Just to be clear, I was thinking out loud and obv am a proponent of legalization. I'm sure this has been a very extensive discussion around the forums, and I'm very unlikely to add anything new to it, so I've used this opportunity as a reasoning exercise of sorts. Pls, excuse me if it's a wrong place or inappropriate at all.
I will not even go into "legal definitions" and political implications, since there's a lot of hypocrisy etc. But my thoughts:
Again, let's take something oversimplified like chess - the most eloquent example of the "skill-game" - if I vaguely see a combination of moves that I
"guess" will lead to a certain result - by initiating this sequence, I'm basically gambling. If I'd missed something and it did indeed lead to a loss, I sorta ~"took a chance" and my gamble failed. But if I do see the decision tree with 10 moves deep, and do see that if I make certain moves it'll definitely lead me to winning the game, everything depends on me making those moves. A question then: is it
theoretically possible to be skillful enough to be able to flip a coin so it lands on tails? What about dice? Roulette? I think yes. So when I possess that skill and am able to do those things, I'm not gambling while playing craps etc. But when I don't, I am... Same with pool or golf. So it depends on how the game is used.
On the other hand, take basketball - a game that would definitely would not be considered as gambling on the surface. Is a Basketball coach a gambler since he's not in direct control of his players? Yes, he basically gambles on his reputation or whatever implications arise form his moves. Is Basketball therefore gambling? Most people would say no.
Imho, if I do something, and there is the "guessing", "taking a chance" part in it along with me putting something on it that I'd lose if I'm unsuccessful and v.v., its gambling. Now, obv life is incredibly complex and human skill can take us only this far, so we're forced to gamble pretty much every minute of our life... And while there are gambles that we can never win with the appropriate sample size: smoking, drunk driving etc. there are others that are largely dependable on our skill set etc. If you are able to take in everything and process it (Look up:
Laplace's demon), you pwn (ungamble) life...
Poker,
although largely based on skill,
Quote:
Using the learning effect and the random effect, Borm and Van der Genugten defined the skill level of a game with this formula:
skill level = learning effect learning effect + random effect
Using this formula, games of pure chance would have a skill level of 0 – since there is 0 learning effect in lottery, for example – while games of pure skill (such as chess or checkers) would have a skill level of 1 because the random effect is 0. According to Van der Genugten’s formula and research, Blackjack has a skill level of 0.049, management games (such as fantasy baseball and football) have a skill value of 0.3 and poker has a skill value of 0.4. Interestingly, fantasy sports are recognized by Dutch legislation as games of skill thanks to Professor Van der Genugten’s formula, while poker is not.
does have this stigma because it involves money directly, while the Basketball coach whose gambles succeed more and therefore gets paid the same money bills, albeit indirectly, doesn't.
So my conclusion is that I really don't think that gambling automatically means something negative and shameful. I guess there are just different types of it.
Last edited by gnvsnnkv; 05-02-2011 at 04:44 AM.