a few things

P

pogreshilly

Guest
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Total posts
74
1. gambling is playing a game of which the immediate result is influenced by a built-in element of chance. Since poker play includes an element of chance, that makes poker a form of gambling. Not in the simplistic and confused Barney Frank sense of "Gambling! Yuck! Burn it at the stake!" but as one small part of a complex picture.

2. There are two ways to approach gambling, which includes poker: as investment or as expenditure. An investor poker player treats his bankroll as a source of revenue. A spender gambler doesn't really have a bankroll; he uses cash to purchase time spent at entertainment. Just as he might plunk $300 down for concert tickets and then listen to music, he might plunk down $300 at the poker table for chips; but in both cases he has no expectation and little interest in walking out with any of that money. He's really spending the money on the time of three hours, which he passes engaged in an enjoyable activity.

3. A sucker game is one designed so that the player is guaranteed to lose. Three points need to be made here. First, there is a difference between a sucker game and a crooked game. In a crooked game the rules are not followed as they should be, and therefore the player loses. In a sucker game the rules can be (and often are) followed with obsessive scrupulousness, but it's the nature of the rules themselves that makes the player a loser; and crookedness on anyone's part can defeat the rules and turn that player into a winner. Second, it doesn't necessarily follow that, just because one player loses, another player wins. There are games, such as blackjack, where the game is designed so all players lose. So I define sucker games not by somebody making money off them but by the player losing money on them. Third, every game that has a professional game administrator is automatically a sucker game, because either the administrator doubles as one of the players (as in blackjack) or the administrator takes an administrative fee out of the player's money (as in lotteries and poker). This means that every game run by a commercial operation is a sucker game.

-30-
 
Irexes

Irexes

Legend
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Total posts
7,016
If you define the meaning of words yourself ie sucker game. Then you are going to find it easy to justify your definition.

Your post is largely a semantic debate and I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Most people will lose at poker and the house takes a cut of everyone's money. Yup.


By the way, golf and tennis, football etc large elements of luck yet I wouldn't define them as gambling.
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
what exactly is the point of this thread

edit: aside from making me lol at your bizarro logic.
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Name for us some of the activities of man that do not involve any 'luck'.

Every sport will have some element of luck. About the only competition I can readily think of that doesn't have any luck involved was settled on the moon, when a hammer and a feather raced and tied.

Sometimes 'luck' is immediate. i.e. you fill the nut flush over trips. Sometimes it is delayed, -the board pairs after you fill the nut flush over trips, or that drive off the tee runs into the unseeable gust and lands in the sand. Or your Quarterback, whose arm hurts is hit just as he's throwing which upsets the trajectory in such a way that his receiver gets to make a heroic fingertip catch.

'Luck', as generally defined is basically unknowable, and unpredictable, and it is via skill that games of any sort exist.

Gambling, which is betting on some outcome, of some event, be it commodity prices (financial markets), sickness (insurance), or games ALL have elements of chance involved.

Gambling on a coin toss is the simplest and, most boring.

The ugliest gamble of all will be done by moralists! They are gambling that (fill in religion) is the true path, and all others are damned to (fill in Hell's equivalents).
_____________________

Edit

I reserve the right to refute anything and everything I have said here because it is early here, and I haven't eaten breakfast, nor have I played my first game yet.:D
 
KyleJRM

KyleJRM

Visionary
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Total posts
735
You have two misdefinitions.

First, gambling is a contest in which the result is influened primarily, not just one that has an "element of luck." A poker hand is a gamble. A long ring-game session or tournament is not.

Second, a sucker game not one in which the average player will lose money. It is one in which the optimal strategy will, over time, lose money. Blackjack, for example, will be a slight loser for *all* players over time, even if they play perfectly. The optimal strategy is something like a .98 return on every dollar bet.
 
P

pogreshilly

Guest
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Total posts
74
You have two misdefinitions.

First, gambling is a contest in which the result is influened primarily, not just one that has an "element of luck." A poker hand is a gamble. A long ring-game session or tournament is not.

Second, a sucker game not one in which the average player will lose money. It is one in which the optimal strategy will, over time, lose money. Blackjack, for example, will be a slight loser for *all* players over time, even if they play perfectly. The optimal strategy is something like a .98 return on every dollar bet.

Finally, a reply that doesn't consist only of See-No-Evil-Hear-No-Evil insults or confused BS. But still not up to scratch.

I don't believe I mentioned "luck" at all. There is a difference between luck and chance. Luck is a special type of chance that has a consciousness and deliberately favours or disfavours a person from time to time, and it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as luck. In fact, it is belief in the existence of luck that perpetuates problem gambling. But luck is a fallacy. What I was talking about was CHANCE, which is very real.

As for your statement that gambling is playing a game that is influenced "primarily," I don't believe that distinction is valid. There is no objective way to establish what is the primary and what is the secondary influence on the outcome of a game. All of the influences have equal weight. And a long ring game session--say 100,000 hands over more than a year's worth of trips to the cardroom, which is tantamount to one long session for evaluative purposes--is still played a single hand at a time. What the player actually does at any one moment *is* gambling. Look, I'm not trying to provide ammunition to those who want to ban poker completely. I'm not even *interested* in people who operate in terms of sound bytes and ignore the bulk of a long, thoughtful discourse if it doesn't serve their vested interests. None of us should be concerned with those people unless you happen to be one of them. Playing their game only degrades you into becoming just like them.

I also didn't say anything about "the average player." I said "the player." By that I meant a generic player of any playing quality level who uses the optimal strategy. So we're in agreement on this point.

You put $1 into the pot and, because of the rake, you take out 95 cents of that $1. That makes it by definition a sucker game. Yes, you can compensate by taking 10 cents from some other player so that you collect $1.05 of the pot, but there are both practical and ethical difficulties with that. And that wasn't my primary point anyway. The primary point is that if you pay $1 and get no more than 95 cents of your own money back, you're being treated like a sucker by the game administrator. Nothing can change that.
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
Is everyone who dabbles in the stock exchange a 'sucker' too? Just curious.
 
MrMuckets

MrMuckets

Legend
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Total posts
2,379
Awards
2
Barney Frank???? I think you need to brush up on current events.:confused::confused::confused:
 
KyleJRM

KyleJRM

Visionary
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Total posts
735
If you are going to redefine words however you please, then you really aren't arguing anything but semantics.

In one sense, yes, luck and chance have the distinction you are making. But words can have more than one meaning, and one of the meanings of luck (and clearly, context should have made it clear that I was using that meaning) makes it synonymous with chance.

You've made up your mind that you want to prove some point about poker being a "sucker game," so you've redefined what things mean.

First:

"All of the influences have equal weight."

This is patently false, and logically virtually impossible. You are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation in this part of your argument.

But for the most important failure of your argument, it comes down to this:

"By that I meant a generic player of any playing quality level who uses the optimal strategy. So we're in agreement on this point.

You put $1 into the pot and, because of the rake, you take out 95 cents of that $1. That makes it by definition a sucker game. Yes, you can compensate by taking 10 cents from some other player so that you collect $1.05 of the pot"

You are making a false and arbitrary distinction between "your money" that is returned after a successful hand and "his money." You have attempted to redefine a "sucker game" as one in which the optimal strategy is one that returns less of "your money" than you put in, regardless of what "his money" you may also be returned.

That is a 100% false, made-up, logically inaccurate attempt to redefine what a "sucker game" is.

A sucker game is simply a game in which the optimal strategy will return less total money than the player puts in over the long term. This is the real definition, and it does not make any distinction between different types of money being returned to the optimal strategist.

Any other definition is a false one, and that is why your argument fails. You are basing it on a false definition of "sucker game."
 
NoWuckingFurries

NoWuckingFurries

Legend
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Total posts
3,819
dj11 said:
Every sport will have some element of luck. About the only competition I can readily think of that doesn't have any luck involved was settled on the moon, when a hammer and a feather raced and tied.
Chess?
 
Top