N.C. Court Rules Poker Is a Game of Chance

oh my god how skewed are these judges?! saw a hand win that had a 9% chance. maybe they should have seen that same scenario the other 99 times to see how that averaged out. unfracking real!!!!!

The liberals are ruining the country. Gays, abortions, etc are all perfectly ok, but poker is immoral, go figure

game of chance tell that to the players who are making livings playing poker are they trusting their families and well being to chance???

"The liberals are ruining the country. Gays, abortions, etc are all perfectly ok, but poker is immoral, go figure"

the legislation against online gambling was championed by bill frist, a republican, who snuck it onto a must-pass national security bill at the last moment. Doyle brunson, a long-time republican, was so outraged by this underhanded and obviously image-minded "moral" decision made primarily by REPUBLICANS that he has said that his confidence in that party is shaken (listen to his interview on the circuit from this january.)

Also, though NC's governor is a democrat, its two senators are republicans, and its electoral college voted for Bush in '04.

p.s. - this ruling is total bullcrap.. i'd challenge any one of those judges heads-up, best out of 3 to overturn the ruling.

The state's testimony is absurd - if an underdog winning means a game is chance or luck, then meteorology is a science of chance or luck. What happens when the weatherman says 10% chance of rain and it rains? Did he get lucky and put a bad beat on God/mother nature/whatever you believe in? or base his forecast on information and probability, like a good poker player does? Also, I'm so sick of the "moral" argument. I've been in Baptist school/church my whole life and nowhere in the Bible does it say gambling is wrong, only that you should be wise with your money. I'd say good thing I don't live in NC, but Illinois isn't much better.

I live in the state of North Carolina and am completly upset with this ruling but not one bit suprised. I have been following the fight to save poker and know that NC, SC, VA, TN, and GA will by far be the most difficult states to get to change their laws on poker. These states listed above are reffered to as the "bible belt." One reason that it will be so tough to change the laws is that most of our representitives and senators are conservative republicans. As for Mike Easley, I think he is one of the best governors in nation right now.

how do people go BROKE playing poker if its a game of skill?! the best players in the world are up millions one day, and flat broke a short time later. its not a game of skill, its a game of chance that can be manipulated by skill, but chance will ALWAYS determine the winner.

you guys just buy into the hype that poker is a skill game because there's mathematical principles that govern the game. it's always a game of chance and on any day, regardless of your "odds" of winning, luck will determine who drags the pot. thats why nobody will ever win day in day out, 100% of the time.

i love playing poker and i'm a winning player both live and online, but its ridiculous to think of the game as skill when no hand is ever guaranteed to win or lose! i don't agree the lawmakers can decide what i choose to do with my own money, but regardless of that, the game itself is not a game of skill. if it was, there would only be a select few who would continually beat the field (as in golf, tennis, etc). since poker continually pays off players that will ultimately never show their face to the public again with big paydays (can you say chris moneymaker?!?!), how can anyone say this is a game of skill?

thats absurd. the truth of the matter is that poker has mathematical principles that can be learned and manipulated (the "skill" people refer to), yet the person who drags the pot is 100% determined by the shuffle of the deck - and that is why it will and should continue to be called a game of chance.

The 9% shot winning out was a factor in the decision? What are the percentages of someone winning the lottery? It's less than 9%.

Mr. Frank Weiss, I appreciate your comment on this issue of whether poker is a game of skill or chance. Your argument is well-presented in a sense that poker in general cannot be a game of skill. I thought that it is very interesting, but I have to disagree with you because if your main point in agument is correct, then there would be two things that will make your argument less substantial and ineffective. First, you should not emphasize that a game of chance can be manipulated by skills. If you do, then you are undermining your own argument. In one hand, you tell us that the outcome in poker is unknown, and skills cannot dictate an outcome of poker regardless of "pot-odds". And on the other hand, you tell us that skills can manipulate a poker game by applying mathematical principles. How much skills are we talking about here...5%? Or perhaps 95%? If any math skills apply to poker at all, why do we even bother to use its math skills, knowing that poker is 100% game of chance? Skills and luck are essential and integral parts in poker as to demand and supply are inseparable in economy. You can't have one or another alone in system. So, poker is NOT just a game of chance. Secondly, you should not illustrate your argument with sports games such as golf and tennis because its examples are insignificant in many ways that they diminish the strength of your argument. In any particular sporting events, a player or a team would not have exceed over a number of players in poker tournaments. The NCAA basket tournaments have 64 teams in march madness. And I believe there were over 6000 players in WSOP last year. Could you tell me how many golfers were participating in last Masters? Or how many tennis players were playing in last Wimbledon? More people in competition normally mean a lot more different winners. Since you understand the mathematic principles well, I hope you can see my point. If all sports games have 100% skill (as contrast to poker has 100% chance) to beat its opponents, then you and I can accumulate massive amount of profit from sports betting since all the games are predictable. Right? Based on your argument, I can come to conclusion that there is almost improbable for underdog to win. It is unfair to compare poker to tennis or to golf in your way. Let's say I am playing golf. In my second approach shot in par 4, I can choose to use 8 iron so that my ball would pass over the flag since wind is blowing against me or I will use 9 iron to make sure that my ball would be in the green. How close am I going to get to the hole? It would be unkown because there are so many variables. Is the result of my ball 100 % determined by my skills? I don't think so.
Just remember what Chris Ferguson said about poker. In any particular hand, luck will dominate and be the factor, BUT in a poker tournament, skills will determine a winner.
We are not trying to outcry that poker is a game of skill. We all know that we need both skills and luck. To be honest with you...we just want to play poker online legally.

Doyle, Jonny and Phil must be the luckiest guys in the world to have 30 bracelts. hey Frank Weiss, how are you a winning poker player live and online if it is luck? you defeated your own argument. To say poker is not skill is ludicrous. I don't think Doyle has had a losing year in 50 years, enough said.

I live in NC and wish to ask the ALE offier to resign since he testified that he has been a criminal for 40 years according to the courts ruling. Purely a political decision. They have been chasing the video poker machines for years because of the tax implications. Just my opinion.

Frank, will all due respect, your argument is flawed.

For starts, the reason some of the "best players" in the world (your words, not mine) go broke is because they have poor money management skills (notice the word, SKILL not CHANCE). They make the decision to play games well above their means where the short-term CHANCE can dominate their long-term SKILL advantage. I'm assuming as a life-long winner online and live you understand that concept. That's not even taking into account the majority of those "best player" who go broke playing other games (i.e. your standard games of chance) not poker.

The fact that various people win tournaments is a function of the fields involved. We're talking about a minimum of hundreds and sometimes thousands of people involved in a field. And yes, to survive a field like that to win, you have to get "lucky" occasionally. But knowing how to best get your chips into the middle with an advantage is part of the skill of the game. It does not guarantee victory, just as playing a team game with the better players does not guarantee victory. Or playing an individual sport with the most skill does not guarantee victory.

And wait a minute, you're a winning player?? HOW? Why do you play? Could it be because in the long run you believe your abilities at the game, your SKILL, is the overriding factor?? Or is that you just consider yourself to be an amazingly lucky person?

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that because a game contains and element of chance that it's therefore overriden by it. But I'll tell you what, it's silly for us to sit here and argue it... let's set up a very simple way for the judges to prove us all wrong.

Six-man SnG. The three judges all sit down with their annual salary with Phil Ivey, Daniel Negreanu and Chip Reese (who sit with the same amount). If any of the judges make it to the final two then they get to split the pros money, in other words, doubling their salaries. If the final two are two of the pros, the judges lose their money and must reverse the decision.

This is game of chance, right? Surely the judges will "chance" their way into the final two, right??? In fact, we'll even run the game twice! If they get into the final two EITHER TIME, they win. Sound good? Is everyone on board? Let's do this...

In Asia there is a saying about card games that it is about 70% luck 30% skill. I am pretty sure you all agree there is a great amount of luck involved in the game and you can't help it when someone is running lucky. No matter what you do how well you played he/she would make a stupid call and still win. But that's not what poker is all about. It is the 30% skill part that will make you a winner in a long run. Good players will lose little when they are running bad and win more when good. They will calculate the statistical chances, pot odds, etc. At the end, in a NBA playoffs a player puts in the game winning 3pt shot from the other end of the court as the clock runs out. Would you consider that as luck or skill? There is always an amount of luck involved in any sport.

The key fact that led the NC Court to rule that poker was game predominantly of chance was .... the statement that poker is detemined by skill in the long run but luck in the short run. Or, as it is sometimes put, a single hand is determined by luck but in the long run skill will prevail.

THIS IS NOT TRUE AND POKER PLAYERS SHOULD STOP SAYING IT.

A single hand MAY be determined by luck, the luck of the draw. Of course it happens as the Esfandiari example shows. But it is far from true that every single hand is determined by the luck of the draw. THE SIMPLEST PROOF OF THIS STATEMENT IS FOUND IN THE FACT THAT MOST POKER HANDS NEVER SEE THE LAST CARD (everyone has folded to the winner). HOW CAN THE LUCK OF THE DRAW BE SAID TO DETERMINE A HAND THAT DOES NOT GO TO SHOWDOWN AND THUS WHERE NOT ALL THE CARDS ARE REVEALED?

It cant. The concept of folding, and the concept of inducing your opponent(s) to fold was totally ignored by this opinion. It was ignored because Roy Cooke (who I admire as a player and a writer) admitted that luck predominates in the short run. When I am dealt 2h7s and you are dealt Qh4s and the flop comes As6s3h and you check or bet and I respond with a bet or raise and you fold, CHANCE (OR "LUCK") HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT HAND. NOTHING.

This point is key because it forces the court to then detemine the ratio of hands determined by the cards, and the ratio of hands determined by player actions. Since hands can only be determined by the cards (chance) if all cards are played, every hand that does not go to showdown must be the result of something other than the cards.

Statistical samples I have seen show that only about 30-40% of hands in normal Hold-em or Omaha go to showdown. THEREFORE THE OTHER 60-70& MUST BE BEING DETERMINED BY SOMETHING ELSE.

And since the law require a showing that chance PREDOMINATE if a game is to be declared "gambling," if only 30-40% of hands are determined by the cards, POKER IS NOT GAMBLING BUT A GAME OF SKILL.

Skallagrim

all of you are missing the point i am making. poker IS a game of chance. you're telling me that you can work hard at making your 9 out flush draw happen better than 36% of the time on the flop? and thats over an infinite amount of draws that it will come 36% of the time, but in a finite 100 draws you may only hit your flush 8 times (or perhaps even 70 times). in contract, i CAN work hard at my approach shot on a par 4 into the wind from 150 yards out and learn how to draw, fade, etc to what the condition calls for. THAT, people, is a game of SKILL! poker is a great game, and it CAN be manipulated due to INCOMPLETE information - and therein lies the skill of the game. sure, there are skills that can be learned in poker, but the skill of the game is to get another person to believe that they are beat. but if & when the $ goes in, no amount of "skill" will determine a winner - that is purely due to the shuffle of the deck. here's better food for thought. if poker was purely a skill game, why does the term "THAT'S POKER" have so much effect in the game? got my Aces drawn out by KJ...THATS POKER! slowplayed my top set on the flop, turn brought an OESD for my opponent and he drew out on the river...THATS POKER! such a phrase doesn't exist in purely skill games! when did phil mickelson utter the words...THATS GOLF...when he blew the master's a few years back after playing a bad tee shot, then overcutting his approach? or jean vandeveld after his triple bogey to lose on the 18th at the british open? that doesn't happen?! as for comparing a tournament field of 6,000 to a field of 150 in the pga...i believe the first 25 years of the WSOP there weren't ever more than a few hundred players (and thats going up until the late 90's). doyle and johnny beat very small fields, MUCH more comparable to the fields of the pga tour. yet they have a COMBINED 4 championships between them...and they're the BEST OF THE BEST! i believe that example in itself proves that this will always be a game of chance. the BEST has only won the most prestigious tourney TWICE! and thats over a course of nearly 40 years?! get over it people. poker has principles that can be learned - and it DEFINITELY can be profitable over the long run. i'm not saying anything to the contrary. but CHANCE will still play a LARGE factor, large enough that skill cannot be the single determinant of success, like in TRUE games of skill.

here's another saying that poker players routinely say..."its better to be lucky than good." tell me ONE TIME that michael jordan, tiger woods, john elway, tim duncan..or ANYONE in the realm of SKILL GAMES has ever uttered those words? please people, you're over analyzing what a CHANCE game is. a game of CHANCE can be profitable over time, but CHANCE still determines the winner! phil helmuth's greatest saying is "I guess if luck weren't involved i'd win EVERY ONE!" that right there proves that the best in the world feel the effects of LUCK! its a game of chance that can be manipulated and skewed towards one's favor. and THAT is the skill, to make another fold, call, raise when your ODDS of winning are greater.

I hereby declare the sport of Baseball as a game of luck! No matter what kind of skill a ballplayer may have, who knows where that ball might go???? Variables such as weather conditions, noise distractions can effect ball flight and skill level, etc.

Pete aka PeteTheRock

Mr. Weiss is only partially correct, and his post makes me think he has a tendancy to be a "calling station." If he is not a calling station then cards did not detemine most of his results, his ACTIONS (which he may choose to be influenced by the cards) determined most results.

Look, one of the unique things about poker is that it does indeed have an inherent luck factor. Mr. Weiss is correct to point that out, and "thats poker" is reflective of that fact. But haveing a luck factor built in does not prove that poke is a game PREDOMINANTLY of luck. The question is how often that luck factor determines the result. As I stated before, objectively, that luck factor determines around 30-40% or results. POKER is a mostly skill game with enough luck built in that it will determine the outcome around 1/3 of the time. And that number of times it occurs is more frequently than in golf etc... BUT IT AINT OVER 1/2 THE TIME. Thats my point.

and yet another thought for the wise...what is the strategy that will give ANY novice the greatest PROBABILITY of success when playing someone that is considered to be a better player? give up? that strategy would be to simply GO ALL IN with any hand that the novice would consider to be good enough to play. WHY??? because it limits the "pro's" ability to play after the flop! it limits their decisions! which is what i've been saying - poker can be MANIPULATED, but chance will prevail when the $ is in the pot. if you can't get a player to fold, your SKILLS are 100% diminished. yes you can wait and have that player drawing thin and rake a huge pot by exploiting that player, but even in those situations where you're an 80% favorite to win, you still are leaving the winner of the pot up to the LUCK of the draw. by going all in with any hand i choose to play, ESPECIALLY in a deep stack situation, i FORCE my opponent to have a great hand (and any legit pro wouldn't donk call off his chips with AK for his tourney life in a deep stack tournament for those playing at home - a true pro would wait to be a 3-1 favorite at the very least, and even that isn't guaranteed). by doing this, i COMPLETELY leave the outcome up to the luck of the draw. you guys are failing to understand this aspect of CHANCE! yes, game theory has a place in poker, and skillful players who can MANIPULATE OTHER PLAYERS will be profitable, but nobody can beat luck. period.

Frank, I think your big problem is you think because chance is involved that therefore it must be a game of chance. That's very close-minded thinking. Just because you break a game of skill down to an element of chance, doesn't mean the game as a whole is therefore a game of chance. You state nobody can beat luck... um, yes, of course you can. Over time "luck" evens out. Yes, in any given hand "luck" or "chance" can determine the outcome. But in the long run, to be a winning player, you have to be SKILLFUL. No player, with luck and no skill, can be a winner. Period. If a player who doesn't have skill in this game tries over time to win money, he won't. He'll lose. There's no denying that. He may be lucky in the short-term, but in the long run, he will lose. You have to agree with that, yes? And once you do, then there's no denying that at it's core, poker is a game of skill.

You talked about Jordan and Woods and Elway etc... so let's use an example of how you can break any game of "skill" into a game of "chance" by your definition. Let's say Michael Jordan and I were going to play a game of one-on-one up to 21 in which I start with the ball. What chance do I have of winning? Easy, right? I have none. This is a game of skill in which Mr. Jordan is clearly the more skilled player. But what happens if we reduce the game to a single hand, er, point. What if we play to ONE??? Now what chance do I have?? Well now I've got a very real chance. I'm a decent player with a good outside shot. I get the ball, I pull up from the top of the key... and anywhere between 25% - 35% of the time I'm going to beat Michael Jordan one-on-one in this hand, er, game to one point.

See? Therefore one-on-one basketball is a game of chance. It all boils down to whether I make that one shot or not... and 25% - 35% of the time I will and will win.

But of course, that's silly. Sure, I may "win" that one time, but over time, over several points or several games, I'll never come out ahead of Michael Jordan. After all, he's more skillful than I am and basketball is clearly a game of skill.

And is there ANYWAY the Cardplayer people can allow us to use PARAGRAPHS when posting comments?????

You do realize, Mr. Weiss, that your latest post ONLY applies to tournament poker? Thats a differnt beast from a cash game.

And while you are right about about the all-in tournament STRATEGY. Is it irrelevant that the novice is purposely creating the required chance situation?

And actually, the skilled player will outlast this novice eventually by either letting some other novice with the same strategy take the heat, or by calling the novice only when he has a truly premium hand. In that case, yes, the cards determine the outcome. But isnt it skill that puts the pro in there with the advantage? And, of course, being in there with the advantage means that THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME the pro will win. Again, the luck of the draw is not determining MOST outcomes.

the problem is that everyone here is believing in whats called the "law of large numbers" - which is true for poker AS A WHOLE but not true for specific events in a finite period of time. for example, over an infinite # of draws, my flush draw, given that i have a pure 9 outs to my draw all of which will take the top 100% of the time, will come 36% of the time on a 4 flush flop. however, this is not true to the # of draws that i personally have. i can never draw to this an infinite # of times. in fact, if i personally happen to be unlucky, i may only hit 12% of my draws over the # of times i've drawn to it (conversely some players have actual odds of hitting these draws over 50% of the time). there's a difference between experimental odds and observational odds. look up the definition of the two if you don't understand these terms. by experimental odds, i WILL hit 1/3 of the time i draw to this flush. observational odds however are not guaranteed to be this percentage. and these observational odds are what determines peoples "success" in this game. people falsely buy into this law of large # and truly believe the cards will break evenly for EVERY person over time. unfortunately, this is not true for EACH AND EVERY person who plays. now in addition to this, throw in a game such as no limit poker. over time, a player may not be guaranteed to win at all even tho he regularly gets his $ in as a large favorite. for example, due to its nature, it only takes 1 beat to completely skew 100 wins in no limit. and now all of a sudden my 1 bad beat has cost me 100 wins worth of pots. all because of the nature of the game. thats how pro's can go broke, not just because they have bad money mgmt skills, but because luck can on one hand ruin a player (in a no limit setting which is the craze now). you guys are also trying to imply limit principles in a no limit setting often times. in a limit game, more skillful players can rise to the top and remain there better & more consistently than any novice because "luck" won't ruin a bankroll. keep in mind that no limit COMPLTELY skews data about statistics and bankroll, which does leave CHANCE to be a much larger determinant of success than people will give credit for. and thus their lack of understanding of a finite trial system in an infinite statistical field.

I won't say this again because someone like you, Frank, will never admit there is 2 sides of story. Everything has to be black and white under your assumption. It's like I'm trying to tell a cow to understand the logic. Please read the following message:
Just remember what Chris Ferguson said about poker. In any particular poker hand, luck will dominate and be the factor, BUT in a poker tournament, skills will determine a winner.
May I paraphrase for you? In a short term, luck wins the hand (like you insist and you're right). In a long term, skills win a tournament (like we insist and we are right).
Now who is missing the point? And do me a favor. If you think you are so right, please don't post any more junks. You are wasting your own and my time. Oh yea...one more thing! Could you tell casino people to stop investing their $ on research that is dedicated to learn mathematic implications on poker? If you are right and you insist that you are right and we are wrong, these people are going to waste big bucks. Perhaps they should spend that $ on you. You may enlighten them.

well...lets see if you see both sides of the story. in the long term skill wins the tournament (as you stated chris)? lets see...the most WSOP tourney wins of ALL time is 10 shared by 3 people. now, lets do a little math here. the WSOP offers roughly 40 tournaments each year. now lets say a player like phil helmuth enters into 20 of these each year for the past 25 years. doing a little math, thats 500 WSOP tournaments entered in 25 years...and he's won 10 for a whopping 2% winning ratio. not very convincing...ok, instead lets look at the total number of CASHES he's made, which is 57 (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hellmuth which could be incorrect). now we're in the money up to a WHOPPING 10% of the time for the GREATEST WSOP PLAYER OF ALL TIME!!! i'm sorry, this will always be a game of chance and the # still prove this.

and by the way chris, you made a great comment..."Could you tell casino people to stop investing their $ on research that is dedicated to learn mathematic implications on poker?" who better to spew off to the public that poker skill will ALWAYS rise to the top than the fine citizens who look out for the public interest at the CASINO?! thats as absurd as thinking politicians aren't interested in big business when tax laws are passed.

look, the biggest thing here is that CHANCE DOES play a dominant factor in poker. does that mean its NOT beatable? absolutely not, just as the stock market is BEATABLE!! you narrow minded people aren't understanding this one bit. i can be a profitable player in poker by playing the ODDS and utilitzing them to MY BENEFIT. and i can make a LIVING by doing so (similarly as i can do with the stockmarket). but a game of CHANCE simply means that even in my BEST EFFORTS to win a pot, i can never be guaranteed certainty even with as high as a 95% chance to win...its STILL a chance!! get that through your thick skulls that poker IS a game of CHANCE! that doesn't mean that poker cannot be beat! and it also doesn't mean that people cannot make a living by PLAYING THE ODDS! but it does mean that the game should be considered what it is, a manipulation of chance. if you truly cannot understand this, then you're as ignorant as these lawmakers who believe that what makes an action LEGAL is the taxation of that action, which unfortunately seems too true in this country.

Lunch is almost over, so for the last time Mr. Weiss, no where have you even attempted to refute my analysis. You keep insisting that because chance CAN determine a poker outcome, poker must be a game of chance. By that same logic, poker is also a game of skill, because skill can determine an outcome: I look across the table and see you are worried, I bet to make you fold, you fold. Sensing your weakness was skill not chance. Since that too can happen any time, poker must be all skill yes? I hope all others (who are not so invested in being perceived as the winner of the argument) see the obvious: Poker is a game that can be determined by either skill or luck. The key (legally) is showing which one is determining the outcome more often.

Also, Poker is a game of manipulation of chance only at its more basic levels (playing the cards). In this it is similar to blackjack. At higher levels of skill, poker is also a game of manipulation of people (playing the player). That does not occur in blackjack. And dont call me ignorant just because your poker play has not progressed to the higher levels.

Some are luckier than others. After professionally playing this game for 10 years, I have come to find that ultimately, poker is a game of chance. No matter the odds, someone almost always has a chance to win a pot even if they are making the "least skilled" play. It's all too true when you wind up with someone in a hand that is making the absolute biggest mistake, and somehow they end up winning. This happens all too often and for this reason alone I believe poker remains a game of chance.

skallagrim - "leagally" poker shouldn't be in the discussion of lawmakers. the legal system is so bent up on trying to tax as much and as often as possible that it forgets its primary function - to serve and protect. no government should determine that i can or cannot play a game of cards "legally" simply because the game is based off of chance! as i said, the only "legal" ramification is if the card game can and will be taxed. and that unfortunately is a travesty. we became a country of our own to escape tax laws of the king of england and here we are 200 years later having our own form of the boston tea party. i actually have refuted your analysis skall whether u agree or disagree. even if you push me off a hand, you can only do so in those instances in which i miss completely and am unwilling to continue (and to whiff completely is also up to chance). as mr baker pointed out rather succinctly, the least skilled player will always have a chance at the pot so long as his $ goes in the pot. i've stated time and time again that the "skill" of the game lies in the manipulation of the OPPONENT, but nobody can manipulate the cards - and therein lies the chance of the game. so long as the $ is in the pot, a monkey can win (hence the talks a few years ago of ponying up the $ to allow a monkey to play in the WSOP). the lawmakers are correct to rule that poker is a game of chance. now, the fact that the game remains "illegal" simply becuase of this is, to me, absurd. that's the real debate.

if poker was such a game of skill. how could someone playing 6 months beat a so called pro, go get a pait of boxing gloves, train real hard for 6 months and then go fight mike tyson and see what happens...if youre still able

Poker is a gambling game. No doubt about it. Luck plays a major role in the results of each individual hand, and by these criteria one might say that poker is a game of chance. However it is a little misleading to say only that poker is a game of chance, because it is also a game of skill. It is a game where you ply your skill over every individual hand, but you will not see correlative results of that skillful play until you have played many hands. In short, poker is a game where chance has a majority of the influence on your short-term results and skill has the majority of the influence over your long-term results. For example, supposing you have a hand in which you are a 75% favorite to win the hand, and you go all-in and get called. You're going to lose this hand very often. That's chance. But the skill is in knowing when you have the best of it, and in this case you've played skillfully because you put all your chips in the pot as a favortie to win the hand. You lost this hand due to luck. However, if you play this hand skillfully 100 times you will come out very far ahead. That's skill. The long term is far longer than most people are willing to believe. Many people will play poker for an evening, a week or even a month and, if they have won over that time, conclude they must be good players because thier results have 'proved' it. Unfortunately the long term is much longer than this. In order for winrate to have much statistical signifigance, one must play tens of thousands of hands. This is also why tournament results are a sketchy basis to judge one's skill in poker. Ask any truly skilled pro and they will tell you; in order to win a tournament, you need to get lucky. This is because a tournament is still short-term poker. It's not as short term as a single hand or a single evening, but there are not enough hands played in a tournament to make luck any less than a very large factor.

to frank weiss, you couldnt be more on the money if you tried, the reason they are called pros is at somepoint they get luckier than you

Never fold a good hand even though you might be beat? Then I simply fold alot and wait until I am sure I have a better hand. And if I am right and have the better hand, you will lose more than 1/2 the time (thats what having the better hand means). Chance is not the basis of the game, betting is. The word poker comes from old French "poque" meaning "to bet." Chance (the cards) only forms the basis for the betting. So we are back to my point: which is determining most outcomes, Player Decisions or Cards? Therefore you cannot premise that poker becomes a game of chance because one player MAY DECIDE to call every bet.

there was a hand on tv esfandiari went all in with pocket 7s hanson called with 10 8 offsuit and hit the flop,wheres the skill

you can make the right decision and lose, wheres the skill if somebody tossing in chips beats you

ana: the reason is because the time it took the rookie to beat the pro was very short-term poker.

if half these pros didnt get lucky winning a big tourny they would be begging for starters to play 1 2

p[eter bustera you idiot go get a bat and face roger clemens and see how lucky you get

all tourny are short term

poker is like the music biz, every 3 months theres another superstar

Baseball is not an activity in which luck plays a major role in short-term results.

Didn't I ask you nicely not to post your junks here? You must be not only ignorant but illiterate as well. Hmmm... let me see your logic here. Since even the best poker player (Phil Hellmuth) in the world has less than 10% chance of winning tourneys, poker must be ONLY a game of chance. Do you think that a basketball team winning of NCAA championship is greater than 10% even considering its field is made up of only 64 teams? How many players in poker tourney? So, in your logic, basketball is a game of chance...right? You missed my point again. You should not compare poker to sports games (golf, Tennis) with winning percetage crap. It is just not fair because amount of participants in a field. I will tell you one thing though one of the reasons we cannot surely say that skills outweighs luck in a poker game is that like Mr. William Baker mentioned in his paragraph anyone has a chance to win. But when you look at any sporting competitions, any team can win, too. Its winning odd would be much smaller than a better team's. I've seen many underdog teams with lowest fiscal budget win a championship...say Florida Marlins in 2003(winnig World Series odd was 5.7171%)? Would this make you think that baseball is a game of chance, too? I guess we can assume that any competitions are a game of chance as long as an underdog has a chance to win, and as long as anyone can win, its event should be a game of chance. I'm not saying you are WRONG! I'm just saying we all are right! And if you don't see the flaw in your reasonings, perhaps you will never be able to support your own agument. Oh by the way, the casino thinng? I was being sarcastic. Read my first article again. I'm sure you have a plenty of time to waste.

Sorry, I will correct my stat. In 2003, Florida Marlins winning odd was 1 to 250 which means less than 1%

Thanks, John Dibling. At least someone understands my point.

-I've been playing poker for the last 5 years, and I'm sure I'm a much, much better player now. And I'm also sure I have yet a lot to learn.
- I've been playing roulette for more than 20 years, and I'm sure I'm not a better player now.
- I've been trading in the stock market for the last 10 years, and even though I'm a better trader now, I still can't tell if a stock would go up or down in the next 5 minutes

Hope this help

Sure if people just constantly go all-in every hand then thats luck, but you dont do that in poker. Poker is about knowing when, how, and what to play at the right times, and that is skill my friend. The outcome of just ONE hand I don't see as being any importance what so ever. You dont base a golf tourny on 1 hole, or a NBA season on one game now do you?

chris, you're still ignorant to the fact that poker tournaments have only poured out the thousands of players in the past 4 years. the first 30 years of poker tourney's a BIG event was 400 players. when moneymaker won, that was UNPRECEDENTED at 800. stop trying to use 5 years of #s to prove a point for 40 years worth of tournaments - of which doyle, johnny and phil were playing yet still only have a very limited # of wins considering back then the fields were not very large.

and by the way - go look up the odds of a team in the ncaa tournament field of 64 teams that has won based off of their rankings. the WORST team ever to win, based of the ranking system was Villanova - thats an 8 seed. and they did that by playing a perfect game, not missing a single shot in the 2nd half. in addition, look up the # of championships by team, # of final fours by team, # of times a team has been ranked #1...you'll find some startling redundancies (that means the same select few teams appear frequently and often, not like the new names we see week in week out in the poker tourney world). that, chris, is what you call SKILL and it is different than chance.

If I'm not mistaken on counting and comparing two numbers, even 400 players are much greater than say 64? How about this...in any given year, tell me one particular sporting event (not charity events please!) that its participants outnumbered poker's in that year? I'm sure that you are not dumb enough to say "Olympic". By the way, why do you even bother to explain to me that basketball is 100% a game of skill? Have I dispute it otherwise? What I said about basketball to you is that if you insist that poker is 100% luck, then you should also insist that basketball is the same as well because you are being ridiculous. I think you are little confused here, therefore, let me show you how our arguments started at first. You said that poker is 100% a game of chance. According to you, skills only manipulates a game of chance in poker, and somehow skills don't count, and you used 2 examples (golf and tennis) to prove your point. I said your argument is weak because of bad exmaples, and I was trying to make my point by using basketball as my example. Furthermore, I told you that skills and luck co-exist in poker system. And then you came out with some winning ratio and percentage crap to disprove my point. And also you accused us having narrow mindedness because we didn't see your point. After that, I said you need to stop posting your crap here because I told you that the only one who didn't see a whole picture is YOU! I even used Chris Ferguson's phrase as a method to show you that poker is just more than luck. Whew...holy crap...let me take a break. You might be alreay lost. 1, 2, and 3..here I go. Somehow, you were still using the same tactic (percentage thing...) to prove that poker is a game of chance, and at the same time you imply that not only luck but also skills (like math, and pot odds) can make you money in poker. Lastly, I said you need to stop wasting my time and yours, and you shouldn't contrast poker with a sporting game because its number of participants are greatly different. And then, now, still, somehow, you keep going back to your same crap. Who said we could not see your point? I think it was and is YOU that didn't and don't see our point. Got it? I hope I don't see your post here again, otherwise, it will prove that you are the squirrel who spins a wheel. I think you should read John Dibling's article below...if you have extra time.

For those of you who think that luck defeats skill then you must be a horrible player, one who I take your hard earn money from. I am a smaller stakes poker pro. I make my living off 5-10 limit Holdem and 1-2, 2-4, 3-6 NL Holdem games. When I first started playing poker, I sucked. I expected to lose my money no matter how hard I played. After a couple of months, I noticed that certain situations are more profitable then others. Such as when I am last to act and a few players check to me, I can bet and win the pot. That my friend is called position. Which requires skill. I also noticed that waiting for hands such as pairs and big cards win more often then not. This is called hand selection which also requires skill. Ounce I realized this, I stoped losing and started evening out. Needless to say, the more I played the more paitent I became and the more patient I became the more money I made.

A year later after I have mastered the basics of hand selection and position, I developed my core style of play. I became what is called a “tight aggressive” player which I felt most comfortable with, because the swings are smaller when the "luck" factors comes to play, but in the long run in the course of weeks and months, I always came out ahead. This is not the ONLY winning type of strategy. I have friends that play a more wild type of style and they profit as well but their swings are much higher. I also realized that its not so being patient with the hands and position, but also the situation, such as waiting for the right time, against the right opponent, and during that players current state of mind, you can win without a hand. This is a developed skill.

Now, 2 years into playing poker. After I mastered pretty much all the basics, I play the people, and THEIR hands. My skills are far beyond my expectations from when I first started playing poker. There were many times where I told a player exactly what he had and other times when I was off by a few ranks which is ridiculous considering I did not even think about another persons hand just 2 years ago.

So you are telling me that luck out weighs skill in poker? According to my poker log, last January 2006 - April 2006 I was profiting $5,727. This January 2007 - April 2007 I am profiting 28,306. Is that luck? If so then it seems the longer I play the luckier I get? Just like how a carpenter (a skilled profession) builds better cabinets and installs floors faster with experience? Or like how Michael Jordan got cut from his High School basketball team and after years of practice became the greatest player of all time? Its so obvious that poker is a skilled game that I cannot comprehend the ignorance from bad players.

“The court chose to believe Thornell, who testified that he’s played poker for nearly 40 years. He told the court that although he feels there’s skill in poker, luck ultimately prevails.”

Mr. Thornell, if you’ve been playing poker for 40 years and can’t profit from it, then all I have to say is LAUGH!!! Please tell me where you play so I can take your hard earned money.

For those of you who think that luck defeats skill then you must be a horrible player, one who I take your hard earn money from. I am a smaller stakes poker pro. I make my living off 5-10 limit Holdem and 1-2, 2-4, 3-6 NL Holdem games. When I first started playing poker, I sucked. I expected to lose my money no matter how hard I played. After a couple of months, I noticed that certain situations are more profitable then others. Such as when I am last to act and a few players check to me, I can bet and win the pot. That my friend is called position. Which requires skill. I also noticed that waiting for hands such as pairs and big cards win more often then not. This is called hand selection which also requires skill. Ounce I realized this, I stoped losing and started evening out. Needless to say, the more I played the more paitent I became and the more patient I became the more money I made.

A year later after I have mastered the basics of hand selection and position, I developed my core style of play. I became what is called a “tight aggressive” player which I felt most comfortable with, because the swings are smaller when the "luck" factors comes to play, but in the long run in the course of weeks and months, I always came out ahead. This is not the ONLY winning type of strategy. I have friends that play a more wild type of style and they profit as well but their swings are much higher. I also realized that its not so being patient with the hands and position, but also the situation, such as waiting for the right time, against the right opponent, and during that players current state of mind, you can win without a hand. This is a developed skill.

Now, 2 years into playing poker. After I mastered pretty much all the basics, I play the people, and THEIR hands. My skills are far beyond my expectations from when I first started playing poker. There were many times where I told a player exactly what he had and other times when I was off by a few ranks which is ridiculous considering I did not even think about another persons hand just 2 years ago.

So you are telling me that luck out weighs skill in poker? According to my poker log, last January 2006 - April 2006 I was profiting $5,727. This January 2007 - April 2007 I am profiting 28,306. Is that luck? If so then it seems the longer I play the luckier I get? Just like how a carpenter (a skilled profession) builds better cabinets and installs floors faster with experience? Or like how Michael Jordan got cut from his High School basketball team and after years of practice became the greatest player of all time? Its so obvious that poker is a skilled game that I cannot comprehend the ignorance from bad players.

“The court chose to believe Thornell, who testified that he’s played poker for nearly 40 years. He told the court that although he feels there’s skill in poker, luck ultimately prevails.”

Mr. Thornell, if you’ve been playing poker for 40 years and can’t profit from it, then all I have to say is LAUGH!!! Please tell me where you play so I can take your hard earned money.

For those of you who think that luck defeats skill then you must be a horrible player, one who I take your hard earn money from. I am a smaller stakes poker pro. I make my living off 5-10 limit Holdem and 1-2, 2-4, 3-6 NL Holdem games. When I first started playing poker, I sucked. I expected to lose my money no matter how hard I played. After a couple of months, I noticed that certain situations are more profitable then others. Such as when I am last to act and a few players check to me, I can bet and win the pot. That my friend is called position. Which requires skill. I also noticed that waiting for hands such as pairs and big cards win more often then not. This is called hand selection which also requires skill. Ounce I realized this, I stoped losing and started evening out. Needless to say, the more I played the more paitent I became and the more patient I became the more money I made.

A year later after I have mastered the basics of hand selection and position, I developed my core style of play. I became what is called a “tight aggressive” player which I felt most comfortable with, because the swings are smaller when the "luck" factors comes to play, but in the long run in the course of weeks and months, I always came out ahead. This is not the ONLY winning type of strategy. I have friends that play a more wild type of style and they profit as well but their swings are much higher. I also realized that its not so being patient with the hands and position, but also the situation, such as waiting for the right time, against the right opponent, and during that players current state of mind, you can win without a hand. This is a developed skill.

Now, 2 years into playing poker. After I mastered pretty much all the basics, I play the people, and THEIR hands. My skills are far beyond my expectations from when I first started playing poker. There were many times where I told a player exactly what he had and other times when I was off by a few ranks which is ridiculous considering I did not even think about another persons hand just 2 years ago.

So you are telling me that luck out weighs skill in poker? According to my poker log, last January 2006 - April 2006 I was profiting $5,727. This January 2007 - April 2007 I am profiting 28,306. Is that luck? If so then it seems the longer I play the luckier I get? Just like how a carpenter (a skilled profession) builds better cabinets and installs floors faster with experience? Or like how Michael Jordan got cut from his High School basketball team and after years of practice became the greatest player of all time? Its so obvious that poker is a skilled game that I cannot comprehend the ignorance from bad players.

“The court chose to believe Thornell, who testified that he’s played poker for nearly 40 years. He told the court that although he feels there’s skill in poker, luck ultimately prevails.”

Mr. Thornell, if you’ve been playing poker for 40 years and can’t profit from it, then all I have to say is LAUGH!!! Please tell me where you play so I can take your hard earned money.

Sorry, I posted 3 times my browser lagged and I clicked "POST" 3 times. Is there a way I can delete 2 of them?

It seems most of you have failed to distinguish between tournaments (where luck is a little more of a factor due to the one-and-done setup), and cash games, in which the pros/better players dominate a much higher percent of the time. Keep that in mind when forming your arguments guys and gals. Have you seen Chris Moneymaker win the Big Game? I didn't think so.

This shows that no matter how much statistical data you take to the courts, they are going to rule based on politics alone. So, the way to beat them is at the voting poles. Support the poker lobby groups and keep writing your representatives.

You ever hear of a professional slot machine player?

If it were all luck, you wouldn't have thousands of people making a living playing poker.

Let's put it this way....is there any more luck in picking horse races than in poker?

All I want to no is were is our reps from the APA the PPA why are you not going yo court representing us get it together guys come on what are we paying you for

If North Carolina law makers consider poker a game of chance.Then they should also rule that Nascar races are a game of chance.The chance of engine failure,Flat tires & wrecks are more likely than a skilled card player being beat by a non-skilled player.So rule that Nascar drivers must race for free.NO CASH AWARDS for winning a race!

Weiss, Yeah, your right.. 10% of all his tournament entries was a win BEING the best tournament player. Your not factoring in cash games/sng's. So now is it still chance? Is identifying betting patterns chance? Is reading hands chance? Is knowing when you have the best of a situation chance? How about EV/- EV which coincides with position. STILL CHANCE? I've been playing poker now since I turned 16(22 now) and still am picking my game up. I've made 2 final tables back to back this and last month, and placed 1st at my casino. So now where is your fall back saying poker isn't skill? It's funny to me, because pretty much you guys are just saying "Any decision made is chance." So would it be chance that I decided to go to school? Or is it chance I decided to go fill my car up with gas? "Is it LUCK for me you decided to chase a 4 outer drawing to only 3 outs?" Yes that is luck because I'm lucky as hell to have someone chase an inside for all his money HAHA. What the law and you are saying is ohh "So and So" is a professional player by chance. There's no skill involved in it. HOW CAN YOU BE PROFESSIONAL? YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY ANYBODY WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND DO WELL AT IT IS LUCKY. It's been said on rounders that people say that poker is a game of chance. 'But that doesn't explain how the same people make the final tables every time.The sad statistic is only 1 in 20 poker players make a profit from gambling. So, is that 1 in 20 chance?( I think it's higher now) Or is that 1 in 20 person out there grinding out for 7 hours going home studying for 3 hours, and then checking his poker analysis software for 2 getting rest and getting back out there. I truly feel when you can beat the house it's no longer chance. Like card counters at the blackjack tables. If they count cards they have a .05% advantage. Not much of an advantage, but over time it pays to know what they are doing. So when I get my money in as a 3-1 fav. That's an advantage I'll take over the house anyday. And by the house I mean the people out there playing poker saying ohh it's "CHANCE" hahah. "ATC CAN WIN.." The casino's are rigged, but when you play poker your not against the house your against the other players and yourself. Any time you can spot a leak in someone's game that's money in your pocket. So when you say chance come sit down with me and my poker crew. We would love to have you over and let you take your chance at beating us, because odds are in our favor. That's what all professional gamblers do. Bet when they have the best of it. don't mind my grammar been grinding it out for 14 hours now online and gettin tired. In the end poker isn't a game of chance. Roulette is a game fo chance because the house pays 34-1 on certain numbers when the actual chance of hitting is 36-1. Which a real poker player knows.. Wow the pay off is 34-1 but hitting is 36-1? F*** THAT!! ( Negative Expectation) But me knowing those odds chance? Poker is self discipline and self control those skills arent chance