more often than not, meaning that eating at that place is a gamble.

This is a fun debate. Let's continue.

[Cashcow]

I must say, you both make excellent points. I tend to lean more on the side of poker not being a gamble if you are a well seasoned player. Granted, poker does fall under the defenition of gambling in a technical scense. I also think that the Stack market would fall under the same defenition. You are putting money into something that you plan on getting a long term return on, but have no guarentee of making that proffit or losing everything you put in.

However I don't believe that everything in life is not a gamble. I believe there is a fine line in Playing the odds and playing to get "lucky"(gambling).

Although you are both right, you are also both wrong. You could turn poker into a gamble, by simply hopeing for the best and playing every hand. I'm sure that if you played enough, and played every hand, one day you would walk away up for the day, but in the long run you would obviously be way down.

You may never agree on the subject, but I love reading this stuff so don't stop now. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[gibs]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no way to know about the internal finances of a company within the rules of the game, but if you cheat without being caught, you can make the best decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lets say that you can somehow cheat and know what the river card will be (I'm assuming here that you aren't playing in a home game where you will be the dealer part of the time and would thus have the opportunity to set the deck so that you know all of the cards). You still don't know that if the river card is the card that makes your hand, that your opponent doesn't have something better. Unless, of course, you are drawing to the nuts.
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. You view gambling as the wagering of money on an outcome that will not result sufficiently in the long run to be profitable.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is not my view. This is the view of society, and I think your's as well since you say you view the term gambling as having a negative connotation. Have you read the book Bringing Down the House, which is about the MIT students who took vegas for millions in the early 90s? Through knowing basic strategy, and perfecting a card counting system, they were able to skew the odds in there favor. Now to them, this no longer seemed like gambling (in the sense of the word that society sees it) since the odds were now in their favor. But in the dictionary definition of gambling, which was my original argument when this whole thing started, they are gambling since they are playing a game of chance for money. Back to poker, no matter how good you get, poker is still a game of chance and of course it is played for money.
[ QUOTE ]
To you, Ivey vs. You is a gamble for Ivey because you could get lucky and beat him. To me, it's an investment of Ivey's money because he will whoop you over the longrun (I assume. I don't know what your skill level is vs. Ivey, but I will voluntarily admit that I stand no chance against Kasparov... in case nobody knew that already. )


[/ QUOTE ]
This is not really a "gamble" for Ivey (in the way that society sees gambling, or like you said wagering money on a game in which the outcome does not look to be profitable). This is because a propositon like this would be a good investment for Ivey, since through his superior skill and experience he would probably kick my ass. But he is, by the dictionary definition of gambling, in fact gambling. That is because he is playing a game of chance for money.
[ QUOTE ]
When you buy something, you have a certain expectation on your purchase. If I buy a CD player, I'm not expecting to get a CD player - I'm expecting to get a good quality CD player that functions as it should. The gabmble is not in what I'm getting - it's in the quality.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think I kind of touched on this point in my last post. You're right that the gamble is not in what you're getting, because you paid for a CD player and you got one. The "gamble" is in fact in the quality. You can cut down on this "gamble" by buying a CD player from a known manufacturer who makes quality CD players, but there is still the chance that it won't perform up to your standards. I think I touched on this in my last post where when you buy a meal at restaurant, that is not a gamble because you are getting a meal when you paid for a meal. But the "gamble" is on whether or not the meal will taste good. Of course, if you're at a nice restaurant and the meal is not to your liking, you can send it back to the chef and tell him to try again /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

I think in a sense hear we both have the same view point. If you take the view of gambling that you stated earlier, "wagering of money on an outcome that will not result sufficiently in the long run to be profitable," then I agree with you that poker would not be gambling. This is because that I have a pretty good idea that I will be a winning player over the long run. But, of course, I cannot be 100% certain on this. All I am trying to say here, and have been trying to say, is that by the dictionary definition of gambling, poker is in fact a form of gambling.

[junkmail3]

Hey, I know were not supposed to spam here, but I'll sell you my kidney ... PM me ... please ... I need the money bad, really really bad.

Okay, thanks.