pcgnome
Legend
Bronze Level
I agree completely with your definition, ( maybe I'm paranoid?) but my signature is not a definition.
It's just a silly expression about winning at poker that has nothing to do with logic.
Last edited:
I agree completely with your definition, ( maybe I'm paranoid?) but my signature is not a definition.
It's just a silly expression about winning at poker that has nothing to do with logic.
LizaMayra
Enthusiast
Silver Level
I don't think you can let religion tell you how to live your life... Life is a Gamble, is that a sin? every decision you make in life is a gamble...
I don't view poker as a gamble, since there is skill involved in the game... I view it like I view chess... just a game of strategy with some marginal gamble involved.
I don't view poker as a gamble, since there is skill involved in the game... I view it like I view chess... just a game of strategy with some marginal gamble involved.
dj11
Legend
Silver Level
I disagree. Future events being unknowable, the stock market depends on attempts by forces unknown to control segments of the economy and the profitability of the market reflects those attempts. But we can not know all the forces involved. So investing in the stock market tends to be a mass zero sum game where some profit because others lose.
Related are the commodities markets (soy bean futures for example) where on the one hand more info is available (drought, floods, etc.) but still requires information about unknowable future events, as well as the political (often international) landscape again in the projected future.
On a grand scale poker is so much more controllable as an investment than either the stock or commodity markets. But fundamentally they deal with the same forces, poker having many fewer unknowable futures, but still beyond the scope of complete understanding by any living human.
So I argue here that we, and the world, need to see that the capitalist model that developed the legit markets also applies to poker. The big difference being that in poker the results are known nearly immediately (hand by hand, or session by session), whereas in the investment world those 'bets' play out for longer periods of time, often years. Day traders would represent the hand by hand model, and investment funds might represent the session by session model.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
It dosent matter if you disagree.
The definition of gambling requires a bet to be made.
Money is not "bet" when shares are "purchased"
This isnt something thats really open to debate.
C
cAPSLOCK
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
I dunno Stu... I think you can easily argue that stock market investing pretty much fits the definition of 'GAMBLE'
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=gamble
Look at Princeton's example in their definition.
Noun
Verb
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=gamble
Look at Princeton's example in their definition.
Noun
Verb
- S: (v) gamble, chance, risk, hazard, take chances, adventure, run a risk, take a chance (take a risk in the hope of a favorable outcome) "When you buy these stocks you are gambling"
- S: (v) gamble (play games for money)
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
I dunno Stu... I think you can easily argue that stock market investing pretty much fits the definition of 'GAMBLE'
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=gamble
Look at Princeton's example in their definition.
Noun
Verb
- S: (v) gamble, chance, risk, hazard, take chances, adventure, run a risk, take a chance (take a risk in the hope of a favorable outcome) "When you buy these stocks you are gambling"
- S: (v) gamble (play games for money)
I'm English.
I speak English
I would only accept a definition from the Oxford dictionary. Its the standard English dictionary.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
I'm also unsubscribing from the thread.
Words have specific meanings. Whilst there is a degree of overlap within the English language, if you use an online thesaurus you would immediately see that whilst many words have similar meanings, few have the exact meaning required for you to substitute one word for another.
Words have specific meangs for one reason and one reason only. Words are the mechanism used for humans to communicate with others. Communication is a means of conveying a thought from one individual to another. By using words incorrectly all that is achieved is that your thoughts are incorrectly interpreted by others.
It is for this reason that language is standardised. A break from that standardisation leads to a breakdown in communication.
I just dont see the point in continuing a discussion which ultimately aims to hinder human communication.
Words have specific meanings. Whilst there is a degree of overlap within the English language, if you use an online thesaurus you would immediately see that whilst many words have similar meanings, few have the exact meaning required for you to substitute one word for another.
Words have specific meangs for one reason and one reason only. Words are the mechanism used for humans to communicate with others. Communication is a means of conveying a thought from one individual to another. By using words incorrectly all that is achieved is that your thoughts are incorrectly interpreted by others.
It is for this reason that language is standardised. A break from that standardisation leads to a breakdown in communication.
I just dont see the point in continuing a discussion which ultimately aims to hinder human communication.
dwolfg
Visionary
Silver Level
that isn't the only definition of gamble, even in the oxford dictionary," take risky action in the hope of a desired result."
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
We are going off topic and creating confusion.
The discussion is not actually about stocks and shares its about poker and the question was is poker a form of gambling.
This is why I'm unsubscribing.. because I know now what will be written in the next 20 posts and the 10 after that and so on.
There are some people who dislike the word gamble and will look for any way possible to distance themselves from the word "gambler". Stocks and shares are thrown in there simply as a means of adding confusion where in reality there is no confusion; poker is a from of gambling.
The discussion is not actually about stocks and shares its about poker and the question was is poker a form of gambling.
This is why I'm unsubscribing.. because I know now what will be written in the next 20 posts and the 10 after that and so on.
There are some people who dislike the word gamble and will look for any way possible to distance themselves from the word "gambler". Stocks and shares are thrown in there simply as a means of adding confusion where in reality there is no confusion; poker is a from of gambling.
dwolfg
Visionary
Silver Level
What confusion? You buy stock, with the hope that you can profit from it, but there is a risk of loss. That is a gamble. Poker however, there are situations where you can know that, no matter what cards your opponent has you will either profit or lose in the long run.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
Its the same with sports betting when done properly. (the key isnt picking winners its spotting situations where the bookie has got the odds wrong).
Only the casino table games have mathematically built in house edge.
All forms of gambling, where there is no inbuilt house edge, become games of skill in the longrun provided people are willing to sit down and learn how the system works and how to gain an edge.
Poker isnt the only gambling activity where skill can be applied.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
You physically own the stock.
Up or down you own it.
Money in the pot is awarded to the winner of the hand but you do not own the pot at any point prior to wining the hand.
Thats the key difference.
The closest business comes to gambling is not stocks and shares but instead insurance.
dwolfg
Visionary
Silver Level
The fact that you physically own the stock doesn't change the fact that it is a gamble. The company that you own stock in can go bankrupt and your stock value goes to zero.
dwolfg
Visionary
Silver Level
we agree here.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
Walking must therefore be gambling.
Whilst engaging in the activity of walking you risk being hit by a bus / shot by terrorists / falling down a mine shaft etc.
Generally speaking the only reason people walk anywhere is for some kind of gain, health, financial, mental etc.
So whilst walking can be argued to be a from of gambling, pretty much everyone knows that the word gambling dosent really fit.
Breathing is also a form of gambling.
You do it so as to gain life.
You risk inhaling gas.
the list goes on and on......
dwolfg
Visionary
Silver Level
What does this have to do with poker(risking money in hope of profit based on math-backed probability) or stock(risking money in hope of profit based on past trends and future prediction).
doops
Visionary
Silver Level
Gee, I remember buying shares of stock in a company I liked. The value of the shares went up a little. then the value started plummeting. I didn't have stock certificates, but there was an electronic record of my owning it -- is the physical report that I own X number of shares of a stock concrete? Well, it does mean that my money -- real money -- was used and in exchange for my real money, I get a report that I am the owners of X shares of X stock. At the end, I still owned the shares of stock, but they had no value. The company went out of business. The money I risked on the stock and on the company and its future was gone. And I had a lot less fun in the interim than I do playing poker. I'd call that a gamble on whether the company in question would do well. It did not, although it was looking good for a bit. I could perhaps have sold my shares, but the price bottomed out so quickly that there was no selling. It was as if I had gone allin on my flopped straight and the river made the other guy's flush. Except that it's unclear if anyone profited in the stock mess. At least in poker, one guy always wins the hand. In stocks, sometimes everyone loses.
I assume, Stu, that you expected some story like this. But, for me, stocks are far more of a gamble than poker. I've lost far more in the stock market than I ever will playing poker. It stopped feeling like "investing" long ago.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
I'm simply pointing out that without the requirement to wager money the definition can be widened to such an extent that almost any activity can be construed as gambling.
If stocks and shares were a from of gambling surely the US Alcohol, Gambling and tobacco Commission would have made a bid to regulate Wall Street. They have jurisdiction over all forms of gambling, if the stock market can shown to be a form of gambling then it falls within their juristiction.
C
cAPSLOCK
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Did it turn out the way you had predicted?
darkassassin89
Legend
Silver Level
Wow..... Lets all just play a free roll and then we wont be gambling anymore, more so, we would be free rolling!!!! 
with the prize being a wonderful gift for beating the best hehehe this thread is by far the funest threads ive read
with the prize being a wonderful gift for beating the best hehehe this thread is by far the funest threads ive read 
KoRnholio
Visionary
Silver Level
gamble
verb
[no object]
1 play games of chance for money; bet:
he gambles on football
[with object] bet (a sum of money):
they gambled their money on cards
2 take risky action in the hope of a desired result:
he was gambling on the success of his satellite TV channel
noun
[usually in singular]
1 an act of gambling.
2 a risky action undertaken with the hope of success:
we decided to take a gamble and offer him a place on our staff
Origin:
early 18th century: from obsolete gamel 'play games', or from the verb game
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0325700#m_en_gb0325700
From the first definition, any game that involves at least some element of chance and the wagering of money on the outcome, is gambling. This would include poker, sports betting, bingo, paper rock scissors (for money), even picking/buying-selling stocks.
I think most people consider gambling as the last definition listed- a risky action undertaken with the hope of success. I think it could very easily be argued that a player who demonstrates skill at the game over a large sample can greatly reduce the element of risk/chance sufficiently for this definition to no longer hold for them.
Examples of gambling in poker:
1- Players chasing draws with the wrong odds or regardless of the odds they are getting, whether they understand the odds or not.
2- Players playing above their bankroll and/or skill level hoping to win
Examples of poker that aren't really gambling:
1- Players making the appropriate +EV plays in hands
2- Players playing within their bankroll as to minimize their risk of ruin (going broke)
Another key aspect of this definition of gambling keys in on the word
"hope". Players that are "hoping" to win are gambling. Players who can use their knowledge and skills (mathematical and/or psychology and/or memory and/or experience) to produce consistent results, aren't really gambling.
Reread that last paragraph thinking in terms of stock picking and you'll see that it's virtually the same as poker. If you are good at it, much of the uncertainty/hoping is removed, as is the "gamble" of it. If you aren't good at it, you're basically gambling.
verb
[no object]
1 play games of chance for money; bet:
he gambles on football
[with object] bet (a sum of money):
they gambled their money on cards
2 take risky action in the hope of a desired result:
he was gambling on the success of his satellite TV channel
noun
[usually in singular]
1 an act of gambling.
2 a risky action undertaken with the hope of success:
we decided to take a gamble and offer him a place on our staff
Origin:
early 18th century: from obsolete gamel 'play games', or from the verb game
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0325700#m_en_gb0325700
From the first definition, any game that involves at least some element of chance and the wagering of money on the outcome, is gambling. This would include poker, sports betting, bingo, paper rock scissors (for money), even picking/buying-selling stocks.
I think most people consider gambling as the last definition listed- a risky action undertaken with the hope of success. I think it could very easily be argued that a player who demonstrates skill at the game over a large sample can greatly reduce the element of risk/chance sufficiently for this definition to no longer hold for them.
Examples of gambling in poker:
1- Players chasing draws with the wrong odds or regardless of the odds they are getting, whether they understand the odds or not.
2- Players playing above their bankroll and/or skill level hoping to win
Examples of poker that aren't really gambling:
1- Players making the appropriate +EV plays in hands
2- Players playing within their bankroll as to minimize their risk of ruin (going broke)
Another key aspect of this definition of gambling keys in on the word
"hope". Players that are "hoping" to win are gambling. Players who can use their knowledge and skills (mathematical and/or psychology and/or memory and/or experience) to produce consistent results, aren't really gambling.
Reread that last paragraph thinking in terms of stock picking and you'll see that it's virtually the same as poker. If you are good at it, much of the uncertainty/hoping is removed, as is the "gamble" of it. If you aren't good at it, you're basically gambling.
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
Pretty much yeah.