I really don't think we need to be arguing at all, instead of crying over the sites Americans can't play on we should keep playing on the sites we can, like with alcohol prohibition the market always wins eventually.

These discussions are like listening to a pot smoker whine about not being able to legally buy weed with a joint in his hand.

The evil government isn't stopping adults from playing poker any more than they eliminated marijuana, they just put our favorite dealers out of business.

My VPIP is similar. I don't know the variance behind the rake, but my guess it should be low, so sample size should be fine for understanding the rake.

Your rake is high because $1 = 25bb at 4NL. edit: nvmd, you won't hit the rake cap, nonetheless, your rake will decrease as you go up.

I don't understand this statement. I assumed when people talk about their "luck evening out in the long run" they are speaking about the law of large numbers. I can't tell where exactly the long run starts in poker either, but I thought it was a given fact that over time variance in Poker will inevitably even out for any player, if he just played enough hands. Even if that number was so high that no person could ever reach it, it would still trend towards evening out, and what's left then is skill, no?


I agree with ike that the "predomanaintly skill/luck" arguement appears kind of meaningless. From what I'm reading in this thread I feel like the discussion comes down to the amount of variance that is involved in a certain game, which isn't helping with the BF issue but is merely a problem of the progamer as to how nerve wrecking and volatile his game of choice is. As long as even the slightest bit of skill is involved, "better gamers" will edge out winnings, thus ignoring the luck factor.
Quantifying the terms luck and skill in a concrete way resp. assigning numbers and values to them has no point in my eyes, because even if there was a way to do it, you couldn't take away that the winners in the game depend on skill and skill only.
Every hand of poker involves a certain amount of decisions (that are distinct in their quality based on game-theory), so there is skill involved, so there will be better and worse decisions, so there will be better and worse players. Period.

This is what it comes down to me. The amount of hyppocritical, uninformed and arguement-resistant idiots within politics and non-poker-playing public is astonishing and shocking.

I agree that we all should be on the same page. I was referring to the fight on the political arena.

This is an interesting sub-discussion.

If you look at the rake stuctures listed on http://www.partypoker.com/how-to-pla...structure.html, it seems that it would be more efficient to skip NL25, and jump directly from NL10 to NL50.

Not sure what you mean, 25NL and 50NL both fall in the "$0.10/0.25 to $10/20" category. Rake will decrease as you move up within that category, but that's no reason to play $10/20. Fwiw, 50NL is where the game gets a little tougher imo. Plus you should be properly rolled for the stakes you play and the objectives you have.

I was referring to the amount of BBs taken by the house before hitting the cap: 25bb in NL4, 10bb in NL10, 12bb in NL25 and 6bb on NL50. It is interesting to see that as you move up in stakes you always go paying less rake, yet from nl10 to nl25 is the only jump in stakes where you pay more rake, compared to the one right below.

Right, just to add some clarification:

Imagine flipping a coin and keeping track of the # of heads. In the first 100 flips, we get 40 heads. So we're running bad so to speak. In the next 100 tosses, we still expect 50 regardless of the first 100 tosses. So for our entire career from this point on, we're expected to be below ev. That is, at toss 200 we expect to be at 40+50 = 90 heads. This what I believe Mason Malmuth meant when he said variance does not even out. From the perspective right before toss #1, luck was even.

Sounds depressing but the redeeming fact is that the #heads/#tosses approaches 50%, as you see above, we went from being 10% under 50%, to 5% below 50%. This is the law of large #s as you alluded to.

The way it relates to poker is that our winrate or ROI approaches the "true" winrate or ROI with a larger and larger sample size. The long run is subjective, to some the long run is a sample size where he's x% confident that his winrate is >0, to others it's " " >2 etc.

My point is that it is totally legal to play poker in the casinos where I live. If you look at my earlier post, all of those activities can be done "live" if a person chose to participate. So why is it legal to do some online but not others?

WHY did online poker sites have to go overseas to operate?

Oh nvmd, misunderstood what you said initially. Though one minor point is that you may not hit the rake cap as often at 25NL as you will at 10NL. At 100x stacks, all in at 10NL gives a pot of $20, for a rake of $1 = 10bb. Allin at 25NL gives a pot of $50, for a rake of $2.50 = 10bb also. But for 120x+ allin, then it'll be hit.

You are right. It would be probably better to calculate the average pot and deduct the rake paid from that.

+1 and what's more golf courses are actually designed to enhance the luck factor.

On the wider argument (on which I am stunned that Mason is in agreement) it is extremely patronising and rude to characterise the majority of modern poker players as skill-less gamblers. The opposite is true with most players (even those who lose) considering that there decision-making is the most important factor in their longterm results.

The DoJ's argument that they are gamblers because society thinks they are, reminds of the creationist/evolution debate where science is ignored because of dogma.

Unfortunately, whilst that might constitute a good government, it would not constitute a perfect one. The subjectivity of reality is such that there can never be a "right" option, just an abundance of possible options, which could be taken in light of certain select criteria. In consequence, regardless of the expertise of those involved, individuals would always simply be pursuing the 'best' option for x, or in respect of y, rather than the 'best' option per se.

Presumably 'luck' does not even out simply because the probability of winning does not alter over time? Every flip of the coin is an independent, unrelated event. It doesn't matter that you've lost 60,000 coin flips in a row, or won a million, the probability remains static - although by this point, I'd start to suspect the coin was rigged! =)

I would say that skill begins to dominate luck with each passing hand, given the players remain the same.

As skillful players start to gather information, skill can easily trump the luck of the less skilled.

I'm sure that can be tested. Just have Phil Ivey run over a bunch of noobs over a large enough sample size.

This is the way I break down the whole luck vs skill thing in poker..

A player can only get lucky one way.. they catch the cards they need (much like a bingo player needs to catch that last number before the other guy does). They'll rarely outplay you pre-flop and even less often post-flop.

Whereas a skillful player can beat a less skillful player in many different ways. Psychologically is one way. If the cards don't matter and I beat you using strategy only (I go over the top and the other guy folds), isn't that 100% skill?

You can't really get lucky at reading your opponent's hands. But you can learn to do it. And that takes skill.

To be able to calculate your proper odds of betting or folding takes skill. No luck here either.

Isn't poker more like the stock market.. it's a game of information (except it's ok to use insider information to your advantage)?

Why hasn't this been proven yet is the real question. I'm not smart enough to do it, but I think it can be done.

They also compared poker to playing the market, and while no one would suggest Warren Buffet is a luckbox, he is a gambler.

They don't seem to suggest that gambling is wrong, no one could buy car insurance if it was, just that poker isn't a form of gambling for which their is a carve out in the law for a gambling business to profit from it.

It's perfectly legal today in many states that have casinos but let's not pretend it was always that way, even in Las Vegas poker had a bad connotation just 25 years ago.

If you listened to the super committee hearing it's remarkable how far poker has come, it's not like politicians were arguing about sin, they were primarily focused on how to regulate cheating.

It's no longer a matter of if US based online poker will be regulated but when.

I agree that this is more of a social issue than one of skill vs luck. It's the way the game is perceived.

The law of large numbers doesn't say this. It says the "average" result will get closer to the mean as trials increase, not that any individual's results will get closer to the mean. But the average absolute deviation from the mean actually gets larger, not smaller, and increases at the rate of the square root of the sample size. Thus an individual's results will tend to be farther from the mean over time in absolute terms. It doesn't "even out".

What gets smaller is the proportion of the deviation compared to the mean, not the deviation itself.

Say we do 1000 coin flips and win 400 of them. So we are 100 under expectation. Now say we do 1 million more coin flips. Our expectation is to win 500,000 of those and still be 100 flips under expectation at the end of it. The deviation is not expected to get smaller. The only thing that gets smaller is the proportion of that deviation to the mean, which is simply because our denominator gets bigger, not because the numerator gets smaller. Dividing 100 into 500K is a smaller proportion than dividing 100 into 500. But we are still down 100.

And if we did this experiment with 1000 players then we would see their average absolute deviation from the mean actually get larger as the sample size increases, not stay the same, and definitely not smaller. But if we average them all together, that average will tend to get closer to the mean. That last bit is what the law of large numbers says.

When people people speak of luck "evening out" they are often talking about a mythical thing called the "law of averages" which is just another name for the gambler's fallacy. They sometimes confuse this with the actual law of large numbers.

DOJ SDNY position on skill vs chance

Not that it really matters, if the court rules there is no material degree of chance in poker it would then qualify as a sport or contest upon which promoting internet wagering (as opposed to tournaments) is illegal under the Wire Act.

Your legal position is simply wrong. If the game being played is not a gambling game as legally defined there is no Federal Prohibition on wagering on it or facilitating wagers among participants.

Wagering on the outcome of games of others (i.e., in which you are not a participant) is "sports betting" and illegal.

There are already numerous sites that allow folks to compete against others for money in all sorts of games. So long as the games are not "gambling" games these sites are legal and exempt from the UIGEA (and all other Federal laws).

Skallagrim

Blackjack is a game of mixed skill and chance where chance predominates.

In blackjack the skill of your play will undeniably make a difference in your outcome, but that difference is just as undeniably limited.

No matter how well you play blackjack, even if you count, there is a mathematical limit to your expectation. If you play basic strategy, you will always be a 1-6% dog, (depending on the House rules). If you count cards you can get a 1-2% edge on the House. But you can never do better than that.

This is because in Blackjack virtually every hand is decided by the turn of the cards (the virtually is due to those games that allow you to "surrender").

The cards dealt are the dominant factor in blackjack precisely because the cards are what determines the result of every hand.

You can vary your bets, but you cannot escape the result dictated, determined, required by the deal of the cards.

In poker this is not true.

This mathematical fact is why you play blackjack against the House (and why the House bans counters) but you cannot play poker against the House.

Skallagrim

The part of my post you quoted was not an attempt to prove poker is predominantly skill but in reply to a poster who postulated that because most players are inept at poker, poker is gambling for most players.

Mason and I have had this discussion before, so I will keep my points short:

1) Mason is using the term "gambling" in the more common sense of wagering on ANY uncertain outcome. This is not the legal definition of "gambling" in most jurisdictions however. The legal definition of gambling relevant to this discussion is: wagering on an uncertain outcome in a game of chance. IOW, under the legal definition, if its not a game of chance wagering on result in it as a participant is not gambling.

2) The law for the last 300 years has defined "game of chance" to be one where chance is the predominant factor in determining the outcome of the game. In making this determination the courts generally rely on the nature and rules of the game. Thus the actual results of the play of the game are not the deciding factor, those results are evidence from which maybe the structural relationship of skill or chance can be deduced.

3) I generally agree with Mason that such a test has flaws and difficulties (especially for poker), and perhaps his "how long does it take for skill to dominate over chance" is a better question to ask. Getting courts to ask that question, however, and to get them to decide where the marker between a gambling game and a skill game should be placed, is a extremely difficult legal proposition that would almost certainly require a legislative change, not a mere court case/challenge.

4) The point we are trying to prove is simply that poker is a game designed in such a way that the decisions/moves/actions made by the players is more important in determining the outcome of the game than the deal of the cards. What is unique about poker is that it is a game where, in determining the outcome, sometimes the cards clearly are more important and sometimes the decisions are clearly more important. This is what makes the question complex for poker. Especially since most outcomes are also clearly determined by a mix of cards and decisions.

5) Saying a statistician would destroy my quoted post is a bit of a "straw man" argument because, as I said above, that point was not a point to prove poker is a game of predominantly skill. Regardless, everyone should know that the PPA's case that poker is a game of predominantly skill uses a statistician as an expert witness: Professor Robert Hannum of the University of Denver, a well-recognized expert in statistics, especially statistics associated with gaming. We work closely with Prof. Hannum and he has no hesitation telling us when our arguments are not statistically or mathematically sound.

6) The bottom line remains, however, that the predominance test is not a test easily answered by math or statistics with respect to poker. Yet just because something is not easy does not mean it is impossible or should not be undertaken. Math and statistics, remain very useful evidence from which it is possible to conclude that in the game of poker the outcome of any poker game is more likely to be decided by what the players do than by what the players are dealt. All but true novice players know that to be the case from their own experience; it is merely proving that to non-playing judges and juries that remains difficult.

Skallagrim

Skallagrim - I know I'm not the first to say so, but I really think you should consider using the terms "illegal gambling" or "unlawful gambling" to make the legal distinction. It continues to invite ridicule when you insist poker is not gambling. It hurts your argument in my opinion.

I recognize what you are saying, but I also have posted about the difference between the dictionary definitions of gambling and the legal definition on many, many occasions. In a new context or a legal argument I always try and make that point. Sometimes here on 2+2 I, probably incorrectly, assume folks are already aware of it.

Also, in context, I do not think most folks associate "gambling" with the stock market, NASCAR, commodities trading or other aspects of life that involve putting up money in hopes of gain should a future event occur. I think most folks think "casino games/slots/lotteries" when they hear the word gambling. Getting folks to place poker outside of the context of "casino games/slots/lotteries" is the whole point of the effort.

So I think saying "poker is not gambling" is a fair method of advancing the point to the general public. In fact, I have found it works very well with the general non-poker playing public.... But you are right it has rarely been well received on 2+2.

Skallagrim