When is Gambling Not Gambling?
I had a conversation with my mom who has a rather conservative way of thinking. "So how is the poker gambling, are you addicted yet?" she patronisingly asked.
I replied, "Well firstly, I don't consider it gambling for me, more like game theory." Then I asked her, "Consider a tennis tournament where 8 players all pay $100 to enter, and the prizepool is distributed to the winner, is that gambling then?"
"No..."
[She changes subject]
Which got me thinking, where is the line drawn from what we consider to be gambling? And why are some forms of gambling more acceptable then others?
As a nitty STT SNG grinder, I really don't consider myself as being much of a gambler at all. My bankroll management is very conservative, and other then playing the odd lottery here and there, I don't gamble outside poker at all. I've even been to the casino with some mates, who all gamble more then me, happily putting in $150 spreads on the roulette, while I play the minimum black jack tables. I just don't see the point when the house wants you to lose.
I do consider myself a game theorist, because I'm playing to win all the chips. That is the goal, and when you achieve this goal, or lose, the game ends. However, strangely enough, I do consider cash game players to be gamblers. Their game can never end, or can end whenever they want. Chasing losses is easier and more dangerous in cash games. AA vs KK is more costly, and the variance is higher. But with more downswings, can come upswings too, bigger wins quicker, and playing and finding fish are way more profitable in cash then SNGs.
So imagine if I was playing cash, and trying to convince my mom that I wasn't gambling. What would I say? It would be the equivalent of having the same tennis tournament, but instead all players pay money per points. Now it definitely seems more of a gamble...
Many people have compared those in the stock market to poker playing. In fact some have even been hired! You tell your Aunt that your in Stocks and you get a pat on the back and she will turn to her son with a look like, "Son, you should be as successful as him".
But say your a poker player and your a degenerate gambler, thinking he has some code to "beat the house". Of course, who has time to explain to them the difference between SNGs and Cash Games, or even show winning graphs over 2 years, and explain Poker theory and rakeback? If you have time to explain, who has time to listen? Its so hard to get them to understand, and change their stereotypes, especially if they're more conservative. I wonder how many players lie about their careers, even if their winners, just coz its easier (it really is). 50%?
I'm a firm believer in a more liberal approach to trying to understand subjects. Conservatism teaches us from a young age that "this is bad" and "this is good", go to heaven or hell. Well, apparently gambling is bad. Full stop, no explanations needed, and don't you dare even try and question it.
I wonder how many pornstars are truthful to friends and family at what they do for a living? Yes, its absurd comparing Poker player to Pornstars, but seriously its almost that level of judgementalness. Do you guys think that the image of poker has changed?
Comments
Very interesting read, glad I decided to still pop back here from time to time :P
With cash games it's still possible to use conservative bankroll management, just like your SNGs. And I also dispute your point about chasing losses because a good player doesn't do that - just as a good SNG player doesnt tilt and upstake to try and make back their losses. The difference between a cash game and a SNG is that as you say, cash games are endless. There's no ICM involved, and you literally make plays purely based on their expected value. Anything spot with a positive expectation should be taken - there's no "waiting for better spots" in cash games because you just want to maximising your long term EV. Sure it may seem gambling when I check-raise a combo draw and get it in on a ~flip, or indeed get it in preflop with QQ and race vs AK. But as long as these scenarios are +EV then in the long run I will make money. It's a gamble in the short term, but as long as you exhibit good BR management and are certain you will be able to play for the long term then it's no longer the same imo.
The one thing that all winning poker players have in common aside from their inherent edge is a mindset to play for the long term to make the most of this edge. To an observer, when I lose $25 on KK < AA then it seems like ive made a "bad" gamble and lost, but really all I've done is maximise my expectation for the hand and obviously in the long term I'll be making money by getting it in with pocket kings. I think due to the long term element it can't really be considered gambling, even though some people would dispute this.
To use your tennis analogy, I suppose it's like taking two tennis players (where one has a somewhat small edge over the other, say 60-40) and getting them to put up $100 and play one tie-break, winner takes all. Obviously if these players do this once then anything can happen because its a tie-break, and therefore even for the 60% player it's a gamble. But if the one with the edge instead does this as a living, with a large bankroll and the ability to play for the same amount vs the same opponent day in day out, it's no longer gambling.
great post. I have had this argument with my entire family on many occasions. I even had my brother argue that what I was doing was completely illegal and that I was going to end up in jail.
Haha, it was pretty ridiculous. It is damn near impossible to explain to someone who doesn't know an ace from a king that poker is a skill game, and that the luck factor is reduced over time. It's actually pretty insulting when someone who has no clue about poker says that its all luck. Unless you have played hundreds of thousands, if not in the millions of hands, its hard to understand.
I came to the conclusion that I simply won't discuss poker with people who don't understand. Some people have that conservative outlook on everything, and can't wrap their skulls around the whole theory of just getting your money in good.
It can be frustrating, and for me I think it actually had a negative impact on my game for a while. You would rather your friends and family support what you are doing rather than trash it and say its a bunch of nonsense.
They just aren't as intelligent as we are.
Really interesting stuff! I'm not sure about your tennis analogy tho, that to me sounds like it would be a HU SNG match. But yes, in the long run winning players are always going to be making those +ev decisions.
I think Poker is so interesting, because that "gambling" element where no one has any control of how the cards fall adds such an extra dimension to the game. It has the ability to let beginners win by being lucky, and then hooking them in after that and making them interested in the game. There isn't one friend of mine who isn't interested in Poker now, once I start explaining a little bit of strategy and basics to them. To be, the gambling part of poker is what keeps it alive.
To say that there is no element of gambling tho is a bit optimistic, because the best hand pre flop hand might not win. Hell, the best flopped hand, or turned hand might not win. We're all adapting to adjust to each other, and look for those mistakes that others make.
Maybe what constitutes gambling is control. When comparing a 9 man SNG to a tennis tournament, one could argue that the tennis players have almost 90% control of their fate, where as the Poker players could have 50%. When there is less control there is more gamble. Maybe that is why people judge Poker players so quickly, because they think that we're playing one game, putting all our money on it, and leaving 50% to fate. But if we tell them that we're playing 10,000 and only playing 5% of our bankroll, will they still call us gamblers?
I'd be interested to hear whether you Cash Game specialists consider yourselves gamblers...