Posted by Johnnymac 1:56 PM
It took a little bit of effort to find the actual article, but the WSJ article that Fro links to below is fairly interesting. After some discussion about crunching reams of online hands data to "prove" the skill element of poker playing, Howard Lederer and his skank sister both have some very compelling quotes on the subject of why It Ain't Gambling:

First the skank:

In the absence for now of any scientific proof, Pro. Nesson urged the group to come up with more legalistic arguments. Ms. Duke has won more than $3 million in tournament prize money (JMG: she's still a skank). One sure sign that poker is a skill, she says, is that unlike roulette or the lottery or betting on football, "you can purposely lose at poker if you choose." To lose requires skill, she says -- or at least an ability to affect the outcome.

Then her brother:

Her brother offers another proposal, which he suggests might impress a future judge. The "vast majority" of high-betting poker hands, he says, are decided after all players except the winner have folded. So if no one shows his cards, Mr. Lederer says, "can you legally argue that the outcome was determined by luck?"

It took both of them to make it there, but together they are presenting a very succinct and simple to understand inductive argument on our favorite subject here.

1 Comment(s):

Posted by  Anonymous, at 4:01 PM, May 09, 2007  

Word.

Interestingly, though I have argued the point many times, I have never even considered either of those two points.

I will add them to my arsenal.

Funny that they came from the pros and not from the high-minded Harvard types...

-Dr Fro

__________________________________________________

Post a Comment