Column: A Game of Skill

Following the recent ruling that poker is a game of skill in a New York court, Barry Carter asks whether taking the gambling out of poker is a good thing.

Ivey proves poker is a skill game...

Although everyone reading this already knows that poker is a game of skill, the rest of the world sometimes needs convincing.

In recent weeks the conversation has started again in the mainstream; with both the landmark ruling by a New York judge that poker is not gambling and also a report from the Erasmus School of Economics which confirmed the same thing.

This is obviously very good news, in particular for US poker players, or anyone from a region that has banned, or is attempting to ban, poker because it has been classified in the same terms as house games like roulette or blackjack.

I think most poker players don't want to see other forms of gambling banned. Many of us discovered poker as a direct result of them, and plenty of us still enjoy other ways to gamble.

But politically it is very beneficial for us if we can distance ourselves from casino gambling and sports betting. In some regions gambling is a sinking ship, and we don't want poker to go down with it.

The other benefit to poker being classified in terms of skill is the obvious prestige that comes with it. Poker players enjoy the game being compared more closely with sport than gambling, they want to feel like a champion or a professional, rather than a hustler.

It is also very important for many that they get the respect they feel they deserve from friends and family, and these skill game rulings will help do that. Most of us have had someone close to us who probably didn't like or respect the fact that we played poker. It is particularly difficult if poker makes up a significant portion of your earnings or if you have dependents.

Convincing loved ones you are not gambling

...but the best players don't always win

When I first started playing, I really struggled with this side of the game. In particular, with convincing non-poker players that it was a genuinely skillful game and not just degenerate gambling.

I had an added element of frustration, because I was a poker writer. My friends and loved ones could not comprehend how there could be so much in poker to write about, which made my profession seem belittled.

I learned the hard way that there is only so much persuading you can do in this situation. Once you get past a certain point of trying to explain the skillful nuances of the game, it starts sounding like you are trying to convince yourself, rather than them.

I recall once going into detail with a friend about all the books I've read, the training videos I have watched, and the level of depth with which I would study my Hold'em Manager database. My hopes were that I could explain the complexity, and thus, the skill, of the game. But my friend responded by simply saying "God, you are obsessed with gambling!".

The friend in question is a very intelligent, level headed, and open minded person, who very much only has my best interests at heart. No matter how hard you try, there are some people who will never get the skill arguments in poker, just like I am sure there are things out there that you and I are equally as misinformed and stubborn about outside of the game.

Do we really want to take the gambling out of poker?

Is the variance in poker a bad thing?

But do we really want poker recognised universally as a game of skill? For the reasons I have already cited, it is clear we certainly need the public perception to move closer to skill than it currently is. But I fear if we try too hard, it could end up damaging the game.

Some people are so desperately fighting the cause for poker as a skill game, they forget just how much luck there is, and more significantly, just how important it is. Without the variance in the game, there would be no profit.

It seems every year someone comes up with a proposed new version of poker designed to take the variance out of the game. Whether it is some sort of bubble or equity insurance, taking the draws out of the game, or something like duplicate poker where everyone is dealt the same hand across multiple tables.

People claim to want versions of these games, but in practice, they never succeed. Without the variance, lesser players would never win. It is precisely because less skilled players can win in poker that better players can continue to find them at the tables. It is important that new players can win right away, it keeps them coming back for more, which means the superior player will win more over time.

In fact, without the variance, most of us would not be playing today. I believe that those of us who are still playing poker today, after several years, most likely ran extremely well in the beginning. Nobody likes to lose money and being able to win right away keeps you motivated long enough to learn the game. Those of us who have put the effort in to improve as players probably don't appreciate or recognise the helping hand we had in the form of good variance at the beginning.

It is good news for the industry that poker is getting picked out as a game of skill. Being able to politically separate ourselves from other forms of gambling is good for the survival of the game. But the best thing about poker - for professional and recreational players alike - is that poker is a game of skill with enough luck that anyone can win on any given day.

That's what got you into the game and that is ultimately why you will make money from it.

By Barry Carter