Only logged-in members can vote!
→ Click here to create a Mob account which gives you access to our forum and all our free bankrolls (no deposit bonuses) → Log in to existing account!
Joined: Feb '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 46 (M)
Posts: 48
i'm lucky in the fact that people i am close to know i am an intelligent person and not a gambler at all, i have bought a lottery ticket a handful of times and bet on a horse once in my life. i prefer calculated risks and that is why i like poker. as far as im concerned luck is a 30% factor at most, skill is definitely the predominant factor,picking your spots, knowing when to risk a flip. I think instead of wishing players good luck you should say make the right decisions I don't think it is a coincedence that you see the same professional players running deep in all the big tournaments there must be some kind of skill involved that sets them above the rest. and i love the fact that it's a game you can approach from different angles depending on your own strengths whether thats being good with numbers or with reading people or just having the balls to bluff a lot and not get phased by other players. the variety in the styles makes for a fascinating game. its said that by the end of a tournament the loose aggressive player and the tight aggresive player tend to have the same average stacks because for all the accumulating they are spewing a lot of chips whereas the tight player gets there only playing stronger holdings. Everyone i know always asks how my games are going, and maybe its just my enthusiasm for the game is infectious to them because they seem to like to hear my tales.
i'll just leave you with a quote from frankie boyle "the lottery is a tax on hope!" lolz
Joined: Apr '11
Location: Romania
Age: 58 (M)
Posts: 2432
Yes it is.With the correct strategy, poker becomes an easy game ,profitable poker strategies and understand the theory behind winning poker play.Most of the people think is card game than is gamble.It's still gambling if you are more likely to win than not in the short-term and if you don't expect a return it's not really gambling.Skills and pacience
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by awood88:
Posted by jessthehuman: If you are a losing player at some point it must be acknowledged that it is just gambling. Because you're playing against an edge which is the same as playing against a house edge. Sure you may win sometimes by getting lucky, but ultimately you're gambling away the money.
The tricky part IMO is recognizing this, because obviously most people start out as losing players, but recognise they can learn to beat the game. So the question is how much time needs to lapse Before it becomes a delusion. Because surely at some point when you have a proven win rate of say -10% it must be acknowledged that you're doing worse things for your money that somebody playing a roulette wheel against a 2.5% loss
So is it gambling to enter a football competition if your team doesn't win many games? Even amateur teams invest time and money to participate in a league they have little chance of winning. Is it gambling to enter a race with someone who is proven to be faster than you time and time again? If you know that person is faster but you are trying to increase your own speed it's not delusional, it's practice and it's fun. It's sport.
I don't think that whether the game is + or -ev makes it more or less gambling. If there was no house edge in roulette it would still be gambling. It's still gambling if you are more likely to win than not in the short-term and if you don't expect a return it's not really gambling. Losing a game because you're not good enough is not the same as losing cause you were relying on luck. If you went to play football without a goalie hoping the game would be called off for bad weather that would be gambling, if you went to play football with a terrible goalie hoping the other players would be good enough, that would be giving it your best and maximising your chances of winning.
Sure, I get where you're coming from and it is a strong argument in favour of poker.
However, I still think when we use the correct context of gambling here and attach all the negative connotations: Degeneracy, loss of income that cannot be afforded, social and family problems, etc.
I think all these factors are very real amongst the poker community, sure: there are winning players and they're playing a skill based game and not really 'gambling' and certainly not being exposed to the negative aspects.
But likewise, there are plenty of people caught up in (particularly online) poker that are not winning and not only that, it's incredibly destructive to their lives, they're losing pay cheques they can't afford to lose, it's costing them their families, friends, etc.
My point is only that you can't make a blanket statement separating poker from other forms of gambling, when it simply does not apply to everyone. There are far to many degenerate poker players for this kind of argument to really succeed IMHO.
------------ you only have to read the NVG forum at 2+2 too see even at the 'top level' of this 'sport' there's just a whole bunch of people scamming, cheating, getting into serious debt, etc.
