« Tournament Marketing | Main | New Projects »
May 3, 2007
Skill Or Luck? It's Both, Morons.
The Freakonomics guys talked today about whether poker is a game of skill or a game of chance. Why do we keep having this debate? Anyone with a thought process and a rudimentary understanding of the game knows it's both. Let's stop trying to lump it into one category or the other because you can't do so any more than you could fit the square block through the round hole in preschool.
Most gambling games involve both skill and luck really. A good craps player will do significantly better than a bad one in the long run, though both will lose. That's true of almost all non-slot machine games in a casino. Even in baccarat, which is pretty much the most brain-dead form of gambling known to man, one bet is better than the other.
Poker isn't really even unique in that you can win over the long run. It's probably the most profitable for top players given a reasonable bankroll, but there are certainly other legal ways to make a living in a casino. It's not the only game in which you can win in the long run without cheating.
So let's drop this argument because it gets us nowhere. There are a hundred good reasons why online poker should be legal (because people will play it anyway, which is the only one you even need to know really, it makes all others immaterial) so let's just talk about them. And let's all talk about the positive experiences we've had so the 99% of us who didn't lose our mortgage drown out the small degenerate minority that did. Let's talk about the valuable life skills we've learned, the friends we've made. But please, let’s stop flogging a dead horse here. Poker is game of skill and a game of luck, and in the long term more of the former, but in the short term more of the latter. That's it. There's nothing more to that debate. Q.E.D.
Posted by themaroon at May 3, 2007 1:30 PM
Comments
Hi Matt -
I stumbled across your blog looking for something else; this is some of the clearest on-point writing about poker (and life) that I've seen in years.
Minor point of order: you referenced Paul Phillips as saying that people that could make money in poker could make much more money doing something else. I totally agree with that thesis, but I'm pretty sure I heard it said before Paul discovered the game. It was the early 90's when I first heard it - the speaker was a guy who goes by the nom de plum of Abdul Jalib. He was a physicist at NASA Ames in Mountain View and gave it up to be a poker and blackjack player. He was acknowledging that he was probably taking a step down the financial ladder, but the idea of not having an alarm clock was too appealing to pass up.
Again, great writing; welcome to my bookmarks.
Best regards,
Lee Jones
P.S. I went through the Silicon Valley VC wringer once or twice in a previous life. You seem to be doing well - I wish you unqualified success.
Posted by: Lee Jones at May 4, 2007 5:15 AM
Thanks. I'd love to hear all about the ringer, so I know what I may be in store for.
Posted by: Matthew Maroon at May 4, 2007 5:42 AM
I definitely agree with you on the skill argument, it needs to be dropped. I believe it needs to be dropped because there are just not enough intellectuals in Congress to see why it matters in poker or other forms of gambling. There are just too many "gambling is bad" and "who will think of the children" Congresspersons.
What argument do you use? I don't think that the civil liberties argument works, either. Not with what has been going on in D.C. since January of 2001.
I guess it all comes back to money and who is getting it, doesn't it?
Posted by: Michael at May 4, 2007 10:34 AM
yeah, i find this debate retarded as well, especially since the question is never posed with some regard to the span of time involved. asking how much luck is involved in poker is like asking how much weight a person can lift...you need a more detailed question to get a coherent answer.
Posted by: dragonystic at May 5, 2007 11:29 PM
Hmmm . . . how much skill is involved with playing the Lotto (legal), bingo (legal), or, for that matter, the stock market (legal AND encouraged). This whole debate is insipid. Make it legal, tax it, and be done with it. (Oh, the same with marijuana too, while we're at it.)
Posted by: Heather at May 10, 2007 5:29 PM