I define a ‘gamble’ as 'a wager where the placer has the rational capacity to understand that the expected outcome is < 1 '. So poker isn’t gambling if you’re as good at it as you think you are.
So if you and I bet $50 on a coin flip it’s not gambling?
Ok, =< 1
True, there is an element missing, though I’m hard-pressed to put what that is into words. I do think that “element of chance” misses the mark for the reasons that Airk laid out.
Then again, I suppose chance is all subjective. I mean, even if the way the dice are going to fall is absolutely deterministic in a mechanical way, it’s still totally random from my point of view.
So if I liquidate all my assets, sit down with them at a high stakes poker game, and risk it all on the first hand when I happen to know that I have a 55/45 edge … we don’t want to call that gambling?
To me, part of the definition has to include the winner/loser aspect.
To wit: If I place wager with you that Apple will make more profit per share than Facebook next quarter, that is somehow different than me actually buying Apple stock (or shorting Facebook).
The requirement that the wager have two sides and be zero-sum seems important (minus the vig, if any). A financial transaction is often a net win for both sides, which seems to invalidate any claim that it’s gambling.
I think what’s missing is the lack of influence or control- presumably my good or bad decisions will influence whether or not my business makes money but I can’t influence whether the comet is brighter tomorrow, or whether the princess has a boy or a girl or whether the value of stock in Company A goes up or down. Sure I can choose whether to buy Company A stock or not - but that doesn’t influence whether the value goes up or down. Just like betting that the princess will have a boy doesn’t influence whetehr she has a boy or a girl.
I genuinely don’t know what you mean, which is why I asked for examples.
You say these situations occur all the time in chess, so why can’t you give me a few?
You had a separate question:
Yes, this does happen regularly.
I remember discussing this with another experienced player, who used to get into time trouble choosing e.g. between Bc1-f4 and Bc1-Bg5. Assume both are sound movesand there seems to be no perceptible difference.
I pick the move I first thought of…
This cheating has actually happened!
-
One of the earliest known cases of using technology to cheat occurred in the 1993 World Open. An unrated newcomer wearing headphones used the name “John von Neumann” (matching the name of a famous computer science pioneer), and scored 4½/9 in the Open Section, including a draw with a grandmaster and a win over a 2350-rated player. This player seemed to have a suspicious bulge in one of his pockets, which appeared to make a soft humming or buzzing sound at important points in the game. When he was quizzed by the tournament director, he was unable to demonstrate even a rudimentary knowledge of some simple chess concepts, and he was disqualified.
-
In the 2010 FIDE Olympiad Tournament at Khanty-Mansiysk, three French players were caught in a scheme to use a computer program to decide moves. Their plan involved one player, Cyril Marzolo, following the tournament at home and using the computer program to decide the best moves. He would send the moves by SMS to another player, Arnaud Hauchard, who would then stand or sit at various tables as a signal to the player, Sebastian Feller, to make a certain move. Sebastian Feller and Cyril Marzolo were given five-year suspensions for this. Arnaud Hauchard was given a lifetime suspension. Unlike other cases, each player involved was a legitimate Grandmaster or International Master. None of the other players on the team knew of this or were involved.
All you need is access to a strong modern chess computer (Fischer + Kasparov are gilding the lily 
) and you can win the game initially.
However you will have to explain afterwards why all your moves match that of the computer program (because you daren’t deviate from the computer analysis.)
And that is when you can be disqualified.
As for a beginner achieving this by luck, I’ll do some estimating:
- assume a typical international tournament game lasts 40 moves for each side
- after the opening, there are around 30 legal moves in a position (less in the opening or when in check, but this is a reasonable approximation)
- of those 30 moves, perhaps 3 are excellent, 6 are good, 9 are playable and 12 are blunders (this is just an informed guess, based on my experience)
So to draw against a Grandmaster our beginner has to choose a 1 in 6 chance (mere ‘playable’ moves don’t work against GMs!) 40 times in a row.
To beat the GM, he needs to hit a 1 in 6 chance 40 times in a row.
You have a better chance of beating a GM by hoping his mobile phone goes off during the game. :smack:
Oh, I was posting an extreme situation, deliberately exaggerated for effect. I’m quite aware that the chance of the complete novice winning through luck are beyond astronomical. But one might well still have some influence of luck, even in a more realistic situation. And this is in fact evidenced: When the same two players play each other, the same one doesn’t always win. How else can a weaker player beating a stronger player be explained, besides luck?
Examples aren’t always the best way to explain something, and I think that’s the case here, because I’m talking about what’s known and unknown to the players, not just what is on the board.
All I am saying is that a move will have unforeseen consequences as a line gets played out. Surely you agree with that as it follows from the fact we don’t have infinite computing power.
Exactly, and that’s one example. Maybe a few moves later you see Bf4 allows the possibility of pushing an attack, whereas Bg5, after the dust settles, is a dead draw.
Well there are some answers to that besides luck (e.g. perhaps the weaker player knows a particular line better than the stronger player, perhaps the stronger player lost concentration for a moment etc), but broadly this is what I was getting at.
Much of the enjoyment of chess is that you are exploring this search space, and generating novel positions. If I’m a stronger player than my opponent, I expect to evaluate positions better, or see further, but I can’t see infinitely far ahead and I will discover things as we go along.
I recognise that poker currently qualifies as gambling in a broad sense (there is at least one longtime poker pro and author who even sticks up for its being included under the umbrella term “gambling”). But those of us who play poker with skill need to either try to get poker removed from that category, or rehabilitate the word “gambling”.
In current usage for many people, “gambling” tends to be almost a prefix for “problem”, or at best a way for credulous old folks to waste their money. So I’d like to see “gambling” restricted to those games where the house really does have an advantage over the long run.
Then if someone has a “gambling habit” we can be assured that they, like someone with a drinking problem or an overeater, would be best off if they did less of it. If they are on a winning streak, we can in a way feel even more dread for them as we await the inevitable flaming crash. Whereas a poker player who has just booked a bunch of wins may be on a “heater” of above average “EV”, but if they are a reasonably skilled player, there’s no reason to expect they are going to end up losing it all.
I think I’m confused because you gave such serious consequences following the move choice.
Here are two examples where a player could spend too much time on a choice (but both are playable):
-
d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. cxd5 exd5 4. Nc3 Nf6
… and now either 5. Bf4 or 5. Bg5 are fine -
e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. OO d6 7. d4 exd4 8. cxd4 Bb6
… and now either 9. Bb2 or 9. d5 or 9. h3 are playable (though leading to different strategies)
I agree with Mijin and would add:
- chess is extremely complicated!
- the evaluation of an opening line may have changed
- the weaker player takes wild risks (expecting to lose otherwise)
- the tournament situation may change the style a player takes
- there was drinking the night before :eek:
I started reading this with “of course it’s gambling” in my head, but something different comes to mind now. Consider the Kentucky Derby. It costs something like $50,000 to run your horse, and you can win over $1M, is that gambling? I don’t think I can consider it gambling, it’s a business investment. Pro bowlers and golfers pay money to enter tournaments, with the expectation of earning more money back as a result of their play. They’re not gambling, they’re working.
Betting on who is going to win the Derby or a golf tournament, that is clearly gambling, even though the financial arrangement is quite similar, you put up your money, and win if your horse/golfer wins. Since you are not the one competing, directly involved in the outcome, it is certainly gambling.
On the third hand, if I’m out golfing with my buddies and we put down $5 per hole to ‘make it interesting’, I’m gambling. It’s not a business investment and I’m not working as a Pro Golfer, I’m just putting up money for entertainment purposes.
So, I guess that’s the difference for me. If the bets are for entertainment, it’s gambling, if the bets are for business, it’s not-gambling. Generally speaking, for business, you want the Expected Value to be greater than 1, but some bets with >1 EV are still gambling, if you do it purely for the lulz.
I’ll add another example of results not matching ratings at chess:
I played a player in the local league every year and our ratings were practically identical. Yet I scored 6 wins and a draw (which I nearly won!) I think this was because:
- I was a bit better prepared in the opening
- at first he tried risks to win as his team was significantly weaker than mine
- after the first 4 defeats, he felt under emotional pressure
glee, I’m not sure we have any disagreement at this point.
But just one point: you mentioned just now an inexperienced player “taking wild risks”. What do you suppose we mean by risk in chess, and do you think that among very strong players there is no element of risk?
This question has come up in at least one court case:
I also know that the poker-isn’t-gambling argument has been made to legislators in defense of online poker, but I didn’t find any citations for it.
In partial information games, some “luck” is involved regarding what you don’t know. In games that are in theory perfect information solvable games but in practice not really (like chess) that unknown bit of information is the opponent’s policy function.
If you don’t know all of your opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, there’s luck involved in that you don’t know whether or not they’ll make tactical blunders or astounding insights as reactions to specific moves. If, given perfect information, moves A and B result in an equal number of winning and losing states, given another party without perfect information, A or B may be vastly more likely to be the winning move depending on their likelihood of choosing the wrong branch. In fact, this is a known problem with the simple adversarial game playing algorithm Minimax, which only really works if the opponent is playing “perfectly”.
In Chess, like many games, this arises because it’s (currently) impossible to compute each move to the endgame and pick the true optimal move, and certainly impossible for a human. So each individual player is going to have moves that, unbeknownst to either party, will result way down the line in being better or worse for one party or another’s particular strategy or set of strengths/weaknesses. In fact, it’s not uncommon for high level players of many games to study a high profile opponent’s games and devise a strategy against that player. This is an attempt to offset that luck, but due to the fact that it’s intractable to compute that many moves ahead, still isn’t perfect. You can’t always avoid making the move that has, by absolute number, the highest number of states advantageous to the opponent between that move and checkmate.
In fact, I’d argue it’s impossible to show a specific example of a move with this property, because to show such a move you’d have to compute an intractable number of states just to show the result.
Whether this makes it a “game of luck” is a bit silly, since by that metric any game that is not solved is a “game of luck”, but there is certainly an element of chance involved. When you can’t pick the truly optimal move, you have to try to maximize the chance that the move is optimal. That’s a very skill-based thing, but it still involves chance. And that’s what you do in Chess, Go, or Starcraft, you maximize the chance that the moves you’re making are optimal and minimize the chance of getting into a state where you opponent has opportunities to maximize their own odds.