poker IS gambling

i approve of the chess off-topic

Originally posted by Tim64
Moreover, just because a player might accidentally chose the winning line (from a choice of equally tempting lines) this doesn't infer the existence of luck.

The better the chess player, the more often he choses the optimal line.

Just because a thing is outside my control, doesn't automatically make it a matter of luck or chance. If my opponent normally plays 1.d4 and I've prepared a nice line in the kings Indian, its not bad 'luck' if he decides to play e4 for a change.

all these sentences sound like variance to me
if not a "luck" element, what do we call that then?

i also don't think the rain analogy is a good one.
it might not be a matter of chance and you might be able to look it up and expect it to happen... but even then, usually, for all practical purposes, we can just blame variance.

Originally posted by Tomaloc

i also don't think the rain analogy is a good one.
it might not be a matter of chance and you might be able to look it up and expect it to happen... but even then, usually, for all practical purposes, we can just blame variance.

In our local weather forecasts:
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/cabc0308

A figure "POP" is quoted (see bottom of the page linked above).
POP stands for "probability of precipitation"

The basic idea is that under the current conditions, x% of the time there will be some precipitation.

If it can be expressed as a probability, then wouldn't "luck" be a good way to view it?

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

Originally posted by Tomaloc

i also don't think the rain analogy is a good one.
it might not be a matter of chance and you might be able to look it up and expect it to happen... but even then, usually, for all practical purposes, we can just blame variance.

In our local weather forecasts:
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/cabc0308

A figure "POP" is quoted (see bottom of the page linked above).
POP stands for "probability of precipitation"

The basic idea is that under the current conditions, x% of the time there will be some precipitation.

If it can be expressed as a probability, then wouldn't "luck" be a good way to view it?

I think that depends on how strict we wish to be. In online poker, the chance of the first card being a 5h on a new deal is the same as the chance of it being the As. Exactly which card it turns our to be is a purely random matter. In particular, we can't predict which it will be, based on past events or additional data.

The weather forecast is exactly that: a forecast or prediction based on all the information we have to hand. The more info we have, the more likely we are to be right about whether it will rain. Talking about "pop" is, I suspect, mainly a useful shorthand way of recognising that our data is insufficient to make a very accurate prediction. When and if it does rain comes down to whether the right sort of clouds release water at a particular location. I think that's a question of physics, rather than chance.

Ah, that is so interesting

Weather is unpredictable. However we can approximate its short-term behaviour. I don't know how weather probabilities are calculated, but I suppose it is some measurement of how wide the divergence of the initial conditions goes after an input is given to the chosen model. Weather is chaotic.

Chaos doesn't mean that you don't have an equation to model a given system. It means that immerse in the nature of the equation is the unpredictability of the outcome. An infinitesimal change in the initial conditions will lead to a very different set of solutions which are exponentially far from each other. The more you go into the future, the more apart these solutions are.

Poker is not chaotic.

(However, I always wonder if the different outcomes for a given game played by human beings don't behave in such a way Still, even this won't mean that a winning player wouldn't win in the long run, the same as the predicted rain doesn't start raining upwards.)

The OP has raised an issue of the type "0=1 is very likely to be true, a proof of the opposite is required if somebody believes otherwise".

To be sure, there are people that don't like poker. They may claim that poker involves no skill (though they know that they are wrong) because being illogical on the verge of being stupid is perfectly socially accepted. It even gives some weird status in some circles to be uneducated (or, at least, pretend to be).

/Johan =

By the way, the supreme court in Sweden has decided that tournament poker is skill and gash game is gambling. Now you know.

/Johan =

happy to see some people are convinced poker is based on pure luck. all I have to say about it. In regards to a socalled Swedish judge claiming tournaments are a skill game and cash games are not. What a retarded thing to claim. In a tourney stacks quickly get more shallow because of blinds going up hence the skill edge declines. pretty fucking obvious. Cash games , blinds never go up. hmmmm

Originally posted by fortunewheel
happy to see some people are convinced poker is based on pure luck. all I have to say about it. In regards to a socalled Swedish judge claiming tournaments are a skill game and cash games are not. What a retarded thing to claim. In a tourney stacks quickly get more shallow because of blinds going up hence the skill edge declines. pretty fucking obvious. Cash games , blinds never go up. hmmmm

You just revealed yourself dude. You don't think poker is pure luck. You are just enjoying being anti.

As far as the supreme court being retarded, I don't think so. It's just another example of it being socially accepted to say illogical things. In this case it was their job to say illogical things because they don't like the idea of completely legalizing cash game poker.

/Johan =

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by fortunewheel
happy to see some people are convinced poker is based on pure luck. all I have to say about it. In regards to a socalled Swedish judge claiming tournaments are a skill game and cash games are not. What a retarded thing to claim. In a tourney stacks quickly get more shallow because of blinds going up hence the skill edge declines. pretty fucking obvious. Cash games , blinds never go up. hmmmm

You just revealed yourself dude. You don't think poker is pure luck. You are just enjoying being anti.

As far as the supreme court being retarded, I don't think so. It's just another example of it being socially accepted to say illogical things. In this case it was their job to say illogical things because they don't like the idea of completely legalizing cash game poker.

/Johan =

every thing about this post is rather wonderful

% 80 luck
%20 skill

if you dont have luck , you gonna loose !! sorry.

What is gambling??? Here in Neptune we do not have this thing called gambling