I’m trying to convince people that it’s not, but I wanted to see what arguments are out there. Preferably, examples should be about hold 'em.
My main argument is about odds. If you will make your hand 1 out of 3 times (1:3), you need to call/raise at 3.1:1 or better to be guaranteed to make money on the hand. Conversely, if you have the best hand, you have to bet to give worse odds if they need 1:3 to win, or 2.9:1. Also, cards are nearly irrelevant if you have a solid read on someone. If you can beat someone consistently, the cards are usually inconsequential.
By any normal definition of gambling, yes of course it is. It does not cease to be gambling just because there is skill involved (if you are a good player). Even if it were entirely a game of skill, it would still be gambling - it is gambling when a trainer or jockey bets on his own horse in a horse race, too - but, frankly, I think you are kidding yourself if if you think there is not still a large chance element in poker, even for the best players.
Name any game of skill where chance is not a factor.
Let’s say you have 1 in 20 chance on the last card of making a hand that will beat anything your opponent has. If it was gambling, you’d have no control of the outcome and the only factor is whether the card comes or not. In poker, however, by betting the odds, whether the card comes or not is irrelevant but you will make money every time that play happens.
Do you wager on the outcome of the hands (money, matchsticks, gumdrops, etc.?)
If so, GAMBLING. If not, merely a card game.
You could play poker so that it’s not a gambling game, but few people do. The odds involved and the skill involved have nothing to do with it. You can gamble on crazy eights, and you can play blackjack for fun.⇈
As njtt points out, putting money on a result means it is gambling.
Superhal, I think you mean ‘is poker a game of more skill or more luck?’
Chess is a game of pure skill; tossing a coin honestly is pure luck.
I’m confident poker is more skill than luck, but you need to look at the long run.
For example, your statement above ‘If you will make your hand 1 out of 3 times (1:3), you need to call/raise at 3.1:1 or better to be guaranteed to make money on the hand.’ is inaccurate.
The odds can certainly suggest the correct amount to bet, but:
you are not guaranteed to make money on one hand (in your example you lose money two times out of three)
Chess. Go. Checkers. Nim, even though perfect play for this game is a solved problem. A large number of the abstract strategy games in the world, in fact.
Following through on the thoughts expressed: If I bet I can beat my son is a game of Go I am gambling even though there is no element of chance involved.
Yes, poker is gambling, and no, it doesn’t work quite the way you seem to think it does. If it did, you’d have multiple bracelets from the World Series of Poker, and Phil Helmuth would be your bitch.
Yes, poker is gambling because it does involve an element of chance. It is in the small group of games where skill plays a real part - poker, blackjack, possibly baccarat and its variants. But skill and odds are only part of the equation; chance is integral and thus makes poker (for money) gambling no matter how you analyze it.
There is a chance a bird will pick off my drive in mid-air and carry it away. That doesn’t mean golf is a game of chance. But betting on my skill at the game (or lack thereof) is still gambling by any rational definition.
Poker is 100% gambling. But there’s a big difference between slot machines or craps, where it’s absolutely certain that the odds are guaranteed against you, and you will lose in the long run PERIOD no matter what, and poker, where if you’re more skilled than your opponents, you will come out ahead in the long run.
But I’ve never heard of a definition of gambling that poker doesn’t fit.
Gambling is betting on the outcome of an event that is not predetermined. You can’t play a proper game of poker without betting. Poker is gambling.
Betting on games of pure skill noted above (e.g., chess) would be gambling, because the outcome is not predetermined. If it were, there would be no point in playing the game.
The outcome of a poker game is influenced by the skill of the players, but by design includes an element of chance. It’s one of the few games where both skills and chance are important elements (I can’t think of another except blackjack). Other casino games are pure chance.
It really depends on your definition of gambling. For me, it’s whether chance is the deciding factor in the long term outcome. With poker, that really depends on the player. Yes, there is chance involved in the outcome of a single hand for all players, but skilled players who play many many hands are statistically assured of coming out ahead. Or, to put it another way, when the casinos in Las Vegas operate five hundred slot machines and twenty blackjack tables, would you say they’re gambling?
Blackjack has an optimal strategy that reduces the advantage of the casino. But this strategy is rather easy to learn, and never overcomes the casino’s advantage. So it’s skill, but in only a very basic sense - like how the poker player who knows the rank of hands does better than one who doesn’t.
For many people, poker and card counting in blackjack are both forms of gambling because of variance. Many people don’t have a large enough bankroll to minimize their risk of ruin even if they are sufficiently skilled for optimal play. For those with the bankroll, it’s more of an investment like playing the stock market.
Listen to the Kenny Rogers song “The Gambler.” What kind of gambling does the title character engage in? It doesn’t even have to be explicitly stated: it’s obviously poker.