4 ms·

I dont think hold em is equivalent to gambling. It is definitely a skill/game. It has an element of randomness just like most board games for example, but it's

by dudul 3y ago

I dont think hold em is equivalent to gambling. It is definitely a skill/game. It has an element of randomness just like most board games for example, but it's not gambling

raincole 3y ago
Is gambling's issue its addictiveness, or its luck-based nature?
- dudul 3y ago
  I dont know if it's an issue, but what characterizes gambling for me is indeed the randomness. Otherwise we would literally call any game "gambling". I'm not even sure I would put sports betting in the same bucket as gambling.
- arlcode 3y ago
  If I recall correctly, randomness is a great way to get people addicted and engaged more. In Pocker there is a clear correlation between your actions and your results. The other people are clearly better than you are and most get the hint after a while. It's also slow enough so you get some time to think Engineered randomness (like slot machines or loot boxes) use the means of technology and presentation to dangle that bit price juuust outside your reach. They also use flashy lights and fast paced games to get you in the "zone" of gambling more and longer.
  - raincole 3y ago
    > In Pocker there is a clear correlation between your actions and your results Years ago I was okay-ish with Poker (positive net outcome after about 20k hands on pokerstars) and I'm not so sure about this. I mean it's statistically true, and calling Poker a pure-luck game is like calling golf a pure-luck game because of wind. But to me the addictiveness of Poker is pretty "Skinner Box like" -- you can literally do nothing wrong, do the theoratically best moves, and still lose hard. Of course if you did the same move every time in the same situation, it would eventually pay off. But if people are so reasonable addiction wouldn't be a problem in the first place?
    - dudul 3y ago
      I'm not sure why you put the pure-luck-or-not aspect on par with the addictiveness. People can get addicted to winning, regardless of if it's due to their skills or just luck. The problem with e.g. slot machines is that anyone can win, with the same odds, so it's easy to get addicted to it. You can't get addicted to winning at golf unless you're already putting the work to get good at it. With slot machines you can win, without doing any work. That's the catch.
      - raincole 3y ago
        > With slot machines you can win, without doing any work Uh, this is the exact my point. With Poker you can win, without doing any work, for one hand or even one night. You can't win forever, but gamblers are not famous for their long-term thinking ability. And I didn't put the pure-luck-or-not aspect on par with the addictiveness. Actually I opened this conversation with this: > Is gambling's issue its addictiveness, or its luck-based nature?
        wak90 3y ago
        It's the luck based nature. The addiction is because you have inconsistent results despite consistent inputs. Humans like to learn, problem solve and pattern seek. Luck based reward systems subvert that but random games tease that part of our brains that it is possible to figure out the pattern if we just do a few more experiments with inputs.
yCombLinks 3y ago
I love poker, and it is definitely a skill game. It's also definitely gambling though. It just doesn't have the same addictive feedback loop that slots do.
throwaway4837 3y ago
You're creating a false dichotomy. Poker is a skill and it is gambling.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  The original parent thread did the same thing, so I'm not surprised the answers follow suit.
  - dghughes 3y ago
    > They saw it as a skill not gambling The players see it as a skill I don't. It's gambling and I saw the result daily of people who spent too much or were in bad state from addiction. We had counsellors walking the floor there monitoring people, and the casino (Security) would ban people, or they can self-exclude themselves. I'm not surprised by the comments here I know the type I was around them every day. Even the dealers are like that, it's like a cult. Yes I know a person can make money if they are good at playing but as others commented it's because others are so bad. So to me that means not so much skill as it is being the one who sucks least.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >I'm not surprised by the comments here I know the type I was around them every day. I think most of the comments here are acknowledging it as a skill, but that 99.99% of gamblers for those poker type card games aren't skilled. It's not mutually exclusive. I'm sure it's like how Blackjack can be a skilled game (or used to be) but I doubt most clients are going in 21-style with a plan to count cards and find the hot tables.
      - dghughes 3y ago
        Blackjack is also the most profitable table game in the house (ignoring slots for overall profit). For Texas Hold Em profit is basically just the rake (depends on the pot) and how fast a dealer deals and how fast players will play. Those card shuffle shoes at the table? Cost $20K each and have be rented I forget the daily rate. The small plastic prism the dealer pushes his cards against to they can see their suit? Leased as well at something like $10/day. If you want to make piles of money invent something a casino needs and lease it to them never sell it! Just consider the money involved. The table has at least two dealers per shift one on break one dealing. Another reason staff hate card tables high tips to dealers (ignoring all other staff help) and more breaks than any other hourly job. At least one supervisor there at all times. A pit boss who manages overall. The manager of tables or slots (could be both). Security office plus supervisor to deliver chips and take cash boxes away when full and to keep people from getting too crazy which is 99% of the time with table games. Surveillance usually two trained on table games the watch up there overhead via cameras ($20K to $50K each) for one area plus their supervisor and manager. Facilities to clean the area of any food or mess. Servers who server food and drinks. So it is probably costs $200 - $300/hour to run that blackjack table just on wages alone. Blackjack would make far more per hour in profit.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I dont think hold em is equivalent to gambling Hold’em (assuming the bets are money, obviously friendly games are possible) is 100% gambling. > It is definitely a skill/game. While some regulatory regimes either treat gambling different or not-gambling where a particular criterion for skill involvement is met, that’s not really material outside of consideration of the application of those regulatory regimes. > It has an element of randomness just like most board games for example, but it's not gambling Betting money on board games (whether or not you are also playing and betting on yourself), even those with no random element in the game itself (or nothing beyond side/turn-order selection), is gambling, too. Where there is randomness, even if the game is largely skill-based on its face, playing for real stakes and the selection process it creates will result in games tending to be more dominated by chance than the game structure itself would suggest unless participation is mandatory and matching is random. (Even when there is not randomness in the game on ita face, as random and out-of-game events that effect player performance can’t be eliminated.)

by dudul 3y ago

I dont think hold em is equivalent to gambling. It is definitely a skill/game. It has an element of randomness just like most board games for example, but it's not gambling

raincole 3y ago

Is gambling's issue its addictiveness, or its luck-based nature?

dudul 3y ago
I dont know if it's an issue, but what characterizes gambling for me is indeed the randomness. Otherwise we would literally call any game "gambling". I'm not even sure I would put sports betting in the same bucket as gambling.
arlcode 3y ago
If I recall correctly, randomness is a great way to get people addicted and engaged more. In Pocker there is a clear correlation between your actions and your results. The other people are clearly better than you are and most get the hint after a while. It's also slow enough so you get some time to think Engineered randomness (like slot machines or loot boxes) use the means of technology and presentation to dangle that bit price juuust outside your reach. They also use flashy lights and fast paced games to get you in the "zone" of gambling more and longer.
- raincole 3y ago
  > In Pocker there is a clear correlation between your actions and your results Years ago I was okay-ish with Poker (positive net outcome after about 20k hands on pokerstars) and I'm not so sure about this. I mean it's statistically true, and calling Poker a pure-luck game is like calling golf a pure-luck game because of wind. But to me the addictiveness of Poker is pretty "Skinner Box like" -- you can literally do nothing wrong, do the theoratically best moves, and still lose hard. Of course if you did the same move every time in the same situation, it would eventually pay off. But if people are so reasonable addiction wouldn't be a problem in the first place?
  - dudul 3y ago
    I'm not sure why you put the pure-luck-or-not aspect on par with the addictiveness. People can get addicted to winning, regardless of if it's due to their skills or just luck. The problem with e.g. slot machines is that anyone can win, with the same odds, so it's easy to get addicted to it. You can't get addicted to winning at golf unless you're already putting the work to get good at it. With slot machines you can win, without doing any work. That's the catch.
    - raincole 3y ago
      > With slot machines you can win, without doing any work Uh, this is the exact my point. With Poker you can win, without doing any work, for one hand or even one night. You can't win forever, but gamblers are not famous for their long-term thinking ability. And I didn't put the pure-luck-or-not aspect on par with the addictiveness. Actually I opened this conversation with this: > Is gambling's issue its addictiveness, or its luck-based nature?
      - wak90 3y ago
        It's the luck based nature. The addiction is because you have inconsistent results despite consistent inputs. Humans like to learn, problem solve and pattern seek. Luck based reward systems subvert that but random games tease that part of our brains that it is possible to figure out the pattern if we just do a few more experiments with inputs.

yCombLinks 3y ago

I love poker, and it is definitely a skill game. It's also definitely gambling though. It just doesn't have the same addictive feedback loop that slots do.

throwaway4837 3y ago

You're creating a false dichotomy. Poker is a skill and it is gambling.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
The original parent thread did the same thing, so I'm not surprised the answers follow suit.
- dghughes 3y ago
  > They saw it as a skill not gambling The players see it as a skill I don't. It's gambling and I saw the result daily of people who spent too much or were in bad state from addiction. We had counsellors walking the floor there monitoring people, and the casino (Security) would ban people, or they can self-exclude themselves. I'm not surprised by the comments here I know the type I was around them every day. Even the dealers are like that, it's like a cult. Yes I know a person can make money if they are good at playing but as others commented it's because others are so bad. So to me that means not so much skill as it is being the one who sucks least.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >I'm not surprised by the comments here I know the type I was around them every day. I think most of the comments here are acknowledging it as a skill, but that 99.99% of gamblers for those poker type card games aren't skilled. It's not mutually exclusive. I'm sure it's like how Blackjack can be a skilled game (or used to be) but I doubt most clients are going in 21-style with a plan to count cards and find the hot tables.
    - dghughes 3y ago
      Blackjack is also the most profitable table game in the house (ignoring slots for overall profit). For Texas Hold Em profit is basically just the rake (depends on the pot) and how fast a dealer deals and how fast players will play. Those card shuffle shoes at the table? Cost $20K each and have be rented I forget the daily rate. The small plastic prism the dealer pushes his cards against to they can see their suit? Leased as well at something like $10/day. If you want to make piles of money invent something a casino needs and lease it to them never sell it! Just consider the money involved. The table has at least two dealers per shift one on break one dealing. Another reason staff hate card tables high tips to dealers (ignoring all other staff help) and more breaks than any other hourly job. At least one supervisor there at all times. A pit boss who manages overall. The manager of tables or slots (could be both). Security office plus supervisor to deliver chips and take cash boxes away when full and to keep people from getting too crazy which is 99% of the time with table games. Surveillance usually two trained on table games the watch up there overhead via cameras ($20K to $50K each) for one area plus their supervisor and manager. Facilities to clean the area of any food or mess. Servers who server food and drinks. So it is probably costs $200 - $300/hour to run that blackjack table just on wages alone. Blackjack would make far more per hour in profit.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I dont think hold em is equivalent to gambling Hold’em (assuming the bets are money, obviously friendly games are possible) is 100% gambling. > It is definitely a skill/game. While some regulatory regimes either treat gambling different or not-gambling where a particular criterion for skill involvement is met, that’s not really material outside of consideration of the application of those regulatory regimes. > It has an element of randomness just like most board games for example, but it's not gambling Betting money on board games (whether or not you are also playing and betting on yourself), even those with no random element in the game itself (or nothing beyond side/turn-order selection), is gambling, too. Where there is randomness, even if the game is largely skill-based on its face, playing for real stakes and the selection process it creates will result in games tending to be more dominated by chance than the game structure itself would suggest unless participation is mandatory and matching is random. (Even when there is not randomness in the game on ita face, as random and out-of-game events that effect player performance can’t be eliminated.)