for no one in particular...

[bdawg31]

[GeoffM]

Ok, well, Negreanu has started getting a lot of tv time, and here is the gist of what he said about calling poker gambling.

If you are going to call poker gambling, you might as well call investments gambling, the stock market, playing the lottery, driving your car. Poker is not gambling, at least not to the majority on this site I would imagine. Gambling, in the long run, is losing. I have not lost, therefore I look at poker as a sound investment and a good return on capital.

That's just my 2 cents though.

[Talking Poker]

Sounds like SOMEONE I know, but I can't quite put a finger on who it is........ Hmmmmmm......

[BlibbityBlabbity]

Can someone who read this whole thing summarize.....PLEASE!!!!

Maybe I just have adult ADHD but I started daydreaming about 1 paragrah in, scrolled down, and said no f'ing way...

[bdawg31]

I didnt read it all either!

[bdawg31]

(for the record I do call playing the lottery gambling :-)

Yes, i agree with you. I posted this here more for entertainment value than anything else. Of course, its important to keep in mind that not everyone thinks of poker in the manner that you do. Some people treat it as 'gambling'. They dont treat it as a game of skill - they treat it as a game of luck.

Look at Blackjack - i think most people consider that a form of 'gambling' - but if you ask professional card counters that can make it so they have an edge over the house - then they would use the same kinds of arguements that Danny N. uses to say its not gambling.

I think its a matter of semantics. One could say that when you put money at risk - you are 'gambling'. Even if you have a 90% edge - you are still 'gambling' the amount you are putting at risk - you just have an advantage.

I think poker players like to stress that poker is not 'gambling' because they want to make sure that people understand that they are skilled and are not just relying on luck (i would think it would be more profitable to let people continue to consider that its mostly luck, but that is just me).

Regardless - i believe a consistently losing poker player can have the same kind of addiction to playing poker that a gambler can have to playing blackjack or routlette or betting on football games. It doesnt matter if you use the term 'gambling' to describe playing poker.

[Kurn]

I agree. The best poker theorist there is - Sklansky - stresses that poker *is* gambling. To say this doesn't mean that poker is pure luck, we all know it isn't. It is, in fact, one of the most perfect blends of skill and luck (also known as short-term variance)that exists.

There is a skill to being a good gambler. The skill in recognizing when the odds offered on a given wager exceed the probability that the wager will be successful, and the awareness to recognize when your opponents are missing the point.

My experience has always been that the people who become the most frustrated with short-term variance in poker are the "poker isn't gambling" crowd.

I'm sure Daniel understands all of this implicitly. The fact that he doesn't put money at risk in games where he doesn't have an edge doesn't mean he isn't a gambler, it just means he's a smart gambler.

[PShabi]

Ummmmmmm, it's gambling.

[Talking Poker]

I get the feeling everyone here is mising the intended BrianSwa joke. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm reading into it, but I thought it was pretty clear. The article is about problem gamblers, not whether or not poker is gambling.

[2Tone]

I'll cop to being guilty of #1, though I would prefer it read "Preoccupation with past, present, and future gambling experiences and with ways to obtain money FROM gambling" rather than "and with ways to obtain money FOR gambling." I'm pretty clear on most of the others, so I guess I'm not pathological yet.