This was my original post on this subject, Posted way back on Friday, Feb 16, 2007
I am posting this in a few places to be sure it gets noticed.
More than 1/2 of the US states define "gambling" as participating in a game where "the outcome is predominantly determined by chance." Logically then, if it can be shown that poker outcomes are not result of chance more than 1/2 the time, we will have shown poker is not 'gambling' and therefore LEGAL in those states. Here is the best method I have come up with for convincing judges and or juries (most of whom have only a limited familiarity with poker) that poker is, more often than not, DETERMINED BY THE ACTIONS OF THE PLAYERS, AND THUS NOT CHANCE. Your comments will be appreciated.
First, define the terms:
"chance" is the random distribution of the cards.
"outcome" is who wins and how much.
Now consider a fair representative number of poker hands at any table, and remember, showing chance means the outcome is determined by the cards.
So, first, every hand that does not go to showdown was the clealry result of player actions, not the cards (there is no rule that says you HAVE to fold 2-7 or call/raise with A-A). In most forms of poker this is the way most hands are resolved (all but one person folds before all the cards are revealed).
Second, when hands do go to showdown, that is a choice of the players and that should count for something.
Third, who is at the showdown is detemined by player decisions (to call, fold or raise), not the cards. And quite often the person who would have had the best hand has folded long before all the cards are shown. That also counts for something.
Fourth, even at the showdown the more skilled player will be in the advantage (he who has the best pre-river hand is there usually because his skills -math AND psychology- tell him he has that hand). So are the cards determining who goes into a showdown with the hand most likely to win, or is it the skill (or lack thereof) of the players?
Fifth, even at the showdown, the underdog only wins less than half the time because, of course, thats why he is the underdog!
And finally, the amount of the win (especially significant in tournament poker) has been determined completely by the players (though structured by the betting rules), not the cards.
So put all that together, and the only time you can really say that chance DETERMINES the outcome in poker is when there is a showdown and the less skilled player gets lucky and hits his or her improbable card. We all know that happens in poker, we also all know that happens far, far less than half the time.
Dont talk to me here about bankroll management, or long term v short term and how you have to play the percentages. Those concepts are absolutely important for being an overall money winner in poker, but they fail to show to the average person that a typical hand of poker is more often than not the result of a player's skill/decisions than chance.
Please do respond, however, this is an important part of the fight to get/keep poker legal (in most states anyway) and before I use this argument in a Court I want it thoroughly tested!
Skallagrim