When they tell you its gambling, explain it like this.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Total posts
1,203
Chips
0
Poker is really no different than speculating in the financial markets either, but they call that investing. Although luck plays a factor in both, they both also require a great deal of knowledge and strategy to be successful. Good luck is like icing on the cake for a profitable poker player.

Very, very well put, thank you.

So is too off base of me to think that poker is not gambling in the same sense that roulette is? I just do not see how you cannot compare those two if they are both gambling. By the same reasoning, if you consider investing gambling, then it too is like roulette, right? See what I mean? roulette = investing just makes no sense. I am not just being stubborn as many are saying that I am. I am trying to reason this out. There has to be a line someplace! A line that says "this is gambling" or "this is not gambling"; I simply think that investing and poker fall on the "not gambling" side of any line.

Just as well, chess and poker require a strategy. Once again, I am told I am wrong, that you cannot compare the two at all. I do not think they are precisely the same, yet as a general game and that strategy, they are awfully close in some respects. I would have used investing but I wanted to use a game of skill that is not gambling at all to see how they stack up against each other.

Thanks for your post Syko, for a while I was starting to think I was just nuts (but only a nanosecond). And If I am, I know you will set me straight.
 
Last edited:
LeanAndMean

LeanAndMean

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Total posts
1,560
Awards
4
Chips
0
This is sorta a useless argument. No matter what you say to the morality police, you aren't going to change any opinions.
 
PsychoVas

PsychoVas

What The Duck???
Platinum Level
Joined
May 4, 2013
Total posts
1,903
Awards
6
GR
Chips
240
"Imagine that you play an infinite number of hands against the top pros. Imagine that you play against high-school kids. There is a difference, right?"

Yes of course. However, what is the cause of that difference? The long term proven odds never change. Only the short term odds on the way to reaching the long term odds changes. So while the pro player is making the right play based on the odds he sees, in the same exact situation the weak player is not, yet those same exact odds are still present. They hit or miss because of the short term variance that makes the final outcome.

Is that good luck then, when the short term lines up with the long term and bad luck when the short term does not line up with the long term as expected? Or is it just the odds expressing themselves? I guess you can say it is, yet the pro is aware of the odds and using them to base a decision off of. Therefore in the long run he will prove to be more successful, not luckier. The high school kids are simply playing and their ignorant plays line up with the same odds that would make the pro do the same thing or if he played the exact same hands that they do, he would, in the long run, win-lose just as much as they do.

So if I take all the hands that a so-called "lucky" player won with and ran it over one million hands, a pro doing the same exact thing would have the same exact result over that same long run.

Actually the pro will have far better results in the long run in terms of success as he is more competent in realizing and utilizing odds and betting patterns in his favor. The "luck" factor determines only any individual "try" as we call it. If you draw a card from a deck, the probability of every single card is 1/52 (no jokers:icon_joke). So in an infinite number of draws the patterns will be more or less the same. The total times any one single card appears will be more or less the same for all. That's why we use terms like "pot odds" or "equity". The ways any one of us interprets them vary. I mean that if for example you flop a flush draw, the odds of completing it are in my opinion 9/47 + 9/46 as we only know the value of our hole cards plus the three flop cards. Another player might think that as long as there have been another 16 cards dealt (full ring game) the odds are 9/31 + 9/30. This is a significant difference, although the probabilities didn't change.



Therefore I conclude that poker is not a game of chance or luck, rather a game of skill and math. Blanketing the whole game as based only or mostly on luck only takes into account the short term and ignores the long completely. In the long term they will be exactly the same every time.

How can the exact same results every time played out in the long run be considered "luck"? Or am I just being stubborn and crazy as some have accused me of?

It actually is both. Short term results are affected by luck as is any "try" that has no predetermined outcome, long term results are affected by skills and to be more precise by the absolute difference of skills between the subject and the field he is active in. I think that the closest analogy is the stock market. Right moves will eventually pay better than any lucky move that can win or lose millions at a snap. The analogy extends even more as the market can be manipulated by huge transactions. The Hellmuth in this case might be a major holdings company in Wall Street. You, even if you have lots of money in terms of interpreting or manipulating the market would be a dead duck in a shark pond.(Creepy joke).
To conclude this I will try to put it in a sentence:
Odds are the same for all, the way you understand and use them makes the difference.
Thus I don't think that you are neither crazy nor stubborn. I have been reading some very good poker books and one thing they have in common is that they all advise you not to be results oriented. Here are some titles:

David Sklansky-The Theory of Poker Seventh printing Complete
David Sklansky - Math Of Hold'em
Dan Harrington-Harrington on Online Cash Games 6 Max No Limit Holdem


And to entertain us all, here is a video from a lucky amateur player beating Phil Hellmuth 3 times out of 4. Pay attention to the odds. This is an example of short term results that vary from the expected outcome (yet the loose cannon will never make a living out of poker whereas PH makes millions) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IarPUmb-TWE
 
Last edited:
PsychoVas

PsychoVas

What The Duck???
Platinum Level
Joined
May 4, 2013
Total posts
1,903
Awards
6
GR
Chips
240
Poker is really no different than speculating in the financial markets either, but they call that investing. Although luck plays a factor in both, they both also require a great deal of knowledge and strategy to be successful. Good luck is like icing on the cake for a profitable poker player.
See? Both psychos use the same analogy.:dito:
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Total posts
1,203
Chips
0
This is sorta a useless argument. No matter what you say to the morality police, you aren't going to change any opinions.

Oh, how well I know this now. You can see what the counter points have been to the argument so far; I am stupid, I clearly have a gambling addiction, I am stubborn. All things that clearly prove beyond a reasonable doubt (lol) that poker is gambling.

I am really trying to reach newbies before the morality police get to them with these "facts" they provide and make them think that they are not really playing a game of skill. And the math in this is pretty fun, so here I go, headfirst into that wall, lol.

Thanks for the support.
 
J

JaguarJT

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Total posts
33
Chips
0
People who say all poker is is luck are people that I want to play against. haha
 
M

MAX101

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Total posts
585
Awards
1
Chips
0
All I can say is any skilled player will tell you they got lucky and won!!!!!LOL!!!
 
C

cotta777

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Total posts
868
Chips
0
if you theoreticly look at the gaming style at the level your playing and you have the bankroll required for variance you will effectively be getting payed or retain money for every correct decision you make,
that on board bring the use discipline into your game the person who makes the most good decisions will always win the most money aka profit
there for the person who has the ability to make the most right decisions will outclass lesser opponant's, there for if you know your class you can play there.
cards have no value until showdown
 
Blobweird123

Blobweird123

CC's very own Dead Head
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Total posts
2,468
Chips
0
No, you are spot on, Blob, yet simply missing a key point; There is a reason for what your example proves and it is explained in #62.

In the short term you very well can get KK and run into/be beat by AA 100 hands in a row. Unlikely, however, as over the long term it will equal the expected overall odds that the odds themselves are derived from. That long haul result is pretty much cast in stone. Even if you ran it one million hands at a time, and did pull AA vs KK all one million times, in ten million it will still equal out to the correct odds!

Yet, in the short term it seems like luck; In your example we know that the KK will win some of the time. In the long run, that is.

So, if we could know it has lost 100 times in a row and take the number we know that it should win into account, we could use the odds of probability to add all those times in a row it is losing to "get lucky" because it is due to win and just maybe does (because we know it is overdue). In this way you are not simply relying on pure luck. There is a logical base for your decision.

This is the very thing Doyle Brunson uses to make prop bets against less informed people who think that a small pair will win out over AK in a lopsided bet long term (they will have to pay 1,000 every time the pair does not win, Doyle will pay 1.00 every time every time it does). He breaks them by applying the known long term odds.

As for chess, I do agree that you have to boil it down to see the similarities. I make the comparison because after studying the masters and listening to their reasonings for making certain moves against certain opponents, what they think while they are playing, I see much that is very similar to poker. Add to this the success chess players have when moving over to poker, they are clearly applying those same similar skills to be better than average right from the get-go.

Still doesn't make sense. You use the words overdue and unlikely. Those are words associated with it being luck. Even if you run AA vs KK 1 million times, nowhere is there a rule that says you can't lose all 1 million of em. Higghhhhhhly unlikely? Yes. Impossible? As much as you wanna say yea, it's not. So ultimately there will ALWAYS be luck incolved. No one is telling you skill doesn't matter. If I played my wife HU right now, I'd have an enormous edge. But ahe can certainly catch flops and win with luck
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Total posts
1,203
Chips
0
Actually the pro will have far better results in the long run in terms of success as he is more competent in realizing and utilizing odds and betting patterns in his favor. The "luck" factor determines only any individual "try" as we call it. If you draw a card from a deck, the probability of every single card is 1/52 (no jokers:icon_joke). So in an infinite number of draws the patterns will be more or less the same. The total times any one single card appears will be more or less the same for all. That's why we use terms like "pot odds" or "equity". The ways any one of us interprets them vary. I mean that if for example you flop a flush draw, the odds of completing it are in my opinion 9/47 + 9/46 as we only know the value of our hole cards plus the three flop cards. Another player might think that as long as there have been another 16 cards dealt (full ring game) the odds are 9/31 + 9/30. This is a significant difference, although the probabilities didn't change.





It actually is both. Short term results are affected by luck as is any "try" that has no predetermined outcome, long term results are affected by skills and to be more precise by the absolute difference of skills between the subject and the field he is active in. I think that the closest analogy is the stock market. Right moves will eventually pay better than any lucky move that can win or lose millions at a snap. The analogy extends even more as the market can be manipulated by huge transactions. The Hellmuth in this case might be a major holdings company in Wall Street. You, even if you have lots of money in terms of interpreting or manipulating the market would be a dead duck in a shark pond.(Creepy joke).
To conclude this I will try to put it in a sentence:
Odds are the same for all, the way you understand and use them makes the difference.
Thus I don't think that you are neither crazy nor stubborn. I have been reading some very good poker books and one thing they have in common is that they all advise you not to be results oriented. Here are some titles:

David Sklansky-The Theory of Poker Seventh printing Complete
David Sklansky - Math Of Hold'em
Dan Harrington-Harrington on Online Cash Games 6 Max No Limit Holdem


And to entertain us all, here is a video from a lucky amateur player beating Phil Hellmuth 3 times out of 4. Pay attention to the odds. This is an example of short term results that vary from the expected outcome (yet the loose cannon will never make a living out of poker whereas PH makes millions) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IarPUmb-TWE

I knew my "blind" faith in those far better educated than I would pay off, lol. I certainly did not think the math wiz I learned it from was just shooting in the dark.

And that video is just a classic on so many levels! Unfortunately for Phil, the loose cannon could improve to win with a full house, a straight or a flush. Yet hitting a two outer and then the one outer, same card no less, astronomical! It should have been a even split or 3-1 Phil, if not 4-4.

Something It made me think about was the possible difference in the kind of trips you have; If the board is paired giving you trips, you have the same number of opportunities that you can make your full with as when you only hold one. He would have had to catch a ten, ace or exact runner-runner pair. Had he been holding 9-9 with one on the board instead, same thing. Or is it?

The question to me becomes this: which will happen more often? The board will pair or your hand will on the turn and/or river? Or are they the exact same odds (only for drawing to a full)

If your hand will, then you are slightly better of with one of the trips in your hand.
If the board will, then you will be slightly better off with holding two of the trips in your hand.
If exactly the same odds, it does not matter (?).

I think that having one in your hand is more dangerous in that you could only have the little full and not as easily know so. If you have the pair and a full house, it is somewhat easier to know that you do. It still all depends on board texture. I simply base that off of every time I get out-full-housed, I only have one in my hand, so I could be way off base there.

Does Sklansky or any others mention this? Has this ever been run out over a few hundred thousands of hands that you know of?
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Total posts
1,203
Chips
0
Still doesn't make sense. You use the words overdue and unlikely. Those are words associated with it being luck. Even if you run AA vs KK 1 million times, nowhere is there a rule that says you can't lose all 1 million of em. Higghhhhhhly unlikely? Yes. Impossible? As much as you wanna say yea, it's not. So ultimately there will ALWAYS be luck incolved. No one is telling you skill doesn't matter. If I played my wife HU right now, I'd have an enormous edge. But ahe can certainly catch flops and win with luck

(I will certainly say yes and agree with you because you are 100% correct it most certainly is very possible!)

Sorry, I meant overdue and unlike in relation to the odds of probability. While it is not impossible to win one million times in a row, the number of times in total to get to that occurrence is astronomical. So lets say you can do it and have it win one million times in a row out of 100 trillion times played out. But guess what? It would still equal the same amount of times it wins (xx to one) as it does based on a just few hundred thousands of hands. So, just no need to go to 100 trillion. It equals the same odds as a few hundred thousands.

That is the whole point. The one million wins in a row is the short term variance on the way to the long term end that allows you to calculate the odds in the first place. It still does not trump the long term results. They are cast in stone. One million in a row or not. So you can use your skill knowing this, take it into account and still make a correct analysis and lose or win. If you win it hits the expected 3-1. When you lose, it hits the 1-3 side. No luck, just the 3 times or the 1 time. So I think it fair to say for a knowledgeable player it is skill either way. For an unknowledgeable player, it is luck either way.

Where we disagree Blob is only at this point. Some think this makes poker more about luck and makes it gambling, some think it makes poker more about skill and therefore not gambling. The not gambling side is winning out slowly but surely all over since black friday. The issue keeps popping up and will not soon go away. Thus Joe Bartons recent bill. And my post.

Since skill outruns luck in poker over the long run, that is why I say it is a game of skill and not luck. That is just my take on it. Yours is no less valid, Blob, and referee's will come in as they have been doing in the form of courts of law and decide which is more valid to them. That's all. Not only is your point just as valid as mine, it is only these various subtleties that we cannot come to an agreement on that makes for an interesting discussion. And I greatly appreciate your open minded approach by asking me these questions and not simply dismissing me as so many others do without cause or valid reason.
 
Blobweird123

Blobweird123

CC's very own Dead Head
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Total posts
2,468
Chips
0
That is the whole point. The one million wins in a row is the short term variance on the way to the long term end that allows you to calculate the odds in the first place. It still does not trump the long term results. They are cast in stone.

The only thing I disagree with in your last post is what you bolded. Probability odds are NOT cast in stone whatsoever. Thats why they are odds. They don't HAVE to happen. They just usually do average. But that doesn't mean they will. Even over the longest of long terms.
 
PsychoVas

PsychoVas

What The Duck???
Platinum Level
Joined
May 4, 2013
Total posts
1,903
Awards
6
GR
Chips
240
Don't confuse a set with trips. When you hold top set, no one can have another whereas with trips there is another card out there that makes trips and it's a matter of the best kicker or completing the boat. The only statistical sheet I could find up to the moment I will attach.
 

Attachments

  • Poker - Texas Holdem Hand Ranking & Winning Percentages.pdf
    35.6 KB · Views: 5
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Total posts
1,203
Chips
0
The only thing I disagree with in your last post is what you bolded. Probability odds are NOT cast in stone whatsoever. Thats why they are odds. They don't HAVE to happen. They just usually do average. But that doesn't mean they will. Even over the longest of long terms.

No problem, we just have a misunderstanding about what I meant by "cast in stone"; I mean that they are cast in stone in the long run. If AA to win is 3-1 over 100k hands, it will also be 3-1 after 1 million, 3-1 after one trillion, 3-1 into infinity. Just overall, that is. They started proving this once computers came along that could actually run trillions of hands to verify it. And it has been verified. The long term odds hold up. Can you believe the original odds were tallied from live games by the players themselves? No computers! Amazing. No one would believe them for a long time until the computers backed up what they were telling people.

They most certainly are not cast in stone to be 3-1 every single individual time. But you would have to collect a fewer number of hands to establish what they are at the moment; in last years wsop main event, I think AK was dealt out 20-xx times out of xx number of hands in total at the final table. And it won every single time! The short term odds were having it win disproportionately or so it seemed. (If they had continued to play to 100,000 hands, it would still have equaled the odds that it has of winning outright) However, it is harder to establish what odds that AK will beat without comparing it to a specific hand.

So long ago they put the AK offsuit into a computer, put it up against AA and ran them against each other through a 5 card flop a few hundred thousand times to get 5.86% AK wins, 92.8% AA wins, 1.34% tie.

These results are cast in stone. You do it more times, it simply continues to equal those numbers. That is why I said cast in stone.
 
Blobweird123

Blobweird123

CC's very own Dead Head
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Total posts
2,468
Chips
0
yes but its still not lol. For that set of a few hundred thousands hands AK won 5.86 percent. But on another set it could win 86 percent of the time. There is NO set in stone with cards, for ANY card game. It's always luck of the draw. There is skill, and I believe skill comes out to about 80% of it. The other 20% of it is what your dealt and what your opponents get dealt. There is no denying that, and therefore it IS gambling and always will be. The only way it wouldn't be gambling is if we only put money in on the river and we saw each others hole cards.
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Total posts
1,203
Chips
0
Don't confuse a set with trips. When you hold top set, no one can have another whereas with trips there is another card out there that makes trips and it's a matter of the best kicker or completing the boat. The only statistical sheet I could find up to the moment I will attach.

No, I get you; What I meant was this: (x y equals random cards)

Hand_______ flop
x-9_________9-9-y (you have trips)

OR

9-9_________9-x-y (you have top set, provided x-y is not higher and another player holds one of those pairs)

So are you more likely to make a full holding top set or holding trips? I seem to have come across this once before.

And thanks for that sheet.
 
PsychoVas

PsychoVas

What The Duck???
Platinum Level
Joined
May 4, 2013
Total posts
1,903
Awards
6
GR
Chips
240
No, I get you; What I meant was this: (x y equals random cards)

Hand_______ flop
x-9_________9-9-y (you have trips)

OR

9-9_________9-x-y (you have top set, provided x-y is not higher and another player holds one of those pairs)

So are you more likely to make a full holding top set or holding trips? I seem to have come across this once before.

And thanks for that sheet.
I would have to say that it's the same. Both times you have 6 outs. You are welcome:)
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Total posts
1,203
Chips
0
yes but its still not lol. For that set of a few hundred thousands hands AK won 5.86 percent. But on another set it could win 86 percent of the time. There is NO set in stone with cards, for ANY card game. It's always luck of the draw. There is skill, and I believe skill comes out to about 80% of it. The other 20% of it is what your dealt and what your opponents get dealt. There is no denying that, and therefore it IS gambling and always will be. The only way it wouldn't be gambling is if we only put money in on the river and we saw each others hole cards.

Yet it never has won any other than at 5.86%, ever. It could, but we never have had it happen. Ever. And you cannot prove a negative. So that is about as close to cast in stone as you can get. That is where we get 5.86% in the first place. If it was just luck it would fluctuate and we could never ever get a set 5.86% in the first place. Not if it was luck. That would be impossible if it was luck. While it could be 86%, it so far has proven impossible to achieve without you running it into infinity which is impossible. Then, at some point, it could conceivably hit 86% at some point. But it would not stay at 86%. It would return to 5.86% eventually. Were it luck, every time we ran it 100,000 times it we would get vastly different results each and every time, right? 5.86% this time, 86% next time, 10% the next and so one. Instead we get 5.86%/5.86%/5.86%.

In order for us to see it at 80% you would only run it 10 times and have it win 8 of them. That is too small of a sample to prove reliable. You cannot get an average this way. So if you bust up the 100,000 into tens, it fluctuates all over the place like crazy. Yet 5.86% is an average. You cannot ever actually get 80 or 86% on average Sure, it is theoretically possible, so is the big bang therory. I would not ever bet on that.

If you run it out into the decimal places, that is where you see any variance. But it is infinitesimal and therefore has no bearing. Then you would maybe see 5.86010122/5.86010123/5.86010121. A variance of 0.000001 +/-
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Total posts
1,203
Chips
0
I would have to say that it's the same. Both times you have 6 outs. You are welcome:)

Yes, in the end 6 outs are 6 outs, period. I might have been thinking of something else. If I come across it, I'll let you know.:)
 
99TERRANCE99

99TERRANCE99

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Total posts
1,925
Awards
1
Chips
0
Anyone who thinks playing poker or like sports betting is just luck ,hasn't a clue how much time and study goes into either activity and how much hard hours a person puts in tobe good at either of them.
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Total posts
1,203
Chips
0
Anyone who thinks playing poker or like sports betting is just luck ,hasn't a clue how much time and study goes into either activity and how much hard hours a person puts in tobe good at either of them.

When Doyle Brunson and others first started tracking odds and using them, everyone thought they were just nuts. Or lying, crazy; once the computer age got rolling and a decent RNG was created, every odd was verified and they were vindicated. Too bad, as this gave them HUGE advantages over other players who had never even heard of such a thing and could not take advantage of it.

They did, literally, laugh their way to the bank!

I am just stunned that they could actually compile a complete enough list from live-played hands to get the same results it took a computer to verify! Just amazing.
 
Blobweird123

Blobweird123

CC's very own Dead Head
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Total posts
2,468
Chips
0
Anyone who thinks playing poker or like sports betting is just luck ,hasn't a clue how much time and study goes into either activity and how much hard hours a person puts in tobe good at either of them.

No ones saying it's all luck, but if anyone thinks there is NO luck in poker, then they are mad!
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Total posts
1,203
Chips
0
No ones saying it's all luck, but if anyone thinks there is NO luck in poker, then they are mad!

This is what I meant by the "subtleties" of the issue; people look at what defines "luck" differently;

For some, just winning or losing a hand or the entire game is luck.

For others, it is the success or failure to win after carefully weighing the odds and applying them using a clear strategy towards winning the game.

Some do not notice the math when they have four parts of a flush; if they make it then it is "good" luck. When they do not, it is "bad" luck.

Some see 9 outs when they have four parts of a flush, know they are 3-1 with 2 cards to come, 5-1 to with 1 card to come to make it and see if they can get better than those hand odds in the pot odds. When they make it, they think "correct use of math, hit it", or when they do not, "correct use of math, missed it."

And some simply do all of the above and consider it lucky when the calculated odds and strategy holds or does not as good or bad luck.

This means to me, IMO, you have to decide if the game itself is mostly based on luck or mostly based on math. Anytime you start with a clearly defined and solely mathematical based system such as in a deck of cards;

52 cards total; 4 suits; 13 ranks equaling 4 of each rank within the 4 suits; 1326 over all 2-card combinations, including equivalent value hands; 169 nonequivalent 2 card combinations; Up to 10 player getting 2 cards apiece; 5 cards placed on the board;

And can use proven mathematical odds to base decisions off of (6 outs to win; "rule of 2" = 6x2+2=14% or (100/14) 7.14 - 1 to hit the card you need and win) not just luck,

And, by using that math, give yourself a huge advantage over someone who does not (hand odds = 5-1, pot odds = 2-1, you should fold; skilled player does, unskilled player does not and loses more than wins), not just luck,

And can also take advantage of "reading" you opponent to add to the math, not just luck,

And can add deception as a part of a clear strategy in bluffing, not just luck,

And can control your losses by checking or simply folding, not just luck, well then!

You clearly, IMO, have a game that is not more based in luck, than it is more based on math and strategy. Thus my assertion, poker is not gambling.
 
Reptar7

Reptar7

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Total posts
783
Chips
0
Thus my assertion, poker is not gambling.

Here is the first definition of gambling from Miriam-Webster:

Gambling
1 a : to play a game for money or property

Is poker a game?
Do you play for money or property?
They don't mention luck, chance, or skill at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Related Gambling Guides: AU Gambling - CA Gambling - UK Gambling - NZ Gambling - Online Gambling Poker Tells
Top