Poker Articles

Of Math and Mathematicians: A Poker Paradox

As you should all know by now, and as I discussed in my last article, the House of Representatives recently passed a bill – the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act (IGPEA) – aimed at completely banning most forms of online betting, including of course, all real-money poker rooms. The decision was thus made, on part of the 317 in-favor representatives, to lump poker in with forms of gambling such as craps, roulette, and slots, while also excluding lotteries and horse races. This decision sends an indirect yet clear message that those in power chose to view the game of poker as an act of gambling, a broader type of behavior that has traditionally had negative connotations in both political and social realms.

In this article I aim to delve deeper into the contemporary poker paradox, focusing on the philosophical principles of the game and attempting to answer two main questions. Firstly, is poker gambling? And secondly, if poker is gambling, what is the nature of this gambling behavior that makes it fundamentally offensive to the political, social, and moral institutions of our nation? In hopes of keeping this both brief and insightful, let’s start by taking a look at some essential terms, as defined by relatively objective sources.

Poker. Noun. Any of various card games played by two or more players who bet on the value of their hands. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Poker, card game, believed to have originated in Asia and first played in the United States in the 19th cent. A traditional cutthroat gambling game at first, it is now also an internationally popular social pastime. (Columbia Encyclopedia)

Gambling. Intransitive verb. (1a) To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. (1b) To play a game of chance for stakes. (2) To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Gambling (or betting) is any behavior involving risking money or valuables (making a wager or placing a stake) on the outcome of a game, contest, or other event in which the outcome of that activity depends partially or totally upon chance or upon one’s ability to do something.
In extended usage, gambling may also refer to engaging in any high-risk behavior in which decisions occur based upon incomplete knowledge – for example, high-risk stock investments (see speculation), difficult and potentially costly ventures, or even personal relationships. (Wikipedia)

Fairly straightforward, yes? So using these definitions and descriptions as a primary reference point, let’s now take a closer look at our first question – is poker an act of gambling? By all three versions of the dictionary definition of gambling, I think we would have to say that the easy answer is yes, it is. Anyone that’s ever gotten their chips in with the best hand and had to wait nervously as the remaining cards are slowly and painfully dealt can tell you that poker involves chance, betting on uncertain outcomes, and a factor of variance often referred to as luck. Even when my pocket Aces make a full house on a monster flop of A-K-K, I am taking a chance, by betting, that my opponent either does not have both of the other Kings for four of a kind, or that he or she has one King and will not make four of a kind on the turn or river. The irony here is that any poker player that knows their odds will tell you that they will be licking their lips and praying that the player in the hand with them has a King. The knowledgeable player knows that the vast majority of the time an opponent with a King will continue to play the hand and lose, greatly benefiting them in the long run, even if they themselves fail to win a very small percentage of such encounters. This is the statistical aspect of poker, and it complicates our once easily answered question of whether or not poker is gambling.

The assumption we’re going to make here, and that I hope to prove, is that the game of poker involves more than just chance. If we assume this to be true, then it would most likely follow that there is evident variance in the long-term success of poker players, even when it is mathematically definite that the long-term variance of cards is equal to zero – “cards break even,” as they say. For anyone that doubts this, think of flipping a two-sided coin 10, 10,000, and 10 million times. As the number of trials approaches infinity, the difference between recorded results of landing either on heads or tails should, and logically always does, approach zero. The same laws that govern this random equity of probability also apply to a deck of 52 randomly shuffled cards in poker, only with more complex dynamics.

Still, even with the controlled nature of cards, we find it to be a well-known fact that there are many poker players that show long-term gains. Significant long-term gains to be exact, and on a consistent basis, not just a once-in-a-lifetime strike like winning the lottery. Indeed there are more than a handful of poker “professionals” that make their living solely from participating in the game, while there are also countless individuals around the world that supplement their income with part-time poker winnings. Given that we do not suspect any superstitious phenomena (i.e. the “luckiest guys in Las Vegas” misconception) as being a factor in their success, I think we can clearly say that there must be a pertinent knowledge and skill set involved in determining the ability, or inability, of a player to prosper by playing poker. Included in this set would be the comprehension of relevant statistics and probabilities, congruent with the capability of the player to correctly reason and make logical decisions. We could also add a more abstract form of human psychology as another factor involved, as many advanced players are renowned for their heightened ability to analyze, interpret, and predict the behavior of other players, at the same time controlling their own human instincts and emotions. So now the picture of poker that we have is that of a game incorporating several key multi-dimensional components, some of which the player controls, and some of which he or she does not.

With this in mind, how should we now revise our simple answer to the first question? Is poker still gambling when taking into account the significance of the knowledge, skills, and psychological cunning of our “winning” players? Even with the advanced abilities of these players in consideration, it would be erroneous to assume that they do not gamble in the same way that any player must if he or she would ever like to win a hand. One might say that taking chances is just a part of the game. This simple sentence seems to say it all. If the element of chance is, by definition, what we equate with gambling, then gambling in turn must be an element of poker. However, it would stand that gambling is merely one of the elements involved in playing poker, out of the several which we have discussed earlier. Poker, we can say, is not pure gambling. Poker does involve acts of gambling, and as such the ability to correctly decipher and analyze the risks of certain situations is an essential tool of players who seek to minimize the amount of gambling involved. The degree to which chance and skill come into play is not easily quantifiable, nonetheless it is quite evident that both are active components of the game and that the latter of the two is a primary determinant of how the player fares in the long run.

This conclusion better answers our first question, and though the solution is not a simple one, I feel it is satisfactory. It does seem though, that we have a fair deal of exploring to do in answering our second question – on what characteristics of gambling behaviors, intrinsic of the game of poker, make it fundamentally offensive to the political, social, and moral institutions of our nation?

Best of luck at the tables.

Mad Terp

Editor's note: The Mad Terp has his own website where readers may rate
their favorite poker site, or join in the discussion forum @ imoPoker.com