http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401933.html Another voice for eliminating UIGEA, and a fairly influential one this time.
I'm glad to see his opinion, but I still hate to see poker promoted at the expense of other forms of gambling. I find the whole skill game question puzzling, especially in light of the luck factor in so many other pursuits in life. Even in sports where skill is of utmost importance, luck is always a factor. I'm sure even Tiger Woods has shots where the wind puffs at an inopportune moment to send his perfect shot into the rough. If the debate about online gambling eventually hinges on the definition of skill games versus gambling games, I don't think I'll be pleased by the outcome.
Agree with both of the above posts. It does concern me that the Poker Players Alliance is single-mindedly pushing poker, which is the reason I haven't joined their cause. Our game does rely on some luck, but then so does theirs. Skill plays a role in both, even though the skillset is quite different. I've run into the "BJT's are gambling" attitude quite heavily here in my hometown from those who have no idea what we do. Have tried to explain to them that it isn't gambling - we pay an entry fee, play a game against others, and the most successful players get paid. No money is at risk other than that entry fee, so it's quite similar to what professional golfers or bowlers do - the only difference is how heavily luck influences the outcome. Usually this explanation elicits a blank stare in return. Since we play a game universally associated with gambling, and we do it in a casino, then the conclusion must be that we are gambling, right? I did get a big chuckle out of one comment in Will's article which was attributed to Howard Lederer. It says that video poker "is a game of chance governed by a machine", which some of us here know is a laughable misconception. It was probably a misquote. I'd find it hard to believe that anyone so intelligent & so familiar with casino games could have made such a statement.
Key difference between 'gambling' and 'investment', is that gambling has fixed, or, at least, unfavorable odds based on random chance, and either no skill component or a weak skill component which can not affect the game's outcome enough to overcome the negative probabilities. Investments involve parimutual pools, where the 'investors' wager against each other, and where there is a sufficient skill element so that a sufficiently able player can overcome the 'rake' (commission) and earn a long term profit. Parimutual pools include tournaments (of all types, except slot tournaments (no skill factor)), poker, horse and greyhound handicapping, and investments in stocks and equity derivatives. If tournament blackjack is 'gambling', then they should also be banning the New York Stock Exchange, as both are forms of parimutual pools. And for God's sake, they shouldn't ever let anyone invest in equity options!
Selected tournaments okay They have all kinds of tournaments in games that charge an entry fee such as pool, bowling, golf, putt-putt, shuffleboard, Frisbee golf, horseshoes, basketball, drag racing, spades, gin-rummy, bridge, and the list goes on, yet no one seems to complain about these tournaments. Yet, mention poker or blackjack tournaments and all of a sudden it's gambling. Why? I can only assume it because those games are associated with casinos where gambling does occur on those games. I understand if it is gambling it is illegal, but why are certain tournaments considered gambling while other tournament where entry fees and cash prizes are being awarded are not? Here's something else to think about, how in the hell is "Fantasy Football" and other fantasy sports leagues not gambling? You pay a fee and hope you choice the right players at that position for that particular week to try and win money. They even promote them on TV (Fox Sports and ESPN) with their own shows to help you gamble (that is make your picks and suggest who to play and not play each week). When your not involved in the final out come how is that more skill then luck?
The Problem The problem faced by the advantage gambling community is how do you prove the skill factor? How do you measure it? How do you assign a percentage to skill versus luck? How do you assign a numerical rating to players so their skill can be compared? It's harder than you think. This problem has frustrated the efforts of mathematicians for a while now. That's important because this question will eventually be tested in court. Common sense tells us that this is a game of skill, but a judge won't accept common sense. Judges want facts.
Surely empirical evidence would be the answer, much like it was in the proof of the Absolute Poker cheating scandal. Online tournament providers could simply present their logs (with player identities kept anonymous). The sample sizes should be large enough to show that some players are winning (and indeed losing) more than random chance would permit.
empirical evidence The problem is that, by random chance, some players will be more successful than the norm, while some will be much less successful, even if the game itself is totaly random, with no skill element. So, just the fact that some players win while other lose, doesn't really mean anything. You would need a very large sample, tracking players over the long term, the very long term, to be able to prove that there is a meaningful skill element. Personally, I believe the 'long term' in tbj is probably something like 1,000 tournaments, to start getting meaningful results. Doubt if we could find enough players to get a really meaningful sample at that level, for a statistical analysis.
I realize the sample size has to be big, but even a single player's results over a large enough sample ought to be sufficient proof. I know I must have accumulated a few thousand heads-up sit-and-go results over the last couple of years, as a number of others will have done too. It only takes about five minutes to play a ten-round, heads-up game. If online records can't be used, perhaps the case could instead be decided by challening the judge to a best-out-of-1000 contest; if he loses by a statistically significant margin then he must rule that it is a game of skill. What's more, the whole thing could be televised!
Online Data I was thinking along the lines of looking at a distribution of results, and looking for anomalous results which would prove that skill played a role, but, we would not necessarily need to do that. I do think that simply looking at some individual players and their performance over time might be meaningful and convincing. I've played online for almost three years now, my total investment, made three years ago, was $50, never made additional deposits, and am still playing and have cashed out thousands in profit. I certainly have played more than 2,000 SnGs and tournaments, and my winnings haven't come from lucking out and hitting one big payday, but from grinding out a modest edge over many many tournaments/SnGs, many of them small money tournaments/SnGs. There are certainly some other players on UB that I am confident have earned a long term profit. I would guess that it would be possible to demonstrate that at least a few players have consistently earned a profit off their play over time, and that simple variance is not an adequate explanation of their performance. Likewise, it might be possible to demonstrate the opposite, players that are so bad that luck can't explain their losses. I could nominate a few for that category as well. Maybe looking at BJTers as a group, and their average performance might be enlightening.
Sample Size My thought in a research project was to record financial results in poker cash games of good players versus random average players seated opposite of them. This would eliminate bias in the results of both opponents' skills and position advantage. The raw data would be a score calculated as bankroll change divided by number of hands and big blind. You could then apply ANOVA and regression analysis to this data. These analyses tell you if your sample size was big enough to yield significant results, as well as variance and win rates. If you can't obtain data in such a study by watching players, you can observe known online players. Another source of info someone suggested to me was recordings of televised games, though I imagine most of the "boring" hands are edited out. This would bias the data. In blackjack tournaments you could track the results of known high-performance players versus random opponents seated opposite of them as well. Instead of money win rates you would track their performance in winning their table and advancing. You would have to factor in number of players advancing and number of players seated. A multiple ANOVA analysis could not only yield a skill factor for players but also the effect of different formats on the high-performance players' outcomes. The data from such a tbj study would probably have to be furnished by the high-performance players being studied. I don't think you would need thousands of iterations to obtain significant statistical results. The magic number in statistics for sample size for all kinds of studies is thirty. If you use multiple ANOVA you need bigger sample sizes than that. You could probably record the results for some number of players through thirty tournaments and obtain statistically significant results. If your results turn out to be insignificant you would need to obtain more data.
TV won't work for the reason Monkey stated, plus you cannot trust the editing. I was able to see the program showing my win at Winstar last year, and they changed the order of the hands significantly (probably to liven up the presentation). So, you don't get to see all the hands and you don't know if they're really showing how it happened.
Tex makes a good point. They have no problem with chess, bridge, auto racing or a rodeo where everyone pays an entry fee and the winners share the pot plus the promoter's contribution. Usually it is those on the left who usurp the freedom of the people in the name of government. This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue (check the votes). This is not a moral issue. This is an issue of taxation. An issue where the Republicans join Democrats to tax the people for the power of government and to promote their own greed for money and power. True Conservatives or Libertarians would puke! I believe George Will is a true Conservative, and at least this time, I think he gets it! It's not illegal, immoral or fattening if they can tax it.
Taxation Canada does not tax gambling winnings, nor can Canadians take off gambling losses. I believe quite a few other countries do the same. When you consider that the casino profits are taxed, as regular corporate income, or even subject to additional special taxes, and those profits are actually the difference between the players' wins and losses, then that makes a great deal of sense. Taxing the players just taxes the money twice, once on the casino side, then once on the player's.
It makes sense to us, but not to the government in the US. If you are a greedy politician, why not tax the money on both ends? But I think that is what you were really saying.
Gaming operators would acutally love to be taxed if they could legally offer their services. Unfortunately US government behaves as if the issue didn't exist, which in the era of financial crisis is even more difficult to understand. The same problem occurs on my side of the Atlantic, however some countries in Europe already decided to legalize internet gambling. Other will follow, it's just a matter of time. :flame:
Goverment control Just let the goverment take control of the internet gaming. They would probably go for that, seems they want to take control of everything else. Only problem I see is that at the goverments current rate of spending money they many not have enough to payout...lol
