Gambler or Poker Player? - You are?
I find that I always get sucked into playing a little roulette or blackjack after a decent size poker win. Is this a bad thing? I would much rather be considered a poker player than just another gambler.
Note: This goes for online also..haha. Damn online Blackjack.
Note: This goes for online also..haha. Damn online Blackjack.
Comments
I see him roll up to 1200 and he's telling me how when poker goes poorly he likes to "sulk" on blackjack
he tells me, wow I'm now up 300 for the night! I say why don't you just cash out, he replies no no I'm not done sulking(as appose to gambling). In the next 30 minutes he looses it all, he then proceeds to draw out another 300 out of the atm drops that, then another 200 and he is done for the morning.
I've never played blackjack before and after that experience I never will, I play poker for a part-time income and I do well at it, recognize when your playing poorly and stop(that's when you start really gambling), work on putting people on reads, be patient and then you know your controlling your gambling. Funny thing is I never talked to a blackjack player that said it was a profitable game, actually everone I've watched has advised me never to play and I will continue to follow this advise.
I do not consider my poker playing gambling since I am a "slightly" winning player.
IMO - Playing poker is gambling. Every wager (note, i used the word 'wager') is based on a certain return expectation. This is why we use odds to calculate the right action for any given situation.
The major difference between casino poker and other casino games is the involvement of other players. The wagers available in other games in the casino are all set up with negative expectation value for the player, positive for the house. In the poker room, they don't care who wins. They take rake, time charge, whatever... But the players are still gambling against each other.
A poker player is a gambler, whether you want to call it that or not.
GAMBLE: 1. To risk or bet something of value on the outcome of an event, a game of chance
2. To take a risk to obtain a desired result
3. To wager or bet (something of value)
4. To lose or squander by wagering or taking risks
POKER: 1. Any of several games of cards in which the players bet on the value of the cards dealt to them, the winner being he whose hand contains the cards of highest value.
By these definitions, a poker player is indeed a gambler. I would tend to think that BOTH definitions are synomous with each other.
Investing is a big gamble. Ask any broker. There's always a risk involved, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable.
Yes, the dictionary definition of gambling is a little too broad. According to sense #2, driving a car is gambling.
So is drinking a glass of water.
Desired result: Thirst quenched.
Risk taken: Incompetent and/or corrupt government officials may be in charge of the safety of the water supply in your region.
That being said, poker (if played for money or something otherwise valuable) is gambling in the everyday sense of the word.1 It is different than many forms of gambling in the sense that it is one of the few gambling situations where sufficient skill may allow you to be gambling in a positive expectation game.
ScottyZ
1The everyday sense being most accurately defined by dictionary sense #1.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Agreed, but I think they are nested. Every professional poker player is a professional gambler, but every professional gambler is not a professional poker player.
Or, to put it more generally, all poker is gambling1, but all gambling is not poker.
ScottyZ
1Again, if it is played for money or something else that is valuable to the players.
I like that. Sums it up.
Even if I roll 10 6's on a pair of dice before rolling the 7 it doesn't change the fact I got my money in with the worst of it even tho I won. As we have all seen, just because you give someone an even money shot to draw to their flush, doesn't mean they are going to miss it. It just means they put their money in with the worst of it and hit. Our society is just stupid when it comes to gambling just look at the whole Rick Tochett thing. Yet the same government is addicted to our gambling and encourage us to buy lottos, powerballs, scratch tickets or go to a casino. But heaven forbit should we actually bet on sports unless it's the good old government approved proline.
You just gotta be smart and know your limits. Going Charlie Sheen is just not an option for me...
I disagree with this, but it's merely semantics. I simply prefer something like the dictionary (sense #1) definition from earlier in the thread. You may not, and that's fair enough. The key idea for me is that, IMO, something is gambling for both of two parties, even though one may happen to have the best of it (including having the best of it in the long run) over the other.
The way I like to think of it is that the casinos owned by MGM-Mirage (say) consistently make money in the long run by gambling. Even though they operate (for the most part) with positive expectation against their customers, they are still engaged in gambling in the everyday sense of the word.
In contrast, Microsoft consistently makes money in the long run by engaging in non-gambling activities.
Both of these operations certainly take on significant monetary risks in their day-to-day operations, but, IMO, one of them is engaged in gambling, and one is not.
Does anyone else keep hearing this as if it was spoken by Yoda?
ScottyZ
I think Scotty summed it up well.
Actually, no this is not a 'gamble' The outcome is set in stone, down through the ages it's always the same result...she says 'yes' and shortly after stops putting out!
Second, MARRIAGE IS BETTER THAN :ah :9h!!!
I will disagree that the Mirage makes money by gambling. They are a business that allows their customers to gamble. They are NOT in the business of gambling. If they were they would not take such an stand as they do about card counters and others who can turn the tables into their favour. To them card counters "Cheat" them out of their profit that they expect to make.
In a game like poker they rake the pot, take their session fee or whatever and they really don't care who wins or loses as long as they get their cut. Sports betting is the same, as long as they get equal action then it doesn't matter to them. Most other games they offer, they have the best of it, know it and you cannot beat it unless you cheat.
Tho at the end of the day who really cares about it unless your Wayne Gretsky or an NHL player who happened to place a bet with Rick Tochett.
Fair enough. We simply disagree on the very definition of the word gambling, and there is not really any further basis for discussion.
Good point. Operating a poker table specifically is not gambling (according to my defintion of gambling), due to the reasons you mentioned.
I disagree here. Even sportsbooks, although they attempt to minimize their total risk as much as possible through setting the line, etc., still participate in gambling (again, according to my definition, maybe not others') with their customers. It is possible for a sportsbook to lose money on a particular event.
Though I'm sure I'm a broken record by now, I still consider gambling with the best of it to be gambling. (Even ignoring the possibility of cheating.)
I guess my litmus test for gambling would be "Is the Mirage guaranteed to not lose money during any individual hand/spin/football game/etc?" The operation is gambling if and only if the answer to that question is no.
ScottyZ