Reponse from author of Poker Craze article

[Ponks]

Link to the original post

My opinion is that Hold'em is definitely gambling, but it has a positive expected value if the person is skillful enough.

Here's the email reponse I got from Frank Ball if anyone was interested:

"Thank you for your email.

I appreciate that my cursory remarks to a local newspaper are in need of further clarification. I apologize for not going into greater detail. I certainly did not wish to imply that poker was just a gamble, with no skill. It takes a high degree of skill. I have witnessed professional players in action both in Vegas and here at the Card Club at Canterbury Park in Minnesota. I admire their joy of the game. Please allow me to explain further, which might help you understand some issues on the legality of this game.



In considering what might constitute gambling in Minnesota we apply a simple analysis of the game being examined. We look to see if in fact the three elements of a gamble are present. Those elements are best described as prize, consideration and chance. We look to see if someone is risking something of value (consideration), that the outcome of the event is determined by chance (in the case of card games the element of chance is created, through the shuffle, cut and deal of the cards) for which the person has opportunity to win a prize (that is something of value). If those elements exist then what is happening is gambling. If it is gambling then we need to determine if it is authorized by statute is therefore lawful.



Texas Hold-Em is a card game and in the way it is played is gambling. Since it is not authorized by statute in Minnesota we need to then see the setting in which it is played. We must determine if it falls under the private social bet exceptions to the gambling statutes. If it does not then it is being played in violation of the law. Minnesota law allows for social skill card games of cribbage, skat, sheephead, bridge, euchre, pinochle, gin, 500, and smear or whist; as long as the sponsoring organization receives no direct financial benefit and the prizes do not exceed $200.



None of this is to say that there is not some level of skill in the play of any card game. Knowing the statistics and probabilities for a particular winning outcome, betting strategies, use of player psychology, etc., are all playing skills. A skilled player has an advantage over an unskilled player. However, we often use the phrase optimum play in place of the word skill. As I recall, and I can be corrected, in the case of draw poker, for example, these factors (optimum play) represent about a 3% increase in the probability of having a successful outcome. The largest factor still remains in the shuffle, cut and deal of the cards. It is only after this event has occurred that these other elements become factors in the play. Recognized gambling authorities throughout the years have recognized the insurmountable difficulty any player has in overcoming the so called “cold deck”. This is the significant element of chance found in the play of cards.



I apologize for slighting the skill of those who play these games, which certainly was not my intent. I also recognize that this card game is extraordinarily popular and people enjoy playing it. In the end what is clear, is that games of chance not authorized by statute are illegal in Minnesota. That was the point of my comments.



Regards:



Frank Ball – Director

Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division

Minnesota Department of Public Safety"


Ponks

[IronDragon1]

I certainly don't agree with the policy but you can't really argue with his explanation when taken in context of existing state laws.

[MicroBob]

anybody know where on earth he got that 3% figure from?
did he just pull it out of thin air?

How does this 3% figure in poker compare with what other made-up figures might be floating out there for the other games (bridge, whist, gin, etc)?




otherwise, while a bit flawed in his thinking, he provided a very polite and professional reply after saying something so stupid.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this 3% figure in poker compare with what other made-up figures might be floating out there for the other games (bridge, whist, gin, etc)?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a strong bridge player. Generally speaking, bridge fish are much more skillful than poker fish. It takes a lot of effort for a complete beginner to learn to play as well as an experienced fish. This is in contrast to poker where virtual complete beginners can easily be winning players in low-limit games.

Bridge also has a high variance like poker. Getting good cards is very important in the short run.

Nevertheless, the good player's edge over the fish is much larger in bridge than in poker. The good player's results will still fluctuate wildly, but actual losing streaks should be much less frequent and severe.

[MicroBob]

I completely agree with your assessment based on what little I know about Bridge.

However, I wasn't really asking about the differences between the games (although your perspective is interesting).

I was specifically asking where on earth they came up with that 3% figure.

If optimal play in poker can somehow represent a 3% increase in the chances of having a successful outcome then what figure does he have for the other games?


FWIW - I think this 3% figure is ridiculous.

With 'optimal' play I barely have a better chance than anybody else to win after 1 hand.
After 10 hands my advantage increase.
And after 100 hands even more.
After 100k hands I probably have very close to a 100% chance of a successful outcome with 'optimal' play.

So where the hell does his 3% come from?


If this is some sort of bit of common knowledge that I'm not aware of then I apologize. but I have never heard this figure before and it doesn't make any sense to me.

[Uglyowl]

Could it be argued that no limit is not gambling as there is much more skill involved and cards actually play a much smaller role?

[BradleyT]

He said draw poker. Perhaps he meant video poker.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW - I think this 3% figure is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I actually thought his response was half intelligent before he threw the 3% figure out there.

He obviously doesn't know if that's true or not. He left himself plenty of 'i could be wrong here' outs.

[MicroBob]

Many people do not think there is less skill in limit-poker than NL.

I think that Mason is one of them.

The skills are somewhat different....but that doesn't mean that limit is 'less' of a skill game.

[Mike Haven]

With 'optimal' play I barely have a better chance than anybody else to win after 1 hand.
After 10 hands my advantage increase.
And after 100 hands even more.
After 100k hands I probably have very close to a 100% chance of a successful outcome with 'optimal' play.

i believe he is saying that you have a 3% edge per hand in the same way that a casino has a 3%(?) edge per spin

and, yes, after 100k hands you have very close to a 100% chance of a successful outcome with 'optimal' play in the same way as a casino has very close to a 100% chance of a profit - it depends on your definition of a successful outcome, which, in the way you are stating it, seems to be whether you are winning some amount larger than one cent

i would assume his 3% edge figure is some sort of mathematical extrapolation using the old axiom of a good player being able to win 1BB per hour - i think others could use different bases and come up with different figures, but a 3% edge per hand in the long run seems a reasonable sounding figure to me