Poker

[wphelan]

I figure every forum could use at least one good poker thread. Anyone here play regularly or semi-regularly? Has anyone never played at all? I'm just fascinated by the game. I used to play all the time when I lived in Las Vegas, and I miss the live poker action. I play online from time to time, but it's not nearly as much fun. I manage to play a little bit in a local game sometimes, but it's Hold 'Em tournaments only. I've always been a bigger fan of cash games.

[Dominick]

:clap:
Me !
I started playing NL Hold'em some months ago. Only online though. I love it. Especially the tournaments, I hardly ever play sit & go. Recently I've been playing real money tournaments too and that is even more fun. My bankroll is going up slowly but steady.
I have two 4th places under the belt and a few dozen Top10-20 finishes. I almost always cash. That is, if I manage to bear the patience to play my game, which is tight-aggressive. If I play loose I'm screwed. I'm not a gambler but a maths guy.

[The Drunk Guy]

I play casually and never online. We used to have a guys poker night fairly frequently and we played lots of games, most of which I have forgotten. I miss that "Dealer's Choice" style of table play. Plus, it feels so much better to say, "I'm gonna go blow your money," rather than type it. ;)

[Americano]

I also lived in Vegas and knew several professional gamblers, some of whom made a rather decent living off tourists in Casino card rooms. All were more mathematician than gambler and could instantly quote the changing odds as each each card was dealt. I equate their vocation to the current independent equity markets day traders.

[Michael]

I've never really played the game since I was a teenager - and even then it was only just for pennies or fun (or clothes) - never serious.

I've just never had any interest at all in gambling of any kind, though I do love to play card games and always have played lots of them since I was a little kid - still play cards nowadays too (euchre, hearts or whist). I also enjoy going to the horsetrack occasionally and betting on the races, that's always lots of fun, but once a year is enough for me - don't know why, but betting money just holds no interest to me. :shrug:

I do like to place nominal $1 bets on things like who's going to win something - that's fun, but that's more like keeping score than actual betting.

[Dominick]

I've never really played the game since I was a teenager - and even then it was only just for pennies or fun (or clothes) - never serious.

I've just never had any interest at all in gambling of any kind, though I do love to play card games and always have played lots of them since I was a little kid - still play cards nowadays too (euchre, hearts or whist). I also enjoy going to the horsetrack occasionally and betting on the races, that's always lots of fun, but once a year is enough for me - don't know why, but betting money just holds no interest to me. :shrug:

I do like to place nominal $1 bets on things like who's going to win something - that's fun, but that's more like keeping score than actual betting.
It's NOT gambling. :)
KKns vs. KJns preflop : 89.72/9.13/1.15
AA against 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 players : 85.3/73.4/63.9/55.9/49.2/43.6/38.8/34.7/31.1
Hitting set on the flop with pocket pair : 11.8

And then there's pot odds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds), implied pot odds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds#Implied_pot_odds) and equity (http://www.reviewpokerrooms.com/poker-games/texas-holdem/heads-up.html).

[wphelan]

It's NOT gambling. :)
KKns vs. KJns preflop : 89.72/9.13/1.15
AA against 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 players : 85.3/73.4/63.9/55.9/49.2/43.6/38.8/34.7/31.1
Hitting set on the flop with pocket pair : 11.8

And then there's pot odds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds), implied pot odds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds#Implied_pot_odds) and equity (http://www.reviewpokerrooms.com/poker-games/texas-holdem/heads-up.html).

I don't know if you're being serious, but I'm going to disagree with you here anyway. Mostly because I've always wanted to use this: :onguard: :D

Anyway, poker is definitely gambling. Anytime you wager money on an unknown random outcome, I consider it gambling. It comes down to understanding the game and the math behind it to put yourself in the favored position as often as possible.

For example, lets say you're playing hold 'em heads up. You're dealt AA preflop. Your opponent is dealt KK. You're going to win the hand about eighty percent of the time. If, for whatever reason, you knew without a doubt your opponent had KK, how much would you be willing to bet on that hand? Probably quite a bit. But would you bet your entire poker bankroll? Your entire checking account? Your total net worth?

My point is, every individual hand is a gamble, and that is part of what makes the game so much fun (and maddening). It's also what keeps the bad players coming back. There's enough variance that they can win any given hand, or any given session, but in the long run, they're going to give it all back.

Casinos gamble every day. However, they're smart enough to have the math in their favor so that there is no realistic chance they'll lose. I'd like to think good poker players do the same. :)

[Michael]

It's NOT gambling. :)

Take away the money and poker does not become a 'regular card game'. Indeed, without wagers, the game becomes nonsense.

Ergo, poker is a 'game of gambling' plain and simple.

[Dominick]

I don't know if you're being serious, but I'm going to disagree with you here anyway. Mostly because I've always wanted to use this: :onguard: :D

Anyway, poker is definitely gambling. Anytime you wager money on an unknown random outcome, I consider it gambling. It comes down to understanding the game and the math behind it to put yourself in the favored position as often as possible.

For example, lets say you're playing hold 'em heads up. You're dealt AA preflop. Your opponent is dealt KK. You're going to win the hand about eighty percent of the time. If, for whatever reason, you knew without a doubt your opponent had KK, how much would you be willing to bet on that hand? Probably quite a bit. But would you bet your entire poker bankroll? Your entire checking account? Your total net worth?

My point is, every individual hand is a gamble, and that is part of what makes the game so much fun (and maddening). It's also what keeps the bad players coming back. There's enough variance that they can win any given hand, or any given session, but in the long run, they're going to give it all back.

Casinos gamble every day. However, they're smart enough to have the math in their favor so that there is no realistic chance they'll lose. I'd like to think good poker players do the same. :)

Take away the money and poker does not become a 'regular card game'. Indeed, without wagers, the game becomes nonsense.

Ergo, poker is a 'game of gambling' plain and simple.
I was actually semi-serious.
But since you guys take it serious, here goes ;)


gamble n. play games of chance for money
Thus, to be classified as gambling there are three conditions:
1. It has to be a game. Check.
2. It has to involve the exchange of money. Check.
3. It has to be predicated upon chance. Uh Oh.

We, or at least, I am speaking strictly of the Texas Hold'em variant, not of poker in general. And Texas Hold'em is definitely not entirely predicated upon chance. Unlike roulette or throwing dices there is plenty of information in the game.

First, at he lowest level there is probability (which is not the same as chance). As wphelan mentions when you hold AA and someone else holds KK you know you will win the hand 81 times out of hundred. Contrary, when you throw a dice any choice will have the same chance, i.e. be random, which is not the case with AA vs. KK.

Secondly there are the aforementioned pot odds and equity which give the range of a bet in purely mathematical terms. It doesn't matter what your opponents have in the calculation of these bets. This is a long term strategy based upon statistics, not chance. So, to answer wphelan's question about the height of a bet, the answer is that this entirely depends upon equity. In five consecutive cases of AA vs. KK with each requiring one fifth of my total net worth (more would of course be impossible) I would definitely go for it as I would end up with 180% of the original net worth (four times double up from 20 to 40 and one loss of 20).

But, that is only the most basic level of the game (And it would be boring and uninteresting to me if that were all it was). Unlike games of chance, the history in the game does make a difference. The chance of having 6 when rolling a dice is always 1 in 6 no matter what happened before. Not so in Texas Hold'em where there is the human component.

First there is position. If the game were predicated upon chance it would make no difference whether you played say A10 under the gun (the first to act after the blinds) or as the dealer (the last to act). But this isn't the case. As the dealer pretty much any card is a stronge card and will give you the blinds if played well.

Then there are the stacks. Simply having the largest stack will hand you most hands.

And that brings us to the crux of the matter : the psychology of the game, which constitutes at least 75% of the game. You're playing people, not a rolling ball or a dice. and those people each have their own specific behaviour and playing technique. It's hard to explain in writing. One should participate in it or at least watch a table all the way to get an idea of this.

[Multiplum]

I like watching the top players and their reading abilities, but I stink. I hardly even know the rules. And I suck with maths. Also, tight with money.

I'd like to play with friends, but the few I have who are interested, don't play together anymore.

[wphelan]

I was actually semi-serious.
But since you guys take it serious, here goes ;)


Thus, to be classified as gambling there are three conditions:
1. It has to be a game. Check.
2. It has to involve the exchange of money. Check.
3. It has to be predicated upon chance. Uh Oh.

We, or at least, I am speaking strictly of the Texas Hold'em variant, not of poker in general. And Texas Hold'em is definitely not entirely predicated upon chance. Unlike roulette or throwing dices there is plenty of information in the game.

First, at he lowest level there is probability (which is not the same as chance).

Does it have to be entirely predicated on chance to be considered gambling? Clearly, there is an aspect of luck involved in the game. To be clear, I am in no way denying there is skill involved. I know it for a fact to be true. It is absolutely possible for good players to play the game in such a way that in the long run they will win more than they lose.

However, let's say two players are playing heads up and and both are all-in after the turn card. All betting is complete, and when they flip their cards over, the players each have a fifty percent chance of winning, depending on the last card. Chance determines the winner.

What's the difference between probability and chance?




As wphelan mentions when you hold AA and someone else holds KK you know you will win the hand 81 times out of hundred. Contrary, when you throw a dice any choice will have the same chance, i.e. be random, which is not the case with AA vs. KK.

The outcome of any given hand is also random (unless you're playing in a crooked game.) You can know the probability of the outcome should be, but the actual outcome of a given hand is left to chance.

Secondly there are the aforementioned pot odds and equity which give the range of a bet in purely mathematical terms. It doesn't matter what your opponents have in the calculation of these bets. This is a long term strategy based upon statistics, not chance. So, to answer wphelan's question about the height of a bet, the answer is that this entirely depends upon equity. In five consecutive cases of AA vs. KK with each requiring one fifth of my total net worth (more would of course be impossible) I would definitely go for it as I would end up with 180% of the original net worth (four times double up from 20 to 40 and one loss of 20).

Pot odds and equity are indeed important in determining long term strategy. However, my argument is concerned with the short-term. I'm arguing that poker (including Texas hold 'em) is gambling because every individual hand is a gamble. Betting one-fifth of your net worth in five consecutive cases of AA vs KK is of course better than betting your total net worth on one case because each additional trial will reduce variance and make it more likely that you will approach the expected value of the situation.

You wouldn't consider betting your entire networth on one hand, regardless of the pot odds and equity, to be gambling? To me, that seems like the very definition of gambling.

But, that is only the most basic level of the game (And it would be boring and uninteresting to me if that were all it was). Unlike games of chance, the history in the game does make a difference. The chance of having 6 when rolling a dice is always 1 in 6 no matter what happened before. Not so in Texas Hold'em where there is the human component.

First there is position. If the game were predicated upon chance it would make no difference whether you played say A10 under the gun (the first to act after the blinds) or as the dealer (the last to act). But this isn't the case. As the dealer pretty much any card is a stronge card and will give you the blinds if played well.

Then there are the stacks. Simply having the largest stack will hand you most hands.

And that brings us to the crux of the matter : the psychology of the game, which constitutes at least 75% of the game. You're playing people, not a rolling ball or a dice. and those people each have their own specific behaviour and playing technique. It's hard to explain in writing. One should participate in it or at least watch a table all the way to get an idea of this.

All this is definitely what makes the game so interesting. It's also what makes it possible for good players to manipulate the game to their advantage. Poker is not entirely predicated on chance. Far from it. There's no doubt about that. However, chance is involved. I'm saying that every given hand is a gamble. Every session is a gamble. That's why bankroll management is another important skill.

In this game, it's possible to play a hand perfectly and still lose. Remember what Phil Hellmuth said when talking about the World Series of Poker main event: "If luck weren't involved, I'd win every one." :D

[Greendruid]

Let's see where this leads ...

Is betting on horse-racing gambling? I would assume it satisfies the three criteria Dominick outlines but you might conceivably argue that the horse and jockey are different for each pairing and would, therefore, not be entirely based on chance. Each horse has a known history of racing (or none at all) and therefore has a proven performance record of a particular caliber.

[Dominick]

Does it have to be entirely predicated on chance to be considered gambling?
Yes, that's the basic criterion around here. I think I mentioned it before that this is a typical materialistic (in the science sense) definition while that in the US is moralistic (the involvement of money makes the difference).


Clearly, there is an aspect of luck involved in the game. To be clear, I am in no way denying there is skill involved. I know it for a fact to be true. It is absolutely possible for good players to play the game in such a way that in the long run they will win more than they lose.

However, let's say two players are playing heads up and and both are all-in after the turn card. All betting is complete, and when they flip their cards over, the players each have a fifty percent chance of winning, depending on the last card. Chance determines the winner.
Sure, there's an element of chance in it. I'm not denying that.*
But that's only at its most basic level when you break the game down to its smallest constituents as you did in the above example. You're not correct though when you claim that the odds at that precise moment are 50/50. They could very well be 100/0 on the river. And that's what sets chance apart from probability. See below.


What's the difference between probability and chance?

The outcome of any given hand is also random (unless you're playing in a crooked game.) You can know the probability of the outcome should be, but the actual outcome of a given hand is left to chance.
Chance is a special case of probability where the odds are always equal and immutable. This is the case with roulette e.g. Every turn of the wheel gives the exact same odds for each and every outcome. The knowledge of these odds cannot be affected in any way (safe cheating of course) and is completely independent from the result of previous spins of the wheel.

In TH poker the exact same hand for all players will not necessarily give rise to the exact same outcome. Even the winner of the hand may be different. The difference is in both the behaviour of the human players and the accumulated knowledge thereof by all the players. You may go all-in shortstacked with KJ and a player with QQ may fold one hand while in the very next hand with the same cards he may call with an entirely different outcome.


Pot odds and equity are indeed important in determining long term strategy. However, my argument is concerned with the short-term. I'm arguing that poker (including Texas hold 'em) is gambling because every individual hand is a gamble. Betting one-fifth of your net worth in five consecutive cases of AA vs KK is of course better than betting your total net worth on one case because each additional trial will reduce variance and make it more likely that you will approach the expected value of the situation.

You wouldn't consider betting your entire networth on one hand, regardless of the pot odds and equity, to be gambling? To me, that seems like the very definition of gambling.
Then we're simply speaking of poor play vs. good play. Succes in poker is a long term strategy. The outcome of individual hands isn't all that important in that respect. So, yes you could play poker as a pure game of chance but it's way too reductionistic to allow for this exception to be the hallmark for classification. You can drive a car purely on chance too. Surely driving isn't a random undertaking for that reason ?


All this is definitely what makes the game so interesting. It's also what makes it possible for good players to manipulate the game to their advantage. Poker is not entirely predicated on chance. Far from it. There's no doubt about that. However, chance is involved. I'm saying that every given hand is a gamble. Every session is a gamble. That's why bankroll management is another important skill.

In this game, it's possible to play a hand perfectly and still lose. Remember what Phil Hellmuth said when talking about the World Series of Poker main event: "If luck weren't involved, I'd win every one." :D
The turn of a single card is chance. Everything above that level is heavily influenced by human behaviour and actions. Multiplum mentioned 'reads'. If you know The Brat, you should also know the Devilfish. I've seen him read the exact hand of Phil Hellmuth pre-flop. How's that for information and skill ? :)


* Actually, since the universe is probabilistic there's an element of chance in literally everything but let's not go there :)

[Dominick]

It's not the one I referred to but here's another great read by the Devilfish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0fJFPhK57Q
What chance ? :D

[Dominick]

Let's see where this leads ...

Is betting on horse-racing gambling? I would assume it satisfies the three criteria Dominick outlines but you might conceivably argue that the horse and jockey are different for each pairing and would, therefore, not be entirely based on chance. Each horse has a known history of racing (or none at all) and therefore has a proven performance record of a particular caliber.
I put it in the same class as TH poker for the very reasons you mention. Thus not gambling.

[wphelan]

Yes, that's the basic criterion around here. I think I mentioned it before that this is a typical materialistic (in the science sense) definition while that in the US is moralistic (the involvement of money makes the difference).
Yeah, it's becoming pretty clear we're using different definitions for the term 'gambling.' The US definition probably does have moralistic roots, but I'm not sure it entirely retains that sense today. What kind of game would you call poker? It falls somewhere in between a game of pure skill (darts) and a game of pure chance (roulette).

Sure, there's an element of chance in it. I'm not denying that.*
But that's only at its most basic level when you break the game down to its smallest constituents as you did in the above example. You're not correct though when you claim that the odds at that precise moment are 50/50. They could very well be 100/0 on the river. And that's what sets chance apart from probability. See below.

I wasn't clear in my example. I meant to set up a situation in which the odds at that point are 50/50, mean each player has the same number of outs to win the hand. In that particular situation, the results are left to chance. I understand the odds in that situation can range from 100/0 to 0/100 depending on the cards on the board and the cards the players are holding.

My point is that hold 'em contains elements of chance in specific situations. There are some situations where the player must decide whether to allow chance to decide the outcome. For example, a player is holding a pair pre-flop against an opponent whom the player puts on two over-cards. If it's heads up and the players are evenly stacked, the player, using skill and information, has reached a point where he has to decide whether or not to leave the outcome up to what is essentially a 50/50 chance.


Chance is a special case of probability where the odds are always equal and immutable. This is the case with roulette e.g. Every turn of the wheel gives the exact same odds for each and every outcome. The knowledge of these odds cannot be affected in any way (safe cheating of course) and is completely independent from the result of previous spins of the wheel.

In TH poker the exact same hand for all players will not necessarily give rise to the exact same outcome. Even the winner of the hand may be different. The difference is in both the behaviour of the human players and the accumulated knowledge thereof by all the players. You may go all-in shortstacked with KJ and a player with QQ may fold one hand while in the very next hand with the same cards he may call with an entirely different outcome.

Then we're simply speaking of poor play vs. good play. Succes in poker is a long term strategy. The outcome of individual hands isn't all that important in that respect. So, yes you could play poker as a pure game of chance but it's way too reductionistic to allow for this exception to be the hallmark for classification. You can drive a car purely on chance too. Surely driving isn't a random undertaking for that reason ?


The turn of a single card is chance. Everything above that level is heavily influenced by human behaviour and actions. Multiplum mentioned 'reads'. If you know The Brat, you should also know the Devilfish. I've seen him read the exact hand of Phil Hellmuth pre-flop. How's that for information and skill ? :)


* Actually, since the universe is probabilistic there's an element of chance in literally everything but let's not go there :)

I completely get what you're saying, but I guess I'm wondering what you call poker then, if not gambling? What category of game is it? I don't know another word for it. What do you a call a game where you can play a hand perfectly, you'd play it the exact same way even after reviewing the outcome, and yet you still lose? I understand in the long run you'll win if your long-term strategy is a good one.

Furthermore, what do you consider sports betting and horse racing? Using your definition, I would guess they aren't gambling. Do you consider blackjack to be gambling? Depending on the structure of the game, there can be enough information to gain an edge and win in the long run. Just curious. EDIT: Just your reply to Greendruid that says horse racing is also not gambling. But I still wonder what you would call it.


On a different note, maybe we can do some hand analysis in this thread as well. I always find that interesting.

[Dominick]

I'm currently chipleader in a WSOP freeroll tournament with 5 players left. Las Vegas, here I come :bounce:

Update, ok, I was chipleader. :mad:

[Dominick]

Yeah, it's becoming pretty clear we're using different definitions for the term 'gambling.' The US definition probably does have moralistic roots, but I'm not sure it entirely retains that sense today. What kind of game would you call poker? It falls somewhere in between a game of pure skill (darts) and a game of pure chance (roulette).

There's five pages of legalese to define this group of games which somewhat lazily could be translated as 'mixed' :D
But I have to retract some of it. Apparently the current right wing administration has introduced a bill that's no longer based on this distinction but is simple nepotism. The current, not online, casinos, with wealthy owners who are no doubt well connected to members of the administration, get pretty much carte blanche while startups are next to impossible.


I wasn't clear in my example. I meant to set up a situation in which the odds at that point are 50/50, mean each player has the same number of outs to win the hand. In that particular situation, the results are left to chance. I understand the odds in that situation can range from 100/0 to 0/100 depending on the cards on the board and the cards the players are holding.

My point is that hold 'em contains elements of chance in specific situations. There are some situations where the player must decide whether to allow chance to decide the outcome. For example, a player is holding a pair pre-flop against an opponent whom the player puts on two over-cards. If it's heads up and the players are evenly stacked, the player, using skill and information, has reached a point where he has to decide whether or not to leave the outcome up to what is essentially a 50/50 chance.
Even with identical hole cards the outcome of the hand is not 50/50. Let's say we both hold second pair with king kicker. And assume I've built up a very tight table image. I bet the pot which happens to be substantial. Are you going to call ? Probably not. It's always the humans that decide the outcome of a hand, not the cards. You may know Annette Obrestad, the very young but already highly succesful girl player ? She once won a 160-player tournament without looking at her hole cards, purely through position, reads and attitude.
Let's say that complete noobs are far more influenced by chance than good or experienced players.


I completely get what you're saying, but I guess I'm wondering what you call poker then, if not gambling? What category of game is it? I don't know another word for it. What do you a call a game where you can play a hand perfectly, you'd play it the exact same way even after reviewing the outcome, and yet you still lose? I understand in the long run you'll win if your long-term strategy is a good one.

Furthermore, what do you consider sports betting and horse racing? Using your definition, I would guess they aren't gambling. Do you consider blackjack to be gambling? Depending on the structure of the game, there can be enough information to gain an edge and win in the long run. Just curious. EDIT: Just your reply to Greendruid that says horse racing is also not gambling. But I still wonder what you would call it.
Well, just "mixed". There isn't actually a word in Dutch that classifies such games.


On a different note, maybe we can do some hand analysis in this thread as well. I always find that interesting.
Gladly, though there isn't a hand I always play the same. How do you generally playhands such as 33 44 or 55 ?

[Dominick]

Dude that knocked me out in 3rd place in a heat of the WSOP freeroll just won the $12,000 ticket to Las Vegas. Makes you wonder....

[wphelan]

Dude that knocked me out in 3rd place in a heat of the WSOP freeroll just won the $12,000 ticket to Las Vegas. Makes you wonder....

What site(s) you play on?