Poker is not a game of chance either. You are pretty misinformed on the nature of the game if you think so. What you're trying to say, as I've pointed out earlier, is that poker is a game of high variance.

There is an element of chance in chess as well. The difference between poker and chess is that one is a stochastic game, whereas the other is deterministic. But even though there is an element of chance in both, none of them are a game of chance. Roulette is a game of chance.

There are ways to broaden or narrow the definition of the word gambling. If you broaden it too much (enough to include poker in it), you also include many other things which you wouldn't normally want to include.

^^Exactly.

You are welcome to hire me as a coach if your trying to learn how to play poker.

I can't believe I have to have to conversation on a poker website. Poker is wagering on the outcome of a randomly shuffled deck of cards. You are betting on an event of chance (the deal of the deck). This isn't about the variance involved, it's the very nature of the game that is based on the random deck.

There is at least 1 thread in the chess subforum here on the chance involved in chess, if you're interested. But it's an entirely different type of chance that's not built into the game itself. A game of chess involves some luck in the unpredictable nature of people and the environment, but if you involve that then nothing isn't gambling. Poker, on the other hand, as mentioned above, is actually about the results of a randomization tool.

So you're gonna ignore my point?

I explained that what you're describing here has nothing to do with chance/no-chance. The proper dimension that distinguishes poker from chess is stochastic/deterministic. And that has absolutely nothing to do with any of the games being gambling. It's simply a difference in the nature of the games. Some of 'em (like poker and backgammon) have a mechanism which introduces artificial randomness which players of the game have to take into account while making their decisions, whereas others (like chess and go) do not have those.

Let me ask you this. Is being a professional tennis player gambling or not and why?

Are you saying that in poker, you aren't betting on the outcome of the deal of a randomly shuffled deck of cards? How is that not precisely what gambling is? (ETA: these mechanisms for adding in randomness is exactly why they are gambling. You are wagering money on the outcomes of these mechanisms, which is the definition of gambling.)

Tennis isn't gambling. Just take all my replies so far and throw in 'tennis' where appropriate to find out why.

Yes, exactly. In gambling, you first do the betting, then hope for an outcome (like in roulette). In poker, you first get your cards, then start making the betting, based on the information you have. The person who makes the best decisions wins in the long run, regardless of what card he's being dealt. And poker is a game that's played in the long run. This is simply the nature of the game. The same way if you're running a restaurant and you have a bad day (few customers), you aren't called a gambler, because in the long run (say, the full month) you will make money if you're running the restaurant properly.

Okay, based on your responses so far, tennis isn't gambling because it isn't a game of chance (because it certainly doesn't produce anything). Then if you put money on who is going to win in a tennis match, you shouldn't consider that gambling either, right? Because the outcome of the tennis game is not based on chance?

---------------

Just saw your edit:

No, this has nothing to do with the definition of gambling. It simply changes the nature of the game and makes it require different skills than those requires in deterministic games.

There we go. Whenever you wager money on an event with an uncertain outcome, you are gambling (by that definition). So, if I pay money to register for a tennis tournament, I am gambling, because I am not certain about the outcome (I may win or I may lose in my first match, in which case I have lost my tournament fee plus my hotel/accommodation/plane ticket money.

It isn't. To gamble you have to make a wager or bet on the outcome.

I play poker regularly and have very strong beliefs. I often pray before a session of poker because i know that if god is in my heart i will play better.

I give 5% of my winnings to the poor.

Ah, I see. I have been doing this wrong (wrong justifications, same conclusions). Tennis and chess tournaments aren't gambling because, as Husker says, you aren't wagering money on the outcome. You are not wagering your hotel costs and plane tickets on the outcome. You are not betting the entrance fee on the outcome.

Betting on the tournament, on the other hand, is clearly betting on the outcome of an uncertain event. If you play chess and bet on the outcome of the game, that is gambling as well.

I'm somewhat undecided on poker tournaments. Every hand you play you are wagering chips on the cards, but do the chips really have a value?

Why is it different if the event that you are betting on happens before or after the betting itself? Also, is it gambling if you bet on any street except the river, since that betting is before all the cards are dealt?

You say poker is a game played in the long run. That's great for a pro or when having a legal discussion. But does that imply that if someone plays only a few hands of poker, they are gambling since they don't reach that long run? If not, then what is the significance of bringing up the long run?

Yes, you are. It's just that traditionally it's not called betting. But in reality, there is absolutely no difference between paying your tournament fee and hoping to win the tournament (if you don't, you gain a net loss from entering the tournament), the same way you bet on the outcome of a poker hand. Really, the difference is non-existent. It's all about risk:reward.

You can't be serious. You just described two identical events and declared one to not be gambling while declaring uncertainty about the other. You pay an entry fee to play in a chess tournament and you pay an entry fee to play in a poker tournament. If you finish in the top X of the tournament, you win some money, otherwise you simply lose your tournament fee (+ the expenses). Literally, there is no difference.

I can't believe you're having such a hard time dissociating yourself from semantics here. Just because in poker there is the word "betting" involved, it must automatically mean that we're dealing with gambling here. Think, dude, think!

Gambling means putting your money and THEN hoping for a good outcome, based on absolutely no skill or reasoning. If there is skill involved, this is no longer gambling. Alternatively, if you want to say that everything is gambling, as long as there is risk and uncertainty involved, then many other things are also gambling. You HAVE to apply a consistent definition, please stop with that intellectual dishonesty.


You aren't betting after the event, this is ridiculous. If the event has already happened, you know its outcome. What matters is if you're betting before or after you have some information regarding the outcome of the event. If you bet before you have info (like in roulette), you are gambling, because you are relying on chance alone. If, on the other hand, you are betting while having some information, the skill you have is going to determine whether you win or not. Good poker players don't rely on chance AT ALL. The game has nothing to do with chance. It's simply a stochastic game. (Oh LORD, how I hope I won't have to say this one more time).

Yes, it matters. You can turn any game of skill into gambling if you decide to not acquire or apply the skill for it. In fact, all the fish play the game as gamblers, not as poker players. But you can do the same thing (turn a non-gambling endeavor into gambling) with almost anything. Let's say you decide to open a new restaurant. A non-gambler would analyze the market, what kind of food is preferred by the people who are most likely to be the customers of the restaurant, what promotions are likely to encourage the first clients to visit the restaurant, how to motivate the staff, etc. A gambler in the same spot would put a ton of money for opening the restaurant without thinking about the best ways to run it, and then start hoping for the best.

Bottom line, poker is not gambling of itself. But there are people who play it as gamblers.

I think this pretty much nails it. The question: is poker gambling? is subjective. It depends how you play it.

I don't see the point, however, to discuss semantics. I think we all know what poker is and whether or not we call it gambling won't change the way we look at the game.

Concerning christians, I would understand if they would be praying to ask God to help them play better/concentrate etc. But praying for more equity sounds absurd to me.

On topic, I think very few christians play poker full time since most christians hold somewhat of a conservative belief system and they probably think poker is a game of chance: which is the commonly held view in the world today.

No, there is a difference. You can pay money to play, or you can pay money for a coach, or you can pay money to travel to the game, but these are all different than placing up money against someone else's for the express purpose of claiming that you will have a favorable outcome on the event before you. If you can't make this distinction, then I don't see how everything wouldn't fit the definition of gambling. And so then what would you define as gambling, or do you see it as a meaningless term?

Hmmm, again, are you not reading my posts? I said exactly why I was unsure if there was a difference or not. In the poker tournament, you are still wagering on uncertain outcomes, only you are wagering with chips. If the chips have no monetary value, is it still wagering/gambling? Do the chips have no monetary value? I don't know the answers to these last 2 questions, hence my uncertainty.

Yeah, don't stop to think of why they call it a bet, just pretend you're not gambling because you're winning! A bet in poker is a bet, and making bets on the turn of the cards is gambling. Poker fits the definition of gambling perfectly.

I disagree completely. Gambling doe not have to involve 0 skill. I don't see that anywhere in the definition, and I've never seen it used that way. Is blackjack not gambling, or sports betting? Do neither of them involve skill? If someone bets you $X that you can't do 30 pushups, is that not gambling? Also, where in the definition of gambling does it state that the event has to occur after the money goes in?

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, why did you not respond to my point about multiple betting streets? Is betting before the river not betting on the cards that have not fallen yet? Would they not therefore be considered gambling by the way you are using it?

How confident are you in your bolded statement? Even Phil Helmuth recognizes that he needs good fortune to win a tournament. How many pros have gone busto, even with good play?

If someone plays like a pro, but not enough hands to reach the long run, are they gambling? At what point does it turn into a non-gambling game? Also, where are you drawing the line in skill level that separates gambling from non-gambling? I mean, if you play on tilt and turn into a LAGtard once a week, are you gambling overall?

Just skimmed(lots to read, dont have time right now), but here are some thoughts off the top of my head. Whether we determine poker to fit under the umbrella of gambling is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if it is also posited that all gambling is sinful. If we were to discard the discussion on the semantics of 'poker is gambling' and instead focus on the latter 'gambling is sin', then I think this conversation would actually be beneficial. Right now it's just wordplay.

lets be honest so called Christians tie themselves in knots to enable themselves to go against much more serious parts of the bible everyday so playing poker is very much down on the list imo.

bible quotes in 3.......2........1.....

Ok, is gambling a sin?

After all of this time, you still haven't figured out the modeling problem.

Suppose you had asked the following question instead:

I'm quite certain the answer would be the same:

There's no reason to assume that the probability can only go up. Hence, the modeling problem.

So if you still can't see how it is that the modeling problem is completely central to your argument (and why it shows that your argument really doesn't say anything)... well... keep on truckin'.

I don't think the activity itself is inherently sinful, no. Like anything, it can be done sinfully.

Why do you think THIS is essential in determining whether something is gambling or not? The definition certainly doesn't including this. I already showed how I can fit other things which you wouldn't call gambling in the definition you gave.

Yes, the chips do have monetary value. Look up "independent chip model". But this is irrelevant. Each move in a game of chess has monetary value as well, it's just subtler and you are refusing to look deeper into the issue. Whenever you make a certain play in chess, you're essentially saying "Okay, I think this is the best move I can make here and the one that is most likely going to win me the game and, hence, the money.

But those terms were coined like a gazillion years ago! You can't be so rigid man. It's the meaning of each action that matters, not its label. And, again, I am fine with calling poker gambling, as long as you apply the definition consistently and admit that many other things fit that definition.

A bunch of people have already demonstrated this and you are then trying to add things to the definition.

Okay, good. But then admit that other things are also gambling (like starting a new business and many others).

They are as much gambling as poker is. If you use skill, they aren't gambling. If you blindly make bets and are a wishful thinker, they are. Alternatively, I am willing to call both gambling, including the push-ups thing, if you admit that making a new investment (which has some risk) is also gambling.

How in the world am I being intellectually dishonest? I am saying that what matters is the information you have and how you use it, not how many cards you have seen. If you are on the flop and can accurately assign a range to your opponent, as well as accurately determine your equity based on the probability of seeing different turns and rivers, as well as make the right play based on that estimation, you are using skill. If you aren't doing any of those things but are thinking to yourself "ooo, me haz a gutshot, I callz", then you are gambling.


I am extremely confident, because poker is a game played in the long run. You need some luck to win one hand or to win one tournament. But you don't need luck to win in the long run. Only fish think you do.

Zero. All the pros who go busto do so because of poor bankroll management, which is part of the skill required to play poker in the long run.

You are missing the point. Even if you play a single hand, it doesn't have to be gambling if you are playing it by applying reasoning, as well as bankroll management. If you put your entire wealth on one session or one tournament or one hand, then you are gambling.


There probably isn't a single point, it's most likely a continuum. If you are mostly playing a good and disciplined game but every now and then tilt and make a few spewy plays, overall you are not a gambler. If 90% of the time you play spewy but every now and then you come to your senses and actually start thinking about the hands, then overall you are gambling.

All of that would be true if we assumed that God is a brainless robot who randomly decides to sometimes make it more likely and sometimes make it less likely to hit your card. If you are willing to reduce God to that, fine by me.

Yup. You're still wandering aimlessly without having the slightest sense of what the underlying modeling issue is.

"God is a brainless robot" is a model of God in the above. What model of God are you now asserting that theist must use? And why must a theist use such a model?

It may be irrelevant to that conversation, but it's relevant to the conversation about models.

Once again, you're struggling with the distinction between the model and the reality. In reality, chips have no monetary value. You're flat out wrong to say otherwise. They are not actually worth anything at all.

But in order to make decisions based on the outcome, you can *model* chips to have monetary value so that you can make decisions based upon that *model*.

What model of God are you using?

The model that a big chunk of Christians use is incompatible with playing poker as it is taught by the best coaches.

And how is that different from anything I've said?

And what model is this?

I, and all the Christian poker players I know, use the one that ignores God's supernatural interventions in the exact same way we ignore the possibility that the dealer is colluding with one of the players. Just because something is possible does not imply any necessity for modeling it.

You said:

I said:

It seems quite different to me. The fact you can't see the difference shows once again your ability to grasp the modeling problem.