Is poker gambling?

[MrHoros]

Of course poker is gambling. It may be gambling that you can gain an advantage or edge at but it is still none the less gambling.

 

[Dwilius]

Sure, people can use poker to gamble, but I'd say tournament poker is similar to golf. The better players keep putting themselves in good situations but can't control every bad bounce or lucky break. The longer/deeper the tournament the more likely the best players will be near the top at the end. Its just another game of skill where you're not in total control...but when are you ever?

 

[JimmyBrizzy]

so investing in stocks is gambling?

I'm not sure investing can be considered a game, depends on the person I guess.

I picked "yes" because the very definition (if we all accept the definition posted above) of gambling matches most of what happens in poker.

There are chances and probabilities of certain things happening.

There is money involved.

I see it as a game.

Just because its gambling doesn't mean you can't be a long term winner, be much more skilled than other players, or know the chances of a certain card coming or the ranges of other players' hands. There is still uncertainty and that's what makes it fun and profitable for most people.

 

[c9h13no3]

/me chucks his opinion into the fray.

I consider the stock market, poker, craps, slots, sports betting, driving, crossing the street all gambling. The only difference is your edge in a given situation.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

if you play tournaments you will never reach the long run

so tournament players are gambling while ring players aren't?

yes.

although you have to put caveats to that as it depends on the size of the fields. It's pretty easy for a grinder to get to the long term for single table tournaments. It's probably impossible in a lifetime to get to the long term of tournaments the size of the wsop ME.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Q. Is Poker a game where money is wagered on an uncertain outcome ?
A. Clearly, yes.

The problem with that definition is that it means that 100% of economic activities are actually gambling.

Quantum physics is extremely clear on that subject. There is no certainty. The only correct way to describe the universe is probabilistic.

In real life we are not too severely trouble by the probabilistic nature of the universe because it applies at the elementary particles level and there are so many of them in any object we can perceive that it's correct to consider the EV as reality. I don't see how this is any different from poker if the sample size of hands is big enough.

 

[Strong Dollar1]

After reading all these post about is poker gambling, I've come to one conclusion, there is no proof or real evidence to support the answers to the question, and even though there is a lot of really intelligent opinions stating their positions. I believe the only certainty is in ones own beliefs. Most can probably be swayed from one side or the other based on how they view the question, but the Moral beliefs of an individual plays a big part in this decision process. If a persons convictions don't run deep they can go either way based on good argument, but for others that advocate for yeh or ney on the issue, it's these individuals that keep this controversial question going. Since the inception of the game of poker there has been controversy over this same question of the game, and it was originally looked at by many as gambling due to their moral beliefs, but due to the recent popularity of the game of poker more and more people are willing to look at the game in a different light. One must ask themselves, what has changed? Certainly the game has not involved that much from it's inception, but the opinions of the people have. I can only conclude that the issue is not one of "Is poker gambling", but of ones moral conviction that will determine ones position to the question.

 

[Wilko89911]

I have seen lots of people say poker isnt gambling because it involves skill and in the long run.......etc. However you are using money that you could potentially lose or potentially win more, its gambling full stop. You are risking money to try and win more , because of the risk involved it makes it a gamble. Although poker involves alot of skill the game orientates around the random dealing of cards, making it somewhat a game of chance. Because Poker involves the "chance" factor and the money risking there is no denying it is gambling. I agree poker is mainly skill and the proof is that the better players win more money in the long run, however personally I believe it is gambling.

 

[Egon Towst]

The title of the thread is "Is poker gambling?"

That means the first point is the pertinent one. Insofar as it's also a game where money is wagered on an uncertain outcome, yes, absolutely poker is gambling.

If OP intended the question to be understood and answered in that entirely literal fashion, surely this whole thread is pointless ? Considered in those terms, the answer is self-evident.

 

[Egon Towst]

That chess analogy was asinine!

Hardly. The reference to Chess as a comparable game to Poker originates from my post #6, where I was quoting an academic study.

 

[steve21]

I think poker is gambling. Because u have a chance to lose and you are putting money out there. So i think it is

 

[OzExorcist]

The problem with that definition is that it means that 100% of economic activities are actually gambling.

As a general statement, I don't have much of a problem with that.

Investing in shares, for example, is actually very similar in scope to playing poker. You're making investments based on the information you have at the time and your attitude towards risk. The outcome (future price of the share) is unknown at the time of purchase though.

Good investors engage in risk management behaviours (portfolio diversification, etc) just as good poker players engage in risk management behaviours (bankroll management) and in the long run, good investors have a positive expectation just like good poker players do.

Are there times when you wouldn't consider it gambling? Sure - your risk is all but negated and the outcome is pretty certain if you invest in government-issued bonds, or in term deposits with a government-insured major bank. But in general, I'd happily agree with the statement.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

A friend of mine works in stoks and shares investmens and refers to himself as a 'very well informed gambler'

 

[rwilson]

Yeah, it's hard to argue that poker isn't gambling in the short term.. but does it come to a point where you have to agree that it's not gambling anymore.

Like with the casino scenario I gave before. casinos gamble every single day as a business. They make more bets when the odds are in their favour (cause the odds are just about always in their favour!) and they win in the long run. In the short run they win and lose, but no one considers casinos to be gamblers.. they're businesses that make money.

I think poker will always be viewed as gambling from a legal sense and it's nearly impossible to prove otherwise. But there's an ever growing number of players out there who wouldn't consider it to be gambling either; they look at it as a business or an investment.

I think it's fine for people to call poker gambling.. but i don't think it should be put in the same basket as other more 'pure' gambling activities like the lottery, roulette (and most other table games for that matter), etc. Where you place your money down, have virtually no control over the outcomes, and close to 0% of punters can profit in the long run.. It's either impossible to beat the system or there's only a very minute percentage of punters who actually can beat the system consistently enough to make money long term.

With poker you're not playing against a fixed system/house where the odds or prices are stacked against you at all times.. you can choose what cards you play and what cards you don't, and more importantly you can lay your own odds, which I think separates it from most other gambling activities.

It's really in a class of it's own

 

[Jungl3 Jim]

Poker is sport.

Would you call the NFL gambling?

 

[OzExorcist]

Poker is sport.

Would you call the NFL gambling?

As a player, absolutely not. In financial terms the outcome is fixed: you turn up and play, and you get paid what it says you'll get paid in your contract.

Completely different to poker, where you can't be certain what you'll walk away with at the end of the game.

 

[joemac696969]

Any time you put money on the outcome of a certain thing such as the lottery or a poker hand, I would consider it gambling!

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Are there times when you wouldn't consider it gambling? Sure - your risk is all but negated and the outcome is pretty certain if you invest in government-issued bonds, or in term deposits with a government-insured major bank. But in general, I'd happily agree with the statement.

you're missing the point, imo. If you strictly apply the definition people use to define poker as gambling, even a simple thing like buying bread is gambling, as particles physics tells us there is a non-zero probability that the bread will instantly vaporize and reappear on mars. Very small likelihood I admit, but non-zero. There is no certainty in this universe. Only degrees of uncertainty.

 

[Gorblid]

I think there is gambling poker when plater reads bad, and play not considering the odds, but when you learn to read odds and people it
can become 20% gambling 80% skill, but a gamble present will always be there, cause its never sure what cards you/board/op get.

 

[JimmyBrizzy]

The problem with that definition is that it means that 100% of economic activities are actually gambling. Why would this be a problem? I also see the US economy now, and some people are holding onto their money. They are not spending money in the markets or buying as many goods and services - this has a big effect on supply and demand of course, but they are not risking their money anymore.

Quantum physics is extremely clear on that subject. There is no certainty. The only correct way to describe the universe is probabilistic.

In real life we are not too severely trouble by the probabilistic nature of the universe because it applies at the elementary particles level and there are so many of them in any object we can perceive that it's correct to consider the EV as reality. I don't see how this is any different from poker if the sample size of hands is big enough.

He used the word "game" and I don't really view economics or buying bread as a game.

I think that definition is perfect and don't think your argument makes much difference. Even if we did agree that "100% of economic activities were gambling" I think that only makes the case strong for poker to be considered gambling.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

He used the word "game" in that definition and I don't really view economics or buying bread as a game.

Define "game", please?

 

[JimmyBrizzy]

Define "game", please?

No.

 

[shinedown.45]

I do not believe poker is gambling as there is an element of skill involved in poker in being able to read other players at the table.
I define gambling as putting a dollar amount down on the outcome of one solitary motion in hopes of doubling or more on your money.

Mind you, there are those who simply use poker as a gambling device.
You see it all the time, when a player is sitting at a ring game and playing ATC in face of any raise and pays no attention to odds and/or position.

 

[zachvac]

lol when we refuse to define terms and talk about what we think definitions are we're just arguing semantics. Please define gambling before we attempt to argue whether it is gambling or not.

 

[JimmyBrizzy]

lol when we refuse to define terms and talk about what we think definitions are we're just arguing semantics. Please define gambling before we attempt to argue whether it is gambling or not.

...kind of why I did that...