Stop denying that poker is gambling

[Stephen Gray]

That is irrelevant. The point is that it can. The outcome,
however probable, is not definite. This is the
definition of gambling. By the same token, it is entirely
possible to be dealt pocket aces the next 1,000,000 hands
you play and lose every hand. It probably won't happen, but
the chance exists, however miniscule.

[Abbaddabba]

I havent read most of the replies, but ill add something.

It would be true that all players would eventually go bust if they were forever playing limits that granted them 99 or 95% certainty. That would mean they would have to move up in the limits perpetually as they grew their bankroll at each limit. Generally speaking, that isn't the case for those who are in it to make a living. If you had a bankroll of 50k and you played 20/40 for a living, the odds are heavily stacked against you going broke from chance alone.

It's comparably likely to a stock portfolio going bust, and far less likely than you losing a "regular" job.

[deepdowntruth]

Poker is wagering money on an event whose outcome is unknown. Sounds like gambling to me, even if I know how to beat it. I mean, full-pay deuces wild video poker has a 100.77% payout with perfect play...still gambling. I know I can beat a guy at ping-pong and wager on it....still gambling. Just because you are getting laid fantastic odds doesn't mean it's not gambling.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Has a casino ever gone broke because it was "unlucky"? I just mean because it's games didn't meet expectation, not for other reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't be results oriented

[memphis57]

[ QUOTE ]
Has a casino ever gone broke because it was "unlucky"? I just mean because it's games didn't meet expectation, not for other reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure not, at least on the lower denoms where there were a sufficiently large number of trials. Hard Rock in Vegas made a big splash a few years ago by having a major down quarter as a result of "adverse gaming experience" (I like that term - not a loss, but "adverse gaming experience"). However, supposedly that was due to some $100-$500-$1000 slots and one extremely high roller in particular.

I heistated contradicting Stephen earlier because he makes several good points; however, I do think there comes a point in large numbers where the probabilities become so overwhelming that, as a practical matter, an expected win is almost guaranteed. A casino that takes in a billion quarters on 93% payout slot machines is never going to lose money on that wager. However, the numbers are so large that no individual poker player can hope or expect to play that many hands in his lifetime.

If there are any math gurus reading this thread, could you calculate the number of hands a 2 BB/100 player must play to expect a profit with various confidence intervals, using some reasonable figure for SD? For the intervals, start at 95% then 99% then add 9s until you get up to 99.999999% (6 decimals). I've seen it done, but I don't know how to do it. I think the geometric progression will be astonishing to some people - the 95 and 99% numbers are somewhat feasible, but the 6 decimal one is out of sight.