Poker Player or Gambler

[TheNoob]

I can't claim to be a good poker player, but I'm certainly not a gambler either.

If there is anything I have learned, though, is that two of the ingredients of winning poker over the long run are 1) making the right decisions 2) making sure you sit down with gamblers.

Sure, sometimes he will win, but you want that 'gambler' to call your big bet all day long when he's holding 89o to your AA.

 

[AtiFCOD]

I vote this: "Make good decision, get money in with best hand and win"

Anyway I wouldn't be proud of myself winning with bad hand... I think sometimes gambling is neccessary in poker, but doing it frequently is nuts.

 

[ZZFLOP]

Oh my, spelling and punctuation are a big deal to you huh? Just cause I dont take all the time in the world to put in every apostrophe and use perfect grammer doesnt come off as ignorant, but more as lazy. Were not having a spelling and grammer contest. If the other guy didnt literally laugh AT my post that makes complete and utter sense, I wouldnt have felt the need to put my point across to him in such a way. Proven facts? Im simply trying to say that if youre not 100% to win every hand then you are gambling, so therefore it is somewhat gambling all the time. Theres an ABSOLUTE fact right there. Just because theres certain people who agree with you, doesnt make it a fact, its called opinions. You must be another person whos "mad skillz" make you 100% to win every hand. Cause lord knows your the best. Ask any pro, even they wouldnt be ignorant enough to say that they are not gambling, and pros have said it before, Poker is GAMBLING. You cant argue with that one bit. Unless you want to state that your opinions are facts again.

As for the AA vs 2 7 example. I heard AA is 80% to win (could be wrong IDK), so that means your 20% to lose with the hand, therefore GAMBLING. I can completely understand that yes using odds and skills can make you HUGE favorites, but your only a favorite and you can be beat, therefore your hand is almost never CERTAIN, unless you have NUTS. So unless you get in EVERY pot with the NUTS, your gambling overall.

True, but the difference with poker is that if you have enough in your BR eventually you will come out on top if you continue to make +EV decisions.

With other gambling no matter how much money you have or how long you play you still remain 100 % luck dependent + there is no way to manipulate a roulette wheel or a pair of dice into making wrong decisions using psychology.

 

[Bigsmak]

I hated clicking it.. I really really did but I put the lose option... I would rather win the money.. but I would rather be making the right decsions.. I know it will work out over time..

I left the casino on Friday and Sat both times to a large stack but bad player hitting on the river.... But I made the right moves.. i got my chips in ahead...

Next week. I'll take all the cash!

 

[Lemlywinks]

You guys arent seeing my point, did you even read the second half of my post, or did you finish the first half and feel the need to insta reply about how your skills make it non gambling? if you read the 2nd half of my post, it disproves everything said in the last few posts.. it always is gambling because you can ALWAYS be BEAT on the river if your hand isnt the nuts. UNDERSTAND what im saying? it seems your too ignorant with yourself and your "skills" to realize what im acutally saying.

At least jaggibson understands in his own mind what im saying..

I can understand that yes, having skill can give you advantages just like jaggibson said, but it is what it is, ADVANTAGES, not GUARANTEES, therefore still gambling.. I hope this can help you guys understand what im trying to say..

Well there are very few GUARANTEES in life generally speaking. I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, feel you are being to "results-oriented" with your idea. Poker is all about making the most + EV decision at the correct times, despite the outcome

According to your logic, having a career as a stockbroker means you are a gambler, because they take play the advantages and not the guarantees. I personally don't consider poker gambling, because it clearly requires skill in order to "beat the game"

 

[chuG]

If you can win using the skill side then poker IS a game of skill.

If you only ever win via the gambling method, well then.......

 

[Tonky666]

well obviously most of u said make right decision because u think everyone cares but we all know u want money instead of all in with aa and be screwed over with a 25 of!
lol i chose cash weeeeee!!!!!
its donkey-time!

 

[allndave]

i have always said there are to many gamblers that play poker. but then again that is the easy money when the gamblers are having a bad run.

 

[HoldemChamp]

Here is the tricky thing.

The uncertain outcome.

Where for a single event the outcome is definitely uncertain. Over a long period of time the outcome becomes more and more certain.

Everyone pretty much know that AA vs 72 has a set percentage as to which hand will win. But, over the course of a single hand it is uncertain. However, over the course of 1 million hands we know AA will be the winner far more often than not. That is a certainty.

But, one could argue playing a slot machine with a 98% payout is not uncertain either of 1,000,000 pulls. You will give the casino 2 dollars for every 100 you put in in the machine.

"Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods." Wikipedia.

The more certainty I can get into playing poker the more I like it.

 

[Tonky666]

yea true but on ftp i've had aa 7 times this week..
lost all 7..
kinda wierd even a guy with 2% chance won a runner str8 against my floped set of aces

 

[white_lytning]

For the poll. I would rather have the pot chipped to me by any means then to lose to a 1 outer.


On topic. Id like to add a point to "the poker is gambling" argument which I agree with. All poker players are gamblers. The "skill" part of poker is in the way you gamble. Do you wait to get a good hand before gambling and betting on cards that are yet to come? Or do you play weaker hands and hope the cards hit you harder? This is where skill is involved. The person is the one making decisions on which hands to gamble with and which ones not too. But once you make a decision to play a hand you are gambling. Playing with only AA is still gambling because you don't know what the other cards are going to be.

The best starting hand in the game is only going to win around 66% of the time. You can't reasonably argue that your not gambling by betting with it. You are betting that your hand will bet better than anyone else's after the other cards are dealt. You don't know the outcomes and are betting before they are revealed. No matter what starting hand you have you are gambling.

 

[GCB]

Gambling is betting when the odds are against you.

When the odds are in your favor it is called taking a reasonable risk.

Good poker play is the latter.

For example, driving in a car is risky. There is the chance of death. However, the odds are greatly in your favor. It's highly unlikely that you will be killed in an auto accident (though some people will) if you drive safely. All bets are off however if you drive in a way that is not safe.

In the case of poker, there is a way to play that over time pretty much assures success. (I'm still trying to figure out what it is ) But the long-term success of good players shows it does exist. This type of play is not gambling (which is why these players can have such confidence in it) though it does involve risk taking. They know if they apply certain principles (which can be quite complex and multi-layered) winnings are "guaranteed" over the long-term.

That's the theory. In reality you have this thing call the human psyche which can fluctuate greatly in its ability to execute optimally. Even a good player can suffer a crisis in confidence. Bad luck, bad beats, lousy hole cards, yada, yada, can cause you to think there is something wrong with the way you are playing (and there may be) so you begin the tinker with your technique. The next thing you know you've lost your bearings and have succumbed to--you guessed it--gambling, by reaching, pressing, and doing other things that are more expressions of your frustration and fear than the posititively expectant poker ability you've worked so hard to lay hold of.

 

[PurgatoryD]

Gambling is betting when the odds are against you.

When the odds are in your favor it is called taking a reasonable risk.

Wow, that's a great succinct way to put it! That's why, over time, people don't feel the stock market is technically "gambling". Because the odds are, over time, they make money. Just like a skilled poker player.

Nicely put!

-Dave

 

[GCB]

Wow, that's a great succinct way to put it! That's why, over time, people don't feel the stock market is technically "gambling". Because the odds are, over time, they make money. Just like a skilled poker player.

Nicely put!

-Dave

Thanks, Dave. Actually I borrowed the concept of gambling being defined as betting with bad odds from my experience in the financial markets.

As long as you take care of the long term odds, it's not gambling. Of course, every poker player occasionally encounters specific situations where he feels to take a little extra risk. Like going all in with 3-3 when heads up in a tournament.

However, the extra risk is short term, not long term, risk. Hole cards 3-3 has a roughly 53/47 edge over a random hand, so technically it's not a gamble in the long term. In the short term, those aren't good odds, basically a coin flip. But in the long term they are completely safe.

 

[Juniorsdaddy]

This fail train of a thread has gone way off the tracks, but I will put in my opinion anyways.

My poker playing style uses both "poker playing" and "gambling", as you folks would call them. In my opinion, you need both in order to be a winning player. The hands where I am way ahead and put in my money only to have the opponent catch hurt way more than any hand I am behind and put my money in, win or lose. A bad decision you can review and adjust for the next time the situation arises. Not a thing you can do about bad luck.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

All poker players are gamblers

gamble


• verb 1 play games of chance for money; bet. 2 bet (a sum of money). 3 take risky action in the hope of a desired result.
• noun 1 an act of gambling. 2 a risky undertaking.
[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] gambler [SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE].
[SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] from obsolete gamel ‘play games’, or from the verb [SIZE=-1]GAME[/SIZE]1.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Gambling is betting when the odds are against you.

When the odds are in your favor it is called taking a reasonable risk.

Good poker play is the latter.

For example, driving in a car is risky. There is the chance of death. However, the odds are greatly in your favor. It's highly unlikely that you will be killed in an auto accident (though some people will) if you drive safely. All bets are off however if you drive in a way that is not safe.

In the case of poker, there is a way to play that over time pretty much assures success. (I'm still trying to figure out what it is ) But the long-term success of good players shows it does exist. This type of play is not gambling (which is why these players can have such confidence in it) though it does involve risk taking. They know if they apply certain principles (which can be quite complex and multi-layered) winnings are "guaranteed" over the long-term.

That's the theory. In reality you have this thing call the human psyche which can fluctuate greatly in its ability to execute optimally. Even a good player can suffer a crisis in confidence. Bad luck, bad beats, lousy hole cards, yada, yada, can cause you to think there is something wrong with the way you are playing (and there may be) so you begin the tinker with your technique. The next thing you know you've lost your bearings and have succumbed to--you guessed it--gambling, by reaching, pressing, and doing other things that are more expressions of your frustration and fear than the posititively expectant poker ability you've worked so hard to lay hold of.

NO

Gambling is the act of wagering money on the outcome of a game of chance.

The definition of gambling or a gambler makes no mention of the persons long term strategy or financial gain or loss.

If you wager money in a game of chance then you are gambling. The outcome is not relevant to the definition.

The stock market certainly has parallels to poker theory but the stock market is not gambling because you are not wagering money in a game of chance.

 

[PurgatoryD]

NO

Gambling is the act of wagering money on the outcome of a game of chance.

That's sort of begging the question. The question then becomes, is poker a game of chance?

The stock market certainly has parallels to poker theory but the stock market is not gambling because you are not wagering money in a game of chance.

I don't know... if you buy stock in yet another clothing retail outlet without any knowledge of the financials, long term plans, etc., then you are putting money at risk with a chance to lose or make gains. Heck, at least in poker, you control which bets are made, etc. With that stock purchase, you get to vote on preselected board members and that's it. That stock purchase could be far riskier than equivalent money invested in a poker bankroll and you wouldn't even know it. In poker, odds can be computed at various times. Good luck with doing that with your stocks!

-Dave

 

[PurgatoryD]

Hole cards 3-3 has a roughly 53/47 edge over a random hand, so technically it's not a gamble in the long term.

But in heads up, if you have the bigger stack and you go all-in, many of the hands that could beat 3-3 won't even be used to call it. So, considering stack size, if you go all-in, your odds of getting some return on the hand (i.e. at least the blinds) should be greater than 53/47.

At least that's the way I look at it.

-Dave

 

[Stu_Ungar]

That's sort of begging the question. The question then becomes, is poker a game of chance?

A poker hand is made from randomly dealt cards therefore it is a game of chance. The skill is is in the wagering. Which brings us nicely into addressing your next point.

I don't know... if you buy stock in yet another clothing retail outlet without any knowledge of the financials, long term plans, etc., then you are putting money at risk with a chance to lose or make gains. Heck, at least in poker, you control which bets are made, etc. With that stock purchase, you get to vote on preselected board members and that's it. That stock purchase could be far riskier than equivalent money invested in a poker bankroll and you wouldn't even know it. In poker, odds can be computed at various times. Good luck with doing that with your stocks!

When you buy stocks and shares you do not WAGER money. You transfer legal ownership of a commodity.

When you gamble, you wager money on the outcome of an uncertain event.

There are certainly parallels to the world of stocks and shares, but a gambler wagers money a trader buys and sells a commodity. Thats the key difference.



-Dave

..

 

[Igeso]

I'm not gambling, but I can take the risk sometimes... anyway, I would make good decision with great hand and lose than make a bad decision and win...

 

[BluffYou123]

I went for lose with the best hand.

My reason for this is that I made the right decision and by continuing to make correct decisions, it will turn out better for me in the long run.

I wasn't saying I'd rather lose, NO WAY.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I'm not gambling, but I can take the risk sometimes... anyway, I would make good decision with great hand and lose than make a bad decision and win...

Oh FFS.. I give in.

If you wager money on the outcome of an uncertain event.. you are gambling.

NOTE: wager means to offer money as collateral without transferring a tangible asset.

Wagering does not mean to buy or sell. As in the stocks market where each share is a tangiable asset.

So yes you are gambling. 110% you are gambling.

It nothing to do with being a good poker player its that money is WAGERED and the out come of the hand is UNCERTAIN.

Put WAGERING and UNCERTAINTY in the same sentence and you end up with the definition of GAMBLING.

 

[GCB]

NO

Gambling is the act of wagering money on the outcome of a game of chance.

The definition of gambling or a gambler makes no mention of the persons long term strategy or financial gain or loss.

If you wager money in a game of chance then you are gambling. The outcome is not relevant to the definition.

The stock market certainly has parallels to poker theory but the stock market is not gambling because you are not wagering money in a game of chance.

Semantics are entering the picture here.

I have experience in both, and the stock market is definitely a game of chance, and skill, as is poker. In fact, the only way to consistently beat the market is to play it as a game of chance, just like poker. You simply need to learn to play it in a way which exploits the odds. No strategy works all the time in the short term, but many are profitable in the long term.

Actually, in my experience, the stock market is more a game of chance than poker. You can have the nuts in poker. You can't in the market. There are never any guarantees there.

As to your definition of gambling, it's my definition of betting. I'm dealing with the connotation of gambling, you are dealing with your denotation.

The question really comes down to, why do some think that gambling connotes something that is immoral. It isn't because the short-term outcomes are unknown. The reason it is thought to be immoral is because it is seen as trying to gain simply by getting lucky (luck is by definition beating bad odds), which in theological terms is called "tempting God." That is, without divine intervention, it is guaranteed to lose long term.

All casino games are gambling in this sense because the house has an edge in all of them. In poker there is no house edge. The house doesn't play. So they don't care about an edge, just a cut (the rake.) Therefore in poker, your edge is your skill relative to your opponents. Sure there is luck involved in the short term, but luck evens out in the long-term and the true probabilities and abilities are manifest.

So there is nothing wrong morally-speaking with a profit-building strategy which exploits long-term odds which favor you, even though the short-term outcomes are uncertain. This is exactly what, for example, life insurance companies do.

All life involves dealing with chance, but not all life involves gambling. Gambling, in my definition, is trying to gain by doing nothing more than getting lucky. There is no skill involved, just guessing. I know that's not the common definition, but that's how I deal with the moral question.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Can you please point out the point where the stock trader WAGERS money.