At what point are you just a gambler?

Aequitas58 · #1 03-08-05, 03:40 PM

I read TP's thread about the new game he tried. There are others on this forum who specialize in certain games... Geoff w/ omaha, most w/ NLHE, Shabi & Tone w/ LHE, etc.

Most poker players argue that playing poker is more than just gambling, and I think this is true for the area the specialize in. There are situations where you have +EV, and the better players can not only take advantage of those situations, but make lots of money doing so.

But, what happens when you play a game you're not "completely" familiar with? Razz, Triple Low Ball, 7cs, Omaha, etc. Are we just gamblers after all?

I started playing LHE and now primarily play NLHE with success. I will play 7cs8b, but I won't venture past that for the simple reason of unfamiliarity. (Is that a word?) Although I don't consider playing HE gambling, I would consider it gambling if I played another variation - especially w/ no background and no experience.

Maybe I'm just rambling. Any thoughts?

Talking Poker · #2 03-08-05, 04:28 PM

Poker is a game of skill, so IMO, it's not gambling. When I try a new game, like I did last night, while I realize I might lose money for a while, I still don't consider it gambling. I look at that money as a long term investment. I'm learning.

Aequitas58 · #3 03-08-05, 04:41 PM

Well, I'm not trying to call you out or specifically identify you, but how can it be a long term investment if you don't know what moves to make (and where)? Surely you can't - not at this point. Right?

I guess I can buy the argument that you're learning the game, and w/ enough experience you can turn it into a +EV game.

Buuuuut, don't you feel like you could put that money in another game and have a better expectancy to win money? Then again, who gives a fuck, you're having fun.

*bored*

omahilo · #4 03-08-05, 04:56 PM

I dont consider it gambling either but every once in a while you need new action.

Thats how I got started with O8... got sick of being dealt 2 cards, same boring routine and needed some new action. So tried out O8, learned and have played it well.

Then I tried out Stud8 for the same reason, instead of community game we all play our own hands. Also the split pot aspect is exciting. Stud8 is always fun when you have the lo part won and freerolling someone for the high part.

Its all about ACTION... we all thrive for action or we wouldnt be playing poker in the first place. Why do you think the pro poker players do prop bets and such?

like Ted Forrest betting $10,000 he can drink 10 beers in 30 mins or Ted losing 1mill once playing craps.

or TJ's addiction to craps or Robert Williamson's "dabbling" in sportsbooks.

ACTION people ACTION!

Aequitas58 · #5 03-08-05, 07:18 PM

Exactly my point. As poker players ... aren't we just a sophisticated form of "gamblers" once you wade through all the "+EV" talk?

PShabi · #6 03-08-05, 09:00 PM

I used to be right with you guys. Limit Hold 'Em isn't gambling, it's an investment.

However, I'm about 1/2 way through with Sklansky's Small Stakes Hold 'Em, and this is what he has to say on the matter:

"As can be seen, poker is gambling. Anyone who says it's not or states that when he plays he doesn't gamble, does not understand poker as well as he should. Poker is gambling because your outcomes, for the most part, are not certain."

He later says, "But what sets poker apart from many other gambling games is that your expectation can be positive. You achieve this mainly by exploiting the errors that your opponents make because the money comes from them."

Makes sense to me.

Talking Poker · #7 03-09-05, 03:30 AM

I like the Sklansky quote. Yes, I realize in the short term, poker is gambling, but in the long run, I don't believe it is. There is no house edge. It is a beatable game of skill.

Regarding your question earlier Aeq, about me learning Triple Draw... How about an analogy?

Say you are a baseball player. Not one of the best in the world, but one of the best on your team. Sure, you have off days where you go 0-4, but by the end of the year, you know you'll hit .300 and make decent money.

For whatever reason (maybe you are in a slump, maybe you are bored, maybe you've just heard how cool it is), you pick up a basketball one day for the first time in your life. Turns out you really like it, and for being completely new to the sport, you think you're pretty good. So you decide to play for a while, practicing, and improving your game. Could you spend this same time playing baseball, knowing you are better at it? Sure....... but why not learn basketball too, in hopes of being one of the best in that sport someday as well? Especially if you are enjoying yourself along the way...........

Ok, this analogy has gotten a bit long winded, but hopefully you see the point I'm trying to make. And with different games of poker, a lot of the fundamentals are still there. Sure, you might not understand the nuances of a certain game, but concepts like aggression, pot odds, and so on - those are all useful tools that translate from game to game.

GeoffM · #8 03-09-05, 09:58 AM

In truth, I believe you become a gambler when food money is going on the table. You aren't a gambler until such time that you are wagering your well-being or your families well-being (God forbid) at a table or game.

Kurn · #9 03-09-05, 10:21 AM

Poker *is* gambling. The fact that there is a very large skill component doesn't change that fact. In fact, once you begin to traet poker like gambling, you accomplish 2 things: 1) you understand the theoretical basis for some counter-intuitive plays (like raising with ATs in the BB after 6 limpers) and 2) you avoid tilt, because you fundamentally understand that the reason skill is profitable is because unskilled players often can get lucky and win (and ultimately return to lose their winnings). It's people with good gambling sense that become long-term winners at poker. The "poker isn't gambling" dorks who think its a pure skill game like chess are the ones who either play too weak-tight to succeed or get frustrated too easily by being drawn out on by bad players to really put in the hours to learn the nuances of the game and become long-term winners.

And now that I've mentioned being drawn out on - if that really, really bugs you - stick to Hold'em. It's the game in poker where you'll get sucked out on the least. Stud and Omaha will absolutely drive you nuts. You see, while Hold'em is a very complex form of poker, it's the least complex in starting-card play. A trained monkey could approximate perfect preflop play. The complexity of the game on the flop and turn is much greater. Compare that to Stud, where 3rd street play may be the most complex.

Thus the poker newbie who has learned only hold'em is at a loss when he has to play a game where the hand values can change radically from one street to the next.

This long and rambling rant leads to this choice. If you want to really be a solid poker player, you must get some experience playing games other than hold'em. Trust me, playing stud or stud/8 will open up your brain to later street analysis and help your hold'em game. Playing high/low declare (home games only - it's not offered in casinos or online [yet]), really can hone your hand and people reading skills. On the other hand, if you have a great hourly rate multi-tabling and have no desire to branch out, stick to hold'em - you'd need to be Rain Man to multi-table stud successfully.

Kurn · #10 03-09-05, 10:47 AM

To build on my other post, here's another solid play you make because poker is gambling.

You're in the CO or on the button with QJs. Four limpers to you, you limp, the SB completes, the BB raises and all the limpers call - what's your action?

You 3-bet with a hand that wasn't worth a raise the first time around. Why? Not because you have the best hand, you don't, but the few times you improve and win the hand, you want the pot to be as big as possible, so you 3-bet here to tie the rest of the field to the pot so the 18% of the time you make a big hand, you hit big. What are you risking for this? One small bet (one big bet if the initial raiser caps)

you 3-bet here knowing that the majority of the time you're going to fold on the flop, but in the long run this "gambling" play makes you money.

What's funny is that when you do this and the BB caps with his AA and 7 see the flop for 28 sb, and you call the flop with only a back-door flush draw and hit runner-runner to beat him (easily getting correct odds to call on each street), the "poker isn't gambling" guy with the aces will probably think you're the fish, when the truth is, your play shows that you understand the game better than he does.

What is it that you understand that he doesn't? You understand that poker is a gambling game, and thus you manipulated the size of the pot preflop to your benefit.

When you say, it's not gambling, it's a game of skill, you fail to grasp the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive.

omahilo · #11 03-09-05, 01:37 PM

Never thought of it that way Kurn but your right...

Raising with that hand for 1 more BB and hitting a flop huge like AKT rainbow or something or with 2 of your suit will win you much more money.

Best part is everyone is committed to calling your 1 more bet so building a big protential pot for yourself.

Aequitas58 · #12 03-09-05, 02:36 PM

The house "edge" is the rake. Some people argue that the rake alone is often unbeatable for low limit holdem players. (Especially the rake at a B/M casino.)

On to the analogy. I don't like it only because *I* think it's faulty to compare athletics (a game of skill dealing w/ a person's physical attributes) to poker. Compare poker to chess. Backgammon. Possibly pool/billiards - but even then we veer off into another realm.

Obviously I've gambled at poker. (Everyone at this forum has...) But I've also gambled at chess and pool. A lot. Naturally, I am a gambler. I'll bet DCopper at the SuperBowl, and I'll also bet I make it to 1000 before anyone else does. But, when it comes to poker, something intrinsic tells me there is less of a risk. It's less of a "gamble" and more of an investment, like PShabi pointed out.

And just for the sake of argument, you're not going to find a good baseball and basketball player. It's two different body types. Someone can be "good" at both, but you're not going to find someone who can make good money at baseball and then be the best at basketball. Or vice versa.

I'm thinking of MJ off the top of my head.

Aequitas58 · #13 03-09-05, 02:44 PM

I'm reading the posts in this thread and I'm back and forth. YES, poker *is* gambling - for the simple reason that you're betting money on a game of chance.

BUUUUT... there's more to it than to just consider it gambling. Right? Blackjack is gambling. Just like roulette, the slots, everything else in the casino, as well as proposition bets, and betting on the flip of a coin. (Which I have done.)

Something just tells me that while each hand is a gamble, over the long haul, there are situations you can identify, circumstances you can capitalize on, and other variables to make this less of a gamble and more of an investment.

-game selection
-good bankroll management - dealing w/ variance
-pre-flop selection
-check-calling the river instead of betting - when you should...
-shit: pokertracker

etc.

Aequitas58 · #14 03-09-05, 02:51 PM

I forgot about this other stuff in your post. See my comments above in bold.

Aequitas58 · #15 03-09-05, 02:55 PM

That's called a "problem."

I may be nieve here, but are there professonal blackjack players? What about professonal roulette players? Craps? Sure, a lot of money can be won playing these games (even if you eat the -EV) but don't most of these people have regular jobs - opposed to the overwhelming number of pro proker players?

Talking Poker · #16 03-09-05, 03:57 PM

This is a great thread. And props to Kurn for those fantastic posts. I see and agree with what you are saying. I think our difference lies withing the definition of "gambling." Specifically, I disagree with this statement that Aeq made:

Poker is NOT a game of chance. A game of chance is a game where you have no control over the outcome and are relying 100% on luck. I am not saying there is no luck in poker - there is PLENTY of it in the short term. And yes, examining a single poker hand, you can make an arguement that you are gambling. But if you play 1,000,000 hands of poker, I believe you have reached the long run and your skill has taken over. Looking at the 1 million hands you played, luck is gone from the equation (it washes out - everyone has effectively gotten the same cards once you rach the long run) and the amount of money you have won or lost is based entirely on your level of skill.

So I stand by this statement:
In the long run, poker is a game of skill and not a game of chance.

Therefore, using this definition for the word gambling: "To play a game of chance for stakes" ... Poker (again, in the long term) is not gambling.

Aequitas58 · #17 03-09-05, 04:14 PM

I was typing too quick. Don't forget I posted this in the same post:

Something just tells me that while each hand is a gamble, over the long haul, there are situations you can identify, circumstances you can capitalize on, and other variables to make this less of a gamble and more of an investment.