What is Your View Toward Playing Cards and Gambling? (Especially in light of the popularity of competition poker)

I have no problem with the occasional game of poker with friends. We only bet what we can afford (usually $5 or $10 max.) and it ends up being a fun way to spend an evening. I could be mistaken, but I’m not sure that Scripture prohibits gambling … The Bible prohibits wasteful spending, greed, addiction, lust and other sins that sometimes accompany gambling, however it is possible to gamble without offending in those areas.

I think about it this way, what is the difference between a $5 two hour, round of Texas Hold ‘Em with friends than golf with friends, fishing, going to a movie, hunting, racing cars, eating, going to an amusement park or any other way to pass the time?

Every entertainment choice can be something that you cannot afford or can become an unhealthy emphasis in your life. I know people who attend too many movies. I once knew a guy who would go fishing an no one (including his family) would hear from him for days. Hunting can be far more expensive than most gambling habits. For some of us, a round of poker might even be a healthier option than the cholesterol packed spread at the average church men’s breakfast …

I understand that a casino might not be the best place in the world for a believer and I have never gone to one … but have you been to an NBA game lately? Yet one of those is “for sure” off-limits and the other is a church youth group destination. A few rounds of poker a the dining room table can be a pretty wholesome way to interact, even if a little money changes hands.

not so sure about gaming. for me it seems hard to separate it from covetousness and i don’t participate in any forms mentioned so voted “other”.

i have not seen very much theological thought expressed on gaming apart from the “love of money” angle, which seems correct.

i did know some competitive bridge players and thought it interesting at the time, but i never joined them.

Regardless of how much people say a $5 or $10 here and there doesn’t matter, I can’t find it in myself to believe them. I think it does matter and they are kidding themselves and others. Games involving real stakes, in this case money, are IMO problematic at their core. The same reason applies to playing Truth or Dare, or any of the ‘cute’ but ‘naughty’ games available. I think it appeals to the desire to be just a little bit bad without crossing the line. But as soon as you want to be just a little bit bad, you’ve crossed it.

That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/gun.gif

Susan, what is it about gambling that you consider wrong? I think there are situations where gambling is wrong, just like there are wrong places/times/situations for any entertainment option. But is gambling categorically wrong all the time?

I didn’t say it was wrong, I said it was problematic when it involves real stakes. Toothpicks, matches, tokens, etc. don’t matter, but money does matter as it is involves a real risk of losing something of value. Maybe in a circle of friends, most would feel that $5 or $10 is chump change, (may the fleas of a thousand camels nest in their armpits) but if there is just one person in that room to whom that amount of money is an issue, perhaps because he isn’t paying bills on time, or the wife and kids have needs, or he isn’t giving faithfully to God, but he’d rather be thought of as ‘one of the guys’ and so pretends that he can afford ‘small’ change on a game of poker… it’s a stumbling block.

Women are the same way when they go out to lunch or shopping together- rather than be thought of as poor, they’ll buy what they know they can’t afford or don’t need in order to feel like ‘one of the girls’.

Okay, so it isn’t gambling that you have a problem with. I think there are a hundred areas where fear of man might pressure a person to spend more money or use more resources than prudent, but that doesn’t make those activities wrong.

On a personal note, I can have a lot more fun with friends gambling away $5 than if I took that same five-spot golfing or fishing or out to eat or to a ballgame. Part of the reason that I will play a little poker is because I do value $5. And 2 or 3 hours playing a competitive game once or twice a year is worth the money.

However, if it can be shown that gambling is biblically wrong, I will heed that instruction. But if it is wrong to gamble $5, then it is wrong to gamble pennies and peanuts and toothpicks.

Poker is a really challenging and fun game.

I used to play penny-ante poker in H/S and college.

I would love to be involved in some sort of a low stakes (pennies and nickles) game on a weekly or monthly basis.

If the stakes are low enough no one gets mad if they lose.

You wouldn’t lose to me. Ha!

I think this is difficult. Poker is an exciting game, both to watch and to play. It’s quite complex, and luck is a major factor only in the short run. Many competitive chess players (including myself) pick up poker on the side, as the two games are similar in several ways. Furthermore, in the right setting, it can be a social game. You can eat, drink, laugh, talk, and play.

I’ve never played for money, but I’m not dead set against doing so. I do think that professional gambling is either sinful or at least highly destructive. So many enter with big hopes, so few come out with anything to show for it, and even those who do often get caught up in destructive lifestyles. I do think that the Bible commands us to work for a living, and that professional poker (or similar games) cannot be defined as work since it does not produce wealth and provide a useful service; it simply capitalizes on others’ misfortune. However, I believe the same thing about professional sports and beauty pageants. I don’t believe it’s moral to compete for money. On the other hand, I enjoy watching professional poker, because I enjoy learning about the game. Hypocritical? Probably.

Is the real question whether gambling is right or wrong? A sin or not?

If that is the question then there are no acceptable gray areas. It either is or it is not. If any ‘degrees’ are involved then that immediately brings in gray areas which opponents of Christianity will immediately pounce on as hypocrisy. And I am not sure that I blame them. For me, $5 is not a lot of money andt would not hurt if I gambled it away. I have friends that feel the same way about $1000, and even $10000, much too expensive for my me.

But, if something is going to be declared a sin, it either is or it is not. Shades of gray cannot be involved in this type of activity, or the reaction claiming hypocrisy from opponents to Christianity should not be a surprise, whether directed towards a specific topic or just declaring Christians to be so in general.

I hope this does not offend anyone, just observations I have made through my life.

There are not shades of gray, that is true, an activity is either wrong or right. However, that can change with different scenarios.

For instance, let’s take sleep. Can sleep be a sin? Yes Is it always a sin? No Same with eating and work and recreation. They can be sin, but they are not always sin. Even love for family can become sin under certain circumstances. Sin is not a gray area, but the determination of whether or not a particular action is sin does change.

I would even say that preaching can be done in a sinful way.

I think there are a hundred areas where fear of man might pressure a person to spend more money or use more resources than prudent, but that doesn’t make those activities wrong.

Well, yes it does. We are given the example of eating meat offered to idols, which is obviously not wrong, but contains within it the possibility of causing a brother to stumble, and so if we care about our brothers, we do not eat that meat. The principle isn’t about the right or wrong or shade of gray, but about what benefits one’s brothers/sisters in Christ.

You really can’t know whether the other guys you are playing with are being weakened by this activity. You don’t know if that weekly low stakes game is a gateway to gambling somewhere else for higher stakes. You don’t know if they really can afford that $5. And IMO gambling is like alcohol- within the partaking lies the temptation to excess. Simply put- some activities have a greater and inherent capacity to affect others in an adverse way.

I think that a cautious, considerate attitude should apply to our every day lives- but knowing the details of the lives of one’s friends involves having a trusting, burden-bearing relationship with them. But that’s work, so most don’t bother. They are content with the surface stuff, because intimacy is messy.

Bottom line- we should prayerfully examine if how we spend our time and money is prudent, a good testimony, and contributes something meaningful to our own mental, physical, and spiritual health, as well as that of others.

Big money, pennies, chips, toothpicks… whatever….

It isn’t whether the stakes are money or not, or even items perceived as valuable or not, that makes gambling gambling, but rather the movement of said item from one person’s pocket to another’s. Even marbles played “for keeps” is a form of gambling.

The difference between gambling and other entertainments with a cost attached would be a) the final destination of the “investment” and b) whether that “investment” is a fixed amount at the onset of the activity.

Seems like a wisdom issue that can be harmless to some while it encourages sin in others.

[Audrey Cahilly]

It isn’t whether the stakes are money or not, or even items perceived as valuable or not, that makes gambling gambling, but rather the movement of said item from one person’s pocket to another’s.

That’s an interesting aspect to consider, because I’ve always associated gambling with risk and chance, and not just the exchange of goods. IOW, it isn’t just the stakes, it’s the rolling of dice and the uncertain outcome. But the literal exchange of objects as a means of keeping score as unique to gambling…? Would that make Monopoly a form of gambling? No wonder I’m so bad at it. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy004.gif

As others have pointed out, though- for some cards may be a game of chance, and for others it’s a skill.

OK, that was pretty much just thinking out loud.

Would that make Monopoly a form of gambling?

No, because at the end of the game, all the money goes back into the same box.

Joshua, I would encourage you to read and consider the following series of articles by Phil Johnson on the Pyromaniacs blog. As you may know, Phil Johnson is John MacArthur’s right hand man. I say that to point out that these posts are not written by someone in extreme fundamentalism (for example, that believes all of the following are always sinful: movie theater attendance, pants on women, all card and dice games, etc, etc., etc.). I’m not sure if I completely agree with his stridency on this issue and I do think there are some “gray areas” here, but you should at least consider what he writes.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-gambling-ok-dont-bet-on-it.html Is Gambling OK? Don’t Bet On It.

Back in the dark recesses of my existence on this ball of dirt, I would occasionally play poker with friends. It was alway at my brother’s place. He would bring out the penny jar and dole out a buck or two to each of us. We would play standard 5 card, dealer call poker (I have no idea how Texas hold em even works). When we decided to quit, all the pennies would go back in the jar.

As to the OP, I love playing cards. Pedro (Cinch) is my favorite. I also like Spite (Skip Bo with face cards). I’m not a big fan of the “pretend cards” card games (Rook et al). I do not like Canasta, Hand and Foot or progressive rummy because I hate trying to hold thirty some cards at once.

As to dice. Haven’t an would know how. That said, the folks that will only play boards game if the dice are replaced with a six point spinner make me go hmmmm.

Marble? There is no gambling! That is a game of skill between hard core athletes that have honed their ten year old bodies into dead eye shooting machines. Don’t want to lose your favorite steeley? :cry: Then don’t play. ;)

[Greg Long] http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-gambling-ok-dont-bet-on-it.html Is Gambling OK? Don’t Bet On It.

Thank you for posting that- I’m most of the way through the series, and I’m grateful for how thoughtfully and thoroughly he treats the subject. It’s now bookmarked for future reference.

One of the other points that Johnson mentions - and I know Piper does as well, but I don’t know exactly where I read it - is that gambling is an irresponsible use of the money and treasures that God has entrusted to us and demands that we manage wisely.

Johnson wrote:

Our possessions are not our own to squander. They are given to us as a stewardship, and we will be accountable to God for how we use them. To put God-given resources at risk is to fail in the faithfulness required of stewards.

He expands that argument http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/gambling-vs-faithful-stewardship.h… in this post , where he adds:

I closed Wednesday’s post with a list of four distinguishing marks drawn from a standard definition of “gambling.” All four of these are true of every variety of gambling:

1. something valuable is put at risk.

2. something belonging to someone else is at stake as a prize.

3. an element of chance is involved in determining the outcome.

4. no new wealth is created in the process.

Now, let’s devote a few posts to considering each of those features of gambling, one at a time. It is my contention that there’s something in each one of them that conflicts with biblical principles. We’ll take them in order, starting with the first:

Gambling places something valuable at risk for an illegitimate purpose. That violates the most basic biblical principles of wise and faithful stewardship.

The problem with many arguments involving stewardship and “wisdom” is that they fall prey to a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity). That is, if I start from the premise that my money is not mine but God’s, and that it is sin to do anything but the wisest thing with it, then I will almost certainly never measure up. Every dollar spent on a milkshake could be better spent on vitamin water, or in a savings account. When I invest, I must choose the very best investment, or I am sinfully unwise. The burdens mount to an unbearable level. So, stewardship cannot mean making sure 100% of my resources are employed in the best possible manner.

Stewardship is faithfulness in one’s responsibilities. If I am fulfilling my current responsibilities and planning for future liabilities, if I am loving my family and neighbors, if I am helping the poor and needy, then whatever is left over I can use how I wish, within the moral guidelines established by Scripture. If I fulfill my responsibilities and get enjoyment out of playing poker, then playing poker is no different than playing golf. If I do not fulfill my responsibilities, then I am a poor steward whether I spend that money on poker or golf.

There is great freedom in Christ; there are many ways to live and not sin.

In response to Susan, I find the example of the man who doesn’t have money to spend disingenuous. Just replace “poker” with “baseball game” and see how it falls through. Should I really refrain from going with my friends to a baseball game because one of my friends might, unbeknownst to me, not have the money to go, and my peer pressuring him might cause us both to sin? Come on. Should I not go out with groups of friends to Arby’s, because someone in my friend group might not be able to afford it, and would be put in a difficult situation? Etc. Etc.

Any Biblical principle, even those clearly spelled out, can be reduced and twisted into absurdity. I mean, “In everything give thanks” could be twisted into pretzel knots.

I know my friends well enough to know their weaknesses and what activities would place them under pressure, and I do what I can to relieve that pressure by paying their way or finding an alternative. I can’t see that gambling allows for that, and has inherent problems that I have yet to see a resolution for. Going out to eat or to a ballgame aren’t activities linked to crime, divorce, covetousness, greed, and bankruptcy in the same way that gambling is.

I think Bro. Johnson’s blog posts examine these problems in the light of Scripture and reveal why gambling is at its best a questionable activity. I think one should examine their own conscience and discuss this with their friends before they sit down at the poker table. The least one could do is attempt to make sure that all are participating in good conscience.

I have read this thread and most of Johnson’s articles. I will say that most gambling is sinful. Here is a list of situations/qualifications that might make one’s gambling sinful:

If you are not taking care of financial obligations - tithes, offerings, family, debt, needs, etc.

If the gambling breaks laws

If gambling places you in a compromising place - scantily clad women, know associates who are criminals, etc.

If gambling takes you away from your responsibilities - church, home, family, work, etc.

If the amount of money is more important to you than the time spent with friends

If you must make money in order to enjoy yourself

This list is not exhaustive, but I submit that you could place almost any other activity engaged in for the purposes of relaxation, socialization, competition and entertainment in place of gambling and find out that particular activity is also a a sin.

Furthermore, if we conclude that gambling is a sin, then we need to consider many other activities that probably violate the principle that says we can never place money at risk (not sure if that is the principle here, but …) Forex trading, commodities trading, hedge funds, binary trading, buying stocks, mutual fund investing … all of those are forms of gambling. Participation in fantasy football and NCAA pools is obviously off-limits. Going into debt in order to buy a house or a car is a form of gambling … are these also “always sins”?

Johnson’s article here http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/gambling-vs-faithful-stewardship.h…

is a good one and lists many concerns with which I agree. But the article is concerned with the execess’ of gambling. The only way in which one could make the argument that all gambling is sin is by proving that all recreation and entertainment is sin.

Joshua, I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to read through all of his articles. He specifically makes that point that gambling is different by its very nature than some of the other activities you mention including stock trading or going into debt to buy a house. He addresses all of your concerns.

I read most of the articles, can you summarize? It is difficult to have a three-way discussion with one participant who is not present. In a concise manner, why do you believe that gambling is always wrong?

While awaiting your summary, I would like to point out that Johnson most concerns himself with larger-scale gambling where the pitfalls are far greater. In fact, in one article, he says, “…to those who are so keen to justify penny-ante and “recreational” gambling, I’m quite happy to leave the issue between you, your conscience, and the Lord, who judges righteously.”

I’m good with that.

The only way in which one could make the argument that all gambling is sin is by proving that all recreation and entertainment is sin.

Not necessarily.

It could be argued that gambling is an attempt to gain money apart from the God ordained means of work and it always involves the misfortune of someone else. It is typically not based on skill (such as playing a sport) or even mental acumen or research (such as stock trading, real estate investment, etc.).

In that respect, it is not simply like any other form of recreation.

The only legitimate way to get money is through work? Not sure if that is biblical, but I will accept it for sake of argument.

So any method of obtaining money that involves “chance” is not work?

What if the goal is something other than obtaining money?

The only legitimate way to get money is through work?

That’s not what I said. I said that “gambling is an attempt to gain money apart from the God ordained means of work and it always involves the misfortune of someone else.”

So any method of obtaining money that involves “chance” is not work?

I haven’t thought of it that way, but you probably have a valid point here, assuming that we mean the same thing by “chance” and don’t mean that pulling the next card off the top of the stack is “work.”

What if the goal is something other than obtaining money?

What if? We can ask a million questions. My point is limited to the issue that you said “The only way in which one could make the argument that all gambling is sin is by proving that all recreation and entertainment is sin.” My point is that that is not the “only” way. We don’t have to say anything about all recreation and entertainment to say that gambling is sin. It would be perfectly consistent to say that gambling is sin and other forms of recreation and entertainment are not because of the nature of gambling. In fact, we might also say that other forms of recreation are sin as well, without condemning all forms.

Clever argumentation, let me rephrase a bit:

Up to this point, you were really the only person to address the issue of what is the difference between gambling and other forms of entertainment. Your assertions were:

a) God has only ordained one means of obtaining money: work.

b) A believer’s entertainment cannot involve the misfortune of others.

I could argue that neither is necessarily true of a friendly game of poker, however, if either assertion is proven true from Scripture, then I would accept that gambling in all forms is a sinful recreation for the believer. At this point, I am not convinced that either can be biblically proven nor that they are characteristic of absolutely every form of gambling.

I would love to say something but Joshua is holding his own, and I agree with him.

I’d like to see you interact with Phil’s point that I noted in http://sharperiron.org/comment/29252#comment-29252] post #19 -

Our possessions are not our own to squander. They are given to us as a stewardship, and we will be accountable to God for how we use them. To put God-given resources at risk is to fail in the faithfulness required of stewards.

Okay, I will try -

A good steward will include money for rest, relaxation and recreation. Some of us golf, others fish, some go to pro sports games, still others spend their r,r and r money on restoring automobiles. You might go out to eat, attend a movie or go to an amusement park. I believe that it can be shown without a doubt that Scripture recommends and promotes r, r and r from time to time - especially after seasons of sustained work. If you question that assertion, I feel pretty comfortable sharing passages on it, but won’t take the time here unless asked.

From time to time, I spend $5 to $10 in a legal, friendly game of Texas Hold ‘Em. That money is part of my r, r and r money. I could just as soon spend it going to a ballgame or a movie or an amusement park. As long as my participation in that game does not violate clear biblical principles against sloth, illegal activities, idolatry, neglect, etc. I am free to use my r, r and r money in this way. I will repost some of the examples from earlier:

If you are not taking care of financial obligations - tithes, offerings, family, debt, needs, etc.

If the gambling breaks laws

If gambling places you in a compromising place - scantily clad women, know associates who are criminals, etc.

If gambling takes you away from your responsibilities - church, home, family, work, etc.

If the amount of money is more important to you than the time spent with friends

If you must make money in order to enjoy yourself

Truth be told, I play a game of poker about twice a year and sometimes with family at Christmas. I can’t afford more than that and I only play with friends. It is tough for us all to get together. Up until the late 90’s, my grandfather had played 25 cent-limit poker with the same four friends nearly every Friday night since WW2. They put aside a quarter from every pot until they saved enough money to take their wives out to dinner once every couple of months. He never went bankrupt, never neglected his family, never bet more than he could afford and the only thing that ever broke up that game was the respective deaths of the players.

A that time, I embraced the idea that all forms of gambling are sin and that even the use of playing cards for any purpose is wrong for a believer. I did not even play solitaire on the computer because of that thinking. There were a couple of times when my grandfather invited me to play with him and his friends and I declined on “religious” grounds. I regret that decision to this day.

But, enough about me: Gambling can be a sin, a very grievous, life-altering sin - so can anger, so can eating, so can sleep, so can hunting and fishing, so can sex - but it is possible to enjoy gambling as a form of r, r and r and still observe biblical commands regarding stewardship.

Thanks Joshua for the response,

I don’t think there’s anything particularly clever about the argument I am setting forth. It is a pretty standard argument about gambling, I think. In your response, you are making some changes to my argument that I reject as a part of what I am saying. So I will again attempt to clarify by speaking directly to what I actually said. I am intentionally trying to make my comments pretty tight here.

a) God has only ordained one means of obtaining money: work.

b) A believer’s entertainment cannot involve the misfortune of others.

This is not exactly my point, and I think it changes my point, or at least clouds it.

To point (a), God has ordained a means of getting money, namely work. I never used the word “only.” You are the one who injected that, and once again, I have an objection to that injection. God gives laws concerning inheritance, for instance, and that is certainly a means of getting money that does not involve work on the part of the one getting it. He also speaks to the issues of gifts, which by definition do not involve work. So there are other means of getting money that God approves of (interestingly, gambling does not appear to be one of them that I can recall). However, I think it is indisputable that the primary means of obtaining money is work in the created order. That is why God says things like, “If a man doesn’t work he shouldn’t eat,” along with numerous warnings about laziness all throughout Scripture.

To point (b), I didn’t say anything about entertainment. While I do think we need to be careful about what we are entertained by, I was speaking specifically to the way that money changes hands in gambling, not to the perspective of the people among whom the money is changing hands. Whether for entertainment or not, one person gains financially only because another person loses financially due almost completely to chance. It may be a misfortune that they are not troubled by, and they may enjoy the thrill of the competition or camaraderie or whatever, but it is a still a misfortune due to chance.

Remember the old line about lotteries: A lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. (I like to tell people, instead of buying $50 in lottery tickets, just give me your $50. I will immediately give you $25 back and you will be $25 ahead of where you would have been.)

Now, I realize that you are not speaking of lotteries here specifically. My point in this regard is only that in gambling there is a gain for one due to misfortune for another based mostly if not completely on chance. Again, a person may choose to embrace the possibility of misfortune, and it may be acceptable to them for fun or whatever. And it may be well within their means, their “fun money,” to do it so that it isn’t jeopardizing anything. That’s fine. But the principle still holds that gain in gambling is always due to misfortune to someone else.

I think there are different forms of “gambling.” Not all are equal. Drawing a single card out of a deck for $5 is different than playing golf for $5. One is pure chance; the other involves skill. I have played golf for money here and there, though not for years … a $2 Nassau (with no money in my pocket … fortunately I won $4), a dime a hole, loser buys dinner/coke, etc. I don’t do it often, and don’t do it unless I am fairly sure I can win. I don’t play cards. I don’t know how. But I know that there is a good deal of chance involved in it, no matter which you cut the deck.

I could argue that neither is necessarily true of a friendly game of poker

You could, and that wouldn’t bother me. Though I don’t play poker and have no interest in it, it doesn’t bother me that you do. Again, my point was about your argument that something is true “only” in a particular case.

Again, read what you said: The only way in which one could make the argument that all gambling is sin is by proving that all recreation and entertainment is sin.

That is simply not true. There is in fact an argument to be made against gambling that does not include proving (or even suggesting for that matter) that “all recreation and entertainment is sin.” You can judge the merits of the argument, but it can be made, and is convincing to many.

[BTW, I haven’t said that I hold to this argument.)

Larry, thanks for your thoughts. I do think they move the discussion forward.

One issue that needs to be cleared up is the role of “luck” in poker. I’ll compare it to chess. The comparison is apt, for many competitive chess players (including myself) have turned to poker for entertainment. At first, that seems surprising. After all, chess is a zero-luck game if there ever was one. Each player knows all the possible moves at any given time. No outside forces intervene. All wins and losses can be traced directly to objectively correct or incorrect choices.

Poker, by contrast, seems random. You’re working with imperfect information. Hand strength can change from card to card. Most importantly, correct decisions can end badly. Upon closer inspection, though, poker emerges as a game of skill, the skill of making good decisions from partial information. Risk isn’t absolute. By folding, risk can be avoided. By bet sizing, risk can be managed. By a process of deduction, the opponents’ holdings can be determined, providing more complete information. In the short run, say 100 hands, luck will predominate. After 1000 hands, luck has a much smaller role. By 100,000 hands, luck is mathematically insignificant. Intuition, clear deduction, and mathematical precision account for almost 100% of long-term poker success.

In reality, chess is not a game without “chance,” in a looser sense. Because of time pressures, you can’t analyze every possible scenario. By intuition and experience, you go with the most likely options. You try to steer the game into an opening system you know well, but your opponent may not cooperate. Psychological factors come into play on the more advanced levels. In a sense, both chess and poker thinking employ a synthesis of general rules and concrete application, tilted by psychological factors and hindered by time pressure.

Some would say that the luck makes poker a better game. That may be true. If you did not know chess, and you took up chess today, you could not beat me. I can guarantee it wouldn’t happen. You wouldn’t beat me tomorrow or next week, either. The skill gap is too great. So, unless you find a group of other rank beginners to slug it out with, your chess experience will start with you losing every single time, badly, for a while. It’s no wonder chess is a niche game. Poker, on the other hand, offers you at least the chance of doing well and having some fun while you learn. You’ll still lose more than you win, but it may not be so bad.

All that said, while I believe poker is a great game (almost as good as chess), I still find professional gambling morally objectionable, for many of the reasons mentioned above.

[Charlie] Poker, by contrast, seems random. You’re working with imperfect information. Hand strength can change from card to card. Most importantly, correct decisions can end badly. Upon closer inspection, though, poker emerges as a game of skill, the skill of making good decisions from partial information. Risk isn’t absolute. By folding, risk can be avoided. By bet sizing, risk can be managed. By a process of deduction, the opponents’ holdings can be determined, providing more complete information. In the short run, say 100 hands, luck will predominate. After 1000 hands, luck has a much smaller role. By 100,000 hands, luck is mathematically insignificant. Intuition, clear deduction, and mathematical precision account for almost 100% of long-term poker success.

In reality, chess is not a game without “chance,” in a looser sense. Because of time pressures, you can’t analyze every possible scenario. By intuition and experience, you go with the most likely options. You try to steer the game into an opening system you know well, but your opponent may not cooperate. Psychological factors come into play on the more advanced levels. In a sense, both chess and poker thinking employ a synthesis of general rules and concrete application, tilted by psychological factors and hindered by time pressure.

Some would say that the luck makes poker a better game. That may be true. If you did not know chess, and you took up chess today, you could not beat me. I can guarantee it wouldn’t happen. You wouldn’t beat me tomorrow or next week, either. The skill gap is too great. So, unless you find a group of other rank beginners to slug it out with, your chess experience will start with you losing every single time, badly, for a while. It’s no wonder chess is a niche game. Poker, on the other hand, offers you at least the chance of doing well and having some fun while you learn. You’ll still lose more than you win, but it may not be so bad.

Actually, Charlie, chess is exactly like the description in bold. I don’t know what your next move will be, I can still make a bad decision that results in my Queen or Rook to be captured, I am still moving pieces based on what I think the best options are, etc… So I think that your analogy isn’t really all that strong. Of course, my chess game is usually kept at ‘intro’ or ‘beginner’ levels, so that probably accounts for it :)

Nevertheless, I do agree with you that gambling is morally objectionable.

Jay C., I’m confused. If you agree with my paragraph, where is the weakness in the analogy?

I’m saying that two games, which some might suppose are on opposite ends of the luck/skill spectrum, turn out to have a rather similar playing experience. In fact, I would say that a beginning chess player makes decisions more randomly than does an advanced poker player.

Thanks Charlie.

You have made about as good an argument as I can imagine for poker being a game of skill. I do think there is some knowledge involved in poker and some probability. I suppose at some level that could be called skill. Though I typically think of skill as the ability to do something, not just know something. That’s why I am unconvinced that poker is a game of “skill” per se, but that’s a semantic issue I suppose.

But wouldn’t you say that an awful lot rides on the “luck of the draw”? At the end of the day, it’s shuffling and it’s guessing, even if you can narrow it down by probability. You don’t shuffle chess pieces. You know exactly where they are at all times. And you don’t have a “chess face” designed to mislead the opponent. Your opponent always knows what you are doing. I know over time you can learn to guess or deduce what it’s the other people’s hands, and you can know what’s already been played, I suppose. But I wonder if you are not overlooking the role of chance a bit. You are right that a person cannot pick up chess today and beat an experienced player. Same thing is true with golf. That is not necessarily true with poker, is it? Isn’t it possible for a new player with few instructions to beat an experienced player because neither player knows what cards are coming next, right? There’s no chance of that happening in golf or chess.

So I don’t think chess and poker are similar in many ways, if at all. The “chance” in chess in not the same “chance” as in poker.

I do think there are different types of gambling. Not all are equal. For me to gamble on golf is a much saner bet than me gambling on poker or some other card game. I have a reasonable knowledge and a bit of skill at the former; I know nothing about the latter. Furthermore, golf is a game that can be handicapped so players of unequal skill can have a good match anyway. So at the beginning of the match you determine (by past records and established handicaps) who gets how many strokes. I don’t think you can do that in poker can you? Can you give the less experienced guy two face cards in every hand to start with?

Strangely, I have less of a problem with high stakes professional gambling because I think those guys are usually playing with other people’s money, not their own. Their wife and kids aren’t living in a tent eating out of dumpsters because they lost their house and can’t buy food due to poker. It is a different scenario.

I don’t really care if people play poker. I mean, if you no life, you gotta do something right? :D … But the idea that the only way to make an argument against gambling is by declaring all recreation and entertainment sinful is inaccurate.

In fact, I would say that a beginning chess player makes decisions more randomly than does an advanced poker player.

Perhaps, but they are different kinds of decisions, aren’t they?

Yes, Larry, I acknowledged that, objectively, there is no luck in chess. But there are subjective dimensions as well, and I have known many a chess player (including myself) in over his head to make a move, hoping that it works out correctly. That’s luck from the subjective angle. Furthermore, since no human can actually calculate all possible chess positions arising even 3 moves from the current position, the chess player uses his intuition and experience to deduce the most likely favorable continuations and calculate from there. That’s actually quite similar to the thought process in poker.

Also, I acknowledged that in poker, but not in chess, a beginner can win against an experienced opponent. There is that luck. But it’s short-term. It would be very unlikely for a beginner poker player to beat a poker pro over a course of 10 or 20 matches, and if we were to bet on who would come out ahead on 100 matches, well, I’d stake all my assets on that and not think it’s a gamble.

In poker, you cannot guarantee the outcome of any single hand, but by correct play, you can just about guarantee success in the long-term. It’s no coincidence that the professional poker world is dominated by a few dozen consistently successful players. Google Phil Ivey sometime. If poker weren’t a game of skill, it wouldn’t attract the type of players that it does - former chess players, MIT math whizzes, economics professors, etc. None of those people would get excited about a game in which people guessed which color car comes down the street next. Also, if it weren’t a game of skill, it wouldn’t have generated the following that it has. It’s just not fun to watch people compete unless you believe that they, not blind luck, are driving the game.

If part of thrill of the game weren’t the money at stake, I’d buy into some of this reasoning. But part of the excitement is to win and lose real stakes. The basic problem isn’t the competition factor, or the element of ‘chance’ (although for regular folks it is much more a game of chance than for professionals, and Christians acknowledge that there is no such thing as ‘luck’). It’s betting material things on a game. Someone gains something of value, someone loses something of value. Gambling at its core is based on this premise. That is essential to its attraction, or else it would be no big deal to NOT play for real money and keep score another way.

I think one could apply the same reasoning to ‘extreme’ sports and activities. It’s one thing to train to jump out of an airplane because you are going to use that skill (military, smoke jumper, search and rescue) but jumping out of an airplane for the thrill of risking one’s life is also questionable because of the motivating factors.

All of the arguments that equate gambling with investing in the stock market, buying insurance, and entertainment as a whole etc are completely irrelevant, as those are apples and elephants and straw men and cheese crackers.

I understand what you are saying, Susan and I think you make a wise point, not a conclusive point, but a sound point, nevertheless. Let me set forth this scenario for the purposes of refinement:

Mr. Palmer decides to play golf on occasion for recreation and typically spends $30 to $50 in order to “recreate”. Mr. Hellmuth decides to play poker for recreation and typically spends $30 to $50 in order to recreate. Are you saying that since Mr. Hellmuth has a chance to earn his money back, this makes gambling wrong? Or is it because he might get that money from another person? Or is it something else?

BTW, I am using those amounts of money hypothetically. I have never gambled away $30 for the same reason that I don’t spend $30 on golf: I can’t afford it. I chose these amounts simply because they are equal and nobody can golf for $5. :)