The general population has no idea that poker actually has an element of skill. They assume it's just another casino gambling game like bingo, roulette, or craps. Even most people who have played poker actually have no idea what they do not know, and just think "Whoever gets Aces will win the money..Com'on deal me some good cards!". In the short run, they are correct, but in the long run EV+ vs EV- and all that stuff like Pot odds, pot equity, implied odds, positional play, probability, opponent hand ranges, HUD data, etc.

Here is what I am requesting. Can you link me to (or create a hypothetical) hand scenario that demonstrates how much skill may be involved in a "simple" poker situation. Not 5 pages that will lose the reader, but short enough to evoke "Wow, I never knew poker was that complicated!" and actually required some skill. Assume the reader knows the basic rules of hand strength, etc. Maybe a situation that incorporates stuff like: Pot odds, pot equity, implied odds, positional play, probability, opponent hand ranges, HUD data, etc.

Don't bother, people won't understand because most of them don't have a rational mind. The ones that do should be able to figure it out themselves, the ones that don't will reject every piece of evidence you can throw at them because they feel it contradicts everything they thought they knew and will do anything to remain ignorant.

Having said that, there is one thing that might cause them to second guess themselves. You can use the game of black jack because it is familiar to people and they generally know how it works. I think there is no doubt that people (except for compulsive gamblers) think you cannot beat black jack and the casino has an edge on you. They probably also know that you can influence the rate at which you lose by just keep taking more cards until you bust, your ROI will go close to -100% (not quite because you can get 21 with 2 cards and win instantly). Of course nobody does this but the fact it is possible indicates that you can actually play better than just autobusting every time and that's different than a complete game of chance, let's say roulette.

So now in poker, you don't play against the house but against other players. Like black jack, the cards that fall are totally random but we have established that you can have a great impact on the profit or loss of every hand you play. If they also understand that we've booted the house in this game (except for rake), they might realize that when both players get a pair of random cards, the one that plays these better will generally come out on top.

The example also works in poker. I can just call down with the nut low or something like that and pretty much assure that I lose, that means my opponent wins by "playing better".

The best way is to let folks find out the hard way, by actually playing and learning. You are just wasting your time otherwise trying to educate folks who already know the "facts"!

The top reason I get why it's a bad decision is because the game involves luck and is therefore a luck game..

If the mere presence of “chance” was all that was needed to define something as gambling, we could call almost every human activity gambling.
You could be the most skilled craftsman in the world with the most hard work but without luck you wouldn't have a job/you wouldn't make it in that craft.
It's the manipulation of where you position yourself so that you can take advantage of that luck that makes a person successful.

Also, in all ball sports there is luck involved, a dodgy bounce of the ball or change in weather will ultimately affect your chance of playing your A-Game.
For example, look at how golfers set off at different times of the day. They don't all start at the same time, on the same grass conditions, with the same wet/dry/cold/windy conditions, with the same crowd numbers etc.. (with exactly the same variables). The guy who wins is the one who is most consistent over the whole course yet he can do worse on any given hole.

here is something else to explain the skill vs. chance debate;
http://www.quantitativepoker.com/201...ance-full.html

It concludes that because poker partly involves skill, it is therefore a skill game. Chance games are things like roulette where your actions do not determine the results (where the ball lands/who wins), but in poker you can purposefully lose with the best hand, win with the worst hand and therefore it's a skill game because your actions WILL affect the results.

Overall it's just an annoying thing to feel drawn to having to discuss and defend yourself, especially the whole gambling-with-an-edge vs. gambling where people instantly assume that because you are gambling at all, it is ultimately -EV, smh.

9 times out of 10 it's just not worth your time and you'll end up in a circular argument where , like Kelvis said, people will purposefully choose to be ignorant so they do not feel like their logic is being questioned, they are ultimately afraid of being wrong.


Just ask them for a 1 vs. 1 heads-up match and show them how you can beat them the majority of the time.

Ok, preaching to the choir, but let's say you had to make a powerpoint presentation that is 5 mins. or under that had to prove that there is more than lucky involved with poker (or you go to jail on an illegal gambling rap) How would you show there is skill involved? Let's see a real example!

I'd spend my time finding a lawyer rather than putting a powerpoint together

The problem with trying to "educate" people on thinking that poker isn't gambling is that real gamblers are prone to deny their addiction.

If you look at it from their standpoint you would see that a guy who plays "a gambling game" tries to tell you how the game he plays is tooootallly different from all other gambling games and you can win at it if you try hard.

In the end, both parties will think the other is a wacko.

Ok, let's just do this for us. Forget convincing anyone. Let's do this as an academic exercise.
I tried to start out an example. Can you guys help clean this up?
I want a good clean thorough example, but not one that is insane, either.
Post your edits, and then others can elaborate on your edit and repost it

A simple example:
Your 2 pocket/hole cards = Q Hearts and 4 Hearts
Shared community cards on the table = J Hearts, 6 hearts, A Spades
2 more community cards to come.
Note that you have no made hand, but a possible flush draw
(You have 2 hearts, and there are 2 Hearts on the board. One more Heart makes a flush, a very strong winning hand)

Next, your opponent bets $50 into $100 pot.
Does he have an Ace to pair the community card Ace?
Forget stuff like bluffing, let’s say he shows you his Ace.
Do you call, fold, or raise? There are 9 hearts still in play.
The odds of next community card being a Heart is 9/47 = 18% or about 4:1 odds (5 Heart Flush will beat his pair of Aces)
You need to call his $50 to win $150 ($100 pot + his $50 bet) So, you would be paid 3:1 on your money, but only have a 4:1 odds of winning.
So, you should fold. In the short term, anything can happen. Roll the dice!! Com’on hearts!! BUT, in the long run, this specific scenario is a losing venture. You fold.
(Forget playing 8 hours, even 8 hours is nothing, in the short term. To know if you’re a winning player with a real edge, you must consider ALL your card playing time as ONE unit ....50,000 hands over 2000 hours or 5 years, etc.)
So, you do not call. ....But, should you raise the $50 bet? Now, you have 2 ways of winning. Either by hitting the Heart. Or by inducing the opponent to fold (fold equity)
What are the odds opponent will fold his Aces? (Maybe you have 44, 66, JJ for a triple set)
What if you were the aggressor in the first place? If you raise to $50 (to win the $150 pot) opponent only needs to fold 1 in 4 times to make it a break even play for you. (Lose $50, Lose $50, Lose $50, Win $150)
Does opponent have more than 25% odds of folding? If so, BET/RAISE!

Back to the hand, but there are 2 cards left to come, not one! How many chips do you have left? What if you only have $50 left? Now, what if you shoved your stack (also inducing fold equity) and saw the next TWO cards?
The odds of hitting a Heart in the next 2 cards is about 36% or 2:1 odds... Now, you are getting paid 3:1 odds with a 2:1 odds of winning. You want to play this all day long.

Next, let’s consider the money NOT in the pot. Does the opponent have $50 left or $350 left? This also matters. You might lose this particular hand, b/c odds are a 5th Heart isn’t coming in the next 2 cards (36%)
but if you played this situation infinity times, when you do hit the heart, you will bet even more and will the opponent call with his pair of Aces? This is called “implied odds”.
You can justify playing even worse odds (what if opponent bet $100 into $100 pot only giving you 2:1 odds, not 3:1. if the opponent has a large stack that will be lose on the rare time you hit the heart)
Of course, if the bet was $25 into $100 pot, now your odds are even better (You need to bet $25 to win $150 and have a 36% chance of winning the hand. You are getting paid 5:1 with a 3:1 odds of getting a 5th heart. Money machine!!)

And this is just a very simple example, not factoring in dozens of other variables like profile of opponent (Does he play 10% of hands or 50%)? Knowing this, you can narrow down the RANGE of his cards, since cards are random, BUT distributed normally.
ie: If he plays 50% of his hands, you have a much wider range of junk that he might be playing vs. if he only plays 10% of hands (in which case you know his range is narrowed down to any pair, only 2 face cards, but not Ax or Kx)
Or, how many other people are in the hand, what is your position (first to act, last to act, etc)
etc etc etc....

The thing is - and this is what everyone has already said - someone who thinks poker is gambling is not going to change their opinion. They will read a few words of your example and think nothing more than "gambler trying to justify their gambling, probably thinks martingale is a good way to beat blackjack and I bet they have a roullette system too". Someone who thinks poker is gambling has no particular desire to be educated differently, why would they care to spend the time when it doesn't change their life in any way?

The point is that people that don't know that poker is a game of skill cannot be taught in 5 minutes or by a simple example. Even giving actual proof without needing to convince someone isn't that easy, it actually requires a great deal of statistical analysis before you have something that would actually survive peer review.

The little example you gave has many many holes that you need to plug before it is undeniable evidence. I couldn't do this in 5 minutes even if I have a full year to do research and prepare. I could give empirical evidence though. Just combine the hand histories of a number of good players and see a steady win over millions of hands, but even then how do you select such players since luck will dictate that even losing players will sometimes show up with wins over significant samples if your player pool is big enough to randomly cause such anomalies.

For all practical purposes, there is no point in doing this because like I said; the people that will be able to understand your case will probably have figured it out themselves already and the ones that don't understand it will never ever be turned.

Offer to play them in a situation wherein they play a strategy entirely created by you ahead of time. That demonstrates the possibility of an edge against other players. If they can't see the link between that and skill then it's a lost cause.

Ok, humor me, can we write up a scenario just for fun? Yea, it won't convince anyone, but I want to see if we can come up with a convincing example anyway. Just for us, as an exercise.

Tell 'X' that you are going to flip a coin.

If it's heads you (a good poker player) are going to win 55c.

If it's tails they (a bad poker player) are going to win 45c.

Discuss who is likely to have the most money after 10, 100, 1000 flips of the coin.

Give each other a hug.

Wtf is your deal? You sound like you're trying to convince your parents to allow you to play online poker in their house.

Simple:

"Why do people lose in the long-run playing roulette?"
"Because the odds are in the house's favor."
"Right, but you don't play against the house in poker; the odds are in favor of the better player."

The strategy you disclose would be: fold 100% (in any game with a blind or ante; in a game with no blinds or antes this is a component of a Nash equilibrium/is 'GTO').

Don't bother explaining that there is a viable winning strategy to poker, instead player said person in poker and use your edge to your advantage like we all do against weak opponents.

I've been annoyed by people making the same claim and have tried to explain how much thought goes into poker. I really don't think it's worth the effort to explain this considering how much work you have to take to learn all of this yourself. I work hard to learn this game, I see no reason to try and help others who don't want to learn.

Here's how I'd explain it:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/32...43/?highlight=

Also use the search function for DiamondDog's "The Mathenoobics of Poker".

Either that or he's trying to get BQ to do his schoolwork for him.

I prefer the empirical evidence approach e.g. "My winnings graph for over a million hands played is a smooth slope upwards. Explain how that can be luck...pro-tip: you can't."

Alternatively, get them to admit that someone can play poker badly, if that's the case then then someone can play well i.e. that's not luck.

Of course, someone who doesn't want to be corrected, won't be.

Tell your friend/parent to google "poker strategy" and "roulette strategy". Ask them to explain why there are 2.5 million results for the former (including the many sub-forums of this website), and 700,000 for the latter.

Or point them to Twitch or a poker training video. Or hit them over the head with a hardback copy of 'The Mathematics of Poker'.

Can someone help me clean up my hand scenario that I posted earlier?
That is the only thing I am interested in, at this point.

Sure.
Fold pre.
--
If you told us why this issue is so important to you, or who it is that you're trying to convince, you might get more help. If it's for school homework, I could think of clearer hand history examples.

The issue with the question is we have no idea who the target audience is. If a parent then sorry nothing you can say will convince them. If a legal case then get a lawyer, presenting a heap of numbers on a powerpoint won't help you. If a high school teacher then a few graphs of long term winners will probably be good enough (bonus if you can show how winrate combined with standard deviation combined with hands played means they have more chance of being struck by a meteorite than being lucky). If a university class then we can assume they understand logic and mathematics and you can use principles such as proving a concept false by demonstrating a counter-example to come up with some simple examples.

OP you could just get better at poker rather than losing and listening to your parents etc tell you that you are gambling.

But given that you are trying to get people to give you an explanation to give to your problem then its not going to happen.