I play quite a lot of poker, not big stakes or anything, NL50 at the mo.
I have just bought a laptop with mobile broadband on a pay monthly package, to play in work, as I sometimes have breaks of 2hrs or more.

There are quite a lot of others in the mess room at the time who see me playing and start saying things like ` ooo how much you lost`, and stuff like that. I try to explain that the only reason I bought the laptop is because when I`m not playing I am losing money, and as my contract is £30 per month, that is all I have to make for the laptop to pay for itself, which is easily achievable.

The problem is no one sees the difference between poker and any other type of online gambling, so I actually came out and said, poker for me is not gambling, which gets funny looks.

I use analogies that say even if I book a big losing session, I am still winning.

For instance, I would say something like, at the mo i am earning £10 per hour playing poker. If I have a losing session, this goes down to maybe £9 per hour, a winning sesh, goes up to £11 per hr, etc etc.

Does anyone have any analogies or ideas that might get through to these muggles?

And, is a winning poker player actually gambling?

poker is gambling in the way investing is gambling. the outcome is not certain, but you get your money in when you think you have an edge. some people are able to successfully do this, and others are not. it is not gambling in the same way that playing blackjack or roulette is gambling though.

Poker is like investing into the stock market. With research, smarts, time, and luck you can profit.

As opposed to BJ or other casino games where the house will always have an edge and it is basically like flipping a coin everytime.

Well, this has been espoused in a million other "is poker gambling" threads, but...

If you're a good player, poker is kind of like flipping a coin where you're getting 1.1-1 on it coming down on the side you want, for instance. It'll take a while to show a profit, but in the long run you'll come out ahead of the guy playing the 1.

Poker in a technical sense is gambling. It doesn't matter if you're a winning player and you're able to lesson your risk by applying correct strategy. The fact remains that you're still risking "A" in hopes of gaining "B".

The problem isn't that poker is gambling, the problem is that there's no differentiation among the general public with the word gambling. They automatically think of poker as gambling in the same way it's gambling to bet on horses, slot machines, or blackjack. It's a general misperception from those who don't understand.

Anyone who plays enough poker will eventually run into this same situation. I've had the same thing happen to me. I just laugh it off and tell them "yeah I like to have a little fun". I don't even bother trying to explain myself or educate them unless they show a persistant interest in understanding.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. But my real advice to you is to not play poker online at work - i don't care if you have a five hour break - it looks bad and can have a negative effect on how others perceive you in the work place. You may not realize it now but eventually you'll see that it's best to keep things professional at work.

totally agree.. u dont' need ppl to understand because u are wasting your time.

of course poker is gambling. risking anything on an uncertain outcome is gambling. whether you have an edge or not.

everyone posting ITT should know better.

after all you did choose to come to a poker STRATEGY forum.

the fact that there is a group of consistent winners / losers kinda sends the whole gambling thing null and void.

Actually no it doesn't....

Gambling simply represents a risk & in poker one must risk something of value without the promise of a return. This is the very essence of what it means to gamble.

I personally don't feel there's anything wrong with gambling but somehow it's always been "bad" to gamble for a living. The word has a negative connotation amongst the masses. This is what happens when there's a group of people judging others based off of false assumptions handed down from generation to generation.

The fact is that most people in the upper stratosphere of wealth didn't get their money by playing things safe. They "gambled", or more specifically, took risks, and those risks paid off.

People with low risk tolerance only see that poker involves money and that money can be lost. They don't take the time to understand poker or any other risky endeavor on a deeper level. They're surface thinkers that allow the rest of society to lead them around. They're comfortable with their ignorance and sheep mentality. And they're uncomfortable with people who've broken free from such mind numbing thinking and instead choose to think for themselves.

BUT.... Poker is gambling - regardless of how good any one person or group of people are at playing. If there was no gambling in poker then we'd all just flip our cards over at the end and see who has the best hand. (which come to think of it would still be gambling if everyone put money in blind before the hand)

The only way poker wouldn't be considered gambling is if you never played it for money or anything else of personal value. If you never risk losing anything then you have successfully taken the gambling component out of poker.

There's a ton of great Blackjack players that are able to make a good living from the game. But by your logic above it's not gambling because they consistently win. Your reasoning on that level is completely wrong in my opinion. The very best BJ players in the world are essentially skilled gamblers.

Poker is gambling. It is one form of gambling where you can have a positive expectation i.e. you are the casino. Skill is involved only insofar as it makes one able to achieve the positive expectation. Variations of the thread have been posted many times. Please use the search function.

Poker is 100% gambling.

Let's for a moment assume that around 10% of players are winning players. Those other 90% damn sure didn't plan on being losing players, and they are not more or less intelligent than the 10%.

So when you first sat down at the computer, there was a 9/10 chance that you would end up losing money. You got lucky.

As for 'how can I tell non-poker players about my hobby?' Easy answer - don't tell them you play cash games. An outsider cannot understand what you are talking about. Stop being a bore. And if you have to, tell them about your tourneys. They are much easier to swallow than cash games.

Lots of very good replies.


This.
Tell them that if they think poker is gambling, then those who invest in shares, property, anything really, are much bigger 'gamblers'.
The 1.1:1 coin analogy is nice also.

Poker is not gambling. You can have long term, consistent success.

I would compare it to backgammon or gin. While luck (dice or card order) does play a factor, so does skill. While in those other two games, skill is probably more important, skill is still evident in poker.

yes

+1

As a philosophy minor, my answer is, "It all depends upon what you mean by 'gambling.'"

My personal definition of gambling includes sending money to the poker site and hoping that they won't steal it, go out of business, or steal my identity. I think by my definition, shopping on ebay is gambling.

Roulette is certainly gambling. What about blackjack - well there is some skill to it, but there is also a lot of chance. How about investing in stocks and bonds - you are gambling that the overall economy and that company will do well. What about a bank account - will the bank go under?

I see everything as having some risk to it. The only thing with a certain EV is death - and that's a major negative EV from where we are now. Poker has risk, investing has risk, eating Mexican food has risk. The bottom line is management of the risk to contain it within acceptable parameters (bankroll management).

As for your coworkers, they either don't understand what you do or are jealous. From the comment they gave you, it sounds like jealousy. I suggest understanding their jealousy, ignoring it, and not trying to explain poker to them. Unless you think they will play poorly, in which case you should have them sign up and play against me as often as possible.

this is only true if you have a positive lifetime win rate. the vast majority of players don't have enough data to make any kind of meaningful prediction of lifetime win rate, and a lot of those that do have data that predict a winrate range that is only slightly more likely to be positive than negative. variance is a bitch.

poker is gambling with the possibility of not going broke over an infinite set of hands. most people will though, so in the end it's not that much different than BJ or roulette for those people. there is also the possibility of becoming a better player and/or finding good games and increasing your win rate in poker, whereas with the other games the skill factor can never give you an edge.

Who cares what others think about you, just continue making $$$ from Poker.

BJ has the best odds for players, so players have an edge, not the house.

It's equity analysis and risk management of short-term, micro scale investments.

And yes, I consider it a form of [smart] gambling.