vpFREE2 Forums

Two disturbing articles on casino gambling

#1

The first URL got truncated. Took me a few minutes but I found the
article,
here's another link to it:
_http://tinyurl.com/nu2vcy_ (http://tinyurl.com/nu2vcy)

And while I'm at it, here's another interesting article - an op-ed by
columnist George Will on the issue of Internet poker:
_http://tinyurl.com/og6bax_ (http://tinyurl.com/og6bax)

- Brian in MI

···

_______________________________________________

westie2f writes:

Points for playing are targets of thieves — often casino employees
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/17/increasingly-points-you-g…

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

In the above link (or except below) Howard Lederer says "video poker, unlike regular poker,is a misnomer; it is a game of chance governed by a machine." What do others in the group think of this statement?

"A poker player -- unlike someone playing roulette, a lottery or "video poker" (which Lederer says is a misnomer; it is a game of chance governed by a machine) -- is trying to apply skill, acquired by experience, to increase the probability of winning each hand."

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Marksalot300@... wrote:

And while I'm at it, here's another interesting article - an op-ed by
columnist George Will on the issue of Internet poker:
_http://tinyurl.com/og6bax_ (http://tinyurl.com/og6bax)

- Brian in MI

#3

In the above link (or except below) Howard Lederer says "video
poker, unlike regular poker,is a misnomer; it is a game of chance governed by a machine." What do others in the group think of this statement?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "uny1604" <drdorn@...> wrote:

=================================================
I'd say that Howard Lederer may be a great poker player, but he
knows squat about VP!

Since winning at live poker is also somewhat dependent on drawing
the right cards, at the right tine, I guess that it is "a game of
chance" as well.

~Babe~

#4

"video poker" is indeed a misnomer.

poker is a family of card games of the vying type, in which multiple
players bet in turn over who has the best hand, each player being
required to match the current bet or fold, and the accumulated bets
being awarded to the holder of the best hand who has not folded at the
end.

"video poker" is a type of slot machine, a single-player game with a
single fixed bet and varying payouts. it uses the hand rankings that
are also used in many forms of poker, and many variations use the draw
mechanism that is used in a few forms of poker, but otherwise has
nothing in common with poker. calling it "poker" is wildly inaccurate.

skill vs chance is a continuum. there is chance in chess, there is
skill in roulette, just not very much of it in either case. lederer
would argue that poker is closer to the chess end of this continuum,
whereas video poker is closer to the roulette end. i'd agree with him.

however, whether or not you agree with his characterization of vp, it
seems uncontroversial that any discussion of the legality of poker
should first ensure that the audience knows what game it is you're
talking about. there are an awful lot of people out there who don't
understand that poker and VP are entirely different games...

cheers,

five

···

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:57 AM, uny1604<drdorn@mahaska.org> wrote:

What do others in the group think of this statement?

"A poker player -- unlike someone playing roulette, a lottery or "video poker" (which Lederer says is a misnomer; it is a game of chance governed by a machine) -- is trying to apply skill, acquired by experience, to increase the probability of winning each hand."

#5

In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "uny1604" <drdorn@> wrote: Howard Lederer says "video poker, unlike regular poker,is a misnomer; it is a game of chance governed by a machine." What do others in the group think of this statement?>>>>>>> In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@...> wrote: I'd say that Howard Lederer may be a great poker player, but he knows squat about VP! > ~Babe~

REPLY: I don't know how much Howard Lederer knows about VP. I do know that George Will knows (about both VP and poker) mostly what his research staff feeds him,and I have no clue as to what those anonymous people know about either game.

Here's what I would have said if I had been in Lederer's position and asked to elaborate:

"Thousands of people can (and have) mastered one or more variants of VP. Over their lifetimes, luck alone will determine which of those perfect players fares best. In contrast, no one can ever master any variant of poker. Who actually is the best player of any paricular poker variant changes from day to day, and luck is among MANY factors that determines who fares best their lifetimes."

Or to use analogies: VP compares to hitting a tennis ball against a wall until you decide to quit. Poker is like playing tennis against another human until one of you wins due to a combination of factors that include skill, endurance, psychology, self-discipiplne, and (yes) lucky bounces.

Different strokes for different folks. I like both games.

The GMan

#6

GMan,

As a tennis player I believe your analogy is seriously flawed. It is extremely rare for a tennis match to be decided on a lucky bounce or two. It is possible in an extremely close match, but very rare.

Most poker games between closely matched players are decided by the luck of the draw on a few big hands. Many big pots are lost by the best player on a well played hand. The exact opposite of tennis.

Very few tennis players enjoy hitting a ball against a wall. I believe most VP players enjoy playing.

There was one comment made by the Professor about computer programs playing chess well, but not poker. There was a tremendous effort made to develop chess software. If the same effort was made I am sure a high level poker program could compete. I have to wonder if some of the top online players are human. If you developed a good poker playing program what would you do with it?

Chris

···

Here's what I would have said if I had been in Lederer's position and asked to elaborate:

"Thousands of people can (and have) mastered one or more variants of VP. Over their lifetimes, luck alone will determine which of those perfect players fares best. In contrast, no one can ever master any variant of poker. Who actually is the best player of any paricular poker variant changes from day to day, and luck is among MANY factors that determines who fares best their lifetimes."

Or to use analogies: VP compares to hitting a tennis ball against a wall until you decide to quit. Poker is like playing tennis against another human until one of you wins due to a combination of factors that include skill, endurance, psychology, self-discipiplne, and (yes) lucky bounces.

Different strokes for different folks. I like both games.

The GMan

#7

GMan,

As a tennis player I believe your analogy is seriously flawed. It is extremely rare for a tennis match to be decided on a lucky bounce or two. It is possible in an extremely close match, but very rare.

Most poker games between closely matched players are decided by the luck of the draw on a few big hands. Many big pots are lost by the best player on a well played hand. The exact opposite of tennis.

I think the main, if not only, difference between the two is that
poker games are more of a short run than tennis matches are. If poker
matches were long enough, the better players would win as often as
better tennis players win their matches. Often, there are points in
tennis in which one player dominates but the other hits a lucky shot
and wins the point.

#8

REPLY: [All of Chris's original post retained below because I need to refer to several parts.]
....................................
Chris,

I don't think that you and I disagree about anything significant.

(1) I mentioned lucky bounces LAST in my tennis analogy just to acknowledge that they do happen. We could discuss what "lucky" means in this context, but, as I said, I don't think that we actually disagree. (2) You are exactly right about the short- intermediate- and long-term effects of luck in poker. (3) You're also right about boredom during long sessions/years. That's why I personally prefer poker to VP over extended periods. I could not stand being a VP pro, but I wish I were smart enough and good enough succeed as a poker pro. [But even the best of those encounter boredom problems.]

(4) People are working on programming computers to play poker. The last report that I read in Card Player Magazine involved some top-tier human No Limit HoldEm players in matches against a computer in Canada (Calgary??). As I recall, the humans won again, but they acknowledged that the computers are now serious competitors. (5) The programming obstacle (which Howard Lederer alluded to) is that chess (like VP) is a game of "complete information/knowledge," whereas poker will never be that unless you happen to have genuine psychic powers. I don't. Neither do today's best computers.

Good comments.

The GMan

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kcace1024" <cy4873@...> wrote:

GMan,

As a tennis player I believe your analogy is seriously flawed. It is extremely rare for a tennis match to be decided on a lucky bounce or two. It is possible in an extremely close match, but very rare.

Most poker games between closely matched players are decided by the luck of the draw on a few big hands. Many big pots are lost by the best player on a well played hand. The exact opposite of tennis.

Very few tennis players enjoy hitting a ball against a wall. I believe most VP players enjoy playing.

There was one comment made by the Professor about computer programs playing chess well, but not poker. There was a tremendous effort made to develop chess software. If the same effort was made I am sure a high level poker program could compete. I have to wonder if some of the top online players are human. If you developed a good poker playing program what would you do with it?

Chris

> Here's what I would have said if I had been in Lederer's position and asked to elaborate:
>
> "Thousands of people can (and have) mastered one or more variants of VP. Over their lifetimes, luck alone will determine which of those perfect players fares best. In contrast, no one can ever master any variant of poker. Who actually is the best player of any paricular poker variant changes from day to day, and luck is among MANY factors that determines who fares best their lifetimes."
>
> Or to use analogies: VP compares to hitting a tennis ball against a wall until you decide to quit. Poker is like playing tennis against another human until one of you wins due to a combination of factors that include skill, endurance, psychology, self-discipiplne, and (yes) lucky bounces.
>
> Different strokes for different folks. I like both games.
>
> The GMan
>

#9

Poker is much more like baseball than tennis -- they are both played-out over the long haul, not the short run. A hitter with borderline skills can have a good stretch while even Albert Pujols has bad stretches. Over the long haul, however, the Judy is toiling in the minor leagues and Albert Pujols is in the Hall of Fame.

A 4-to-1 play loses 20% of the time, even though it's the absolute right call nearly 100% of the time. I say "nearly" because truly good players will know when it's not the right call some of the time -- and that's where the difference lies between VP and live poker IMO.

As far as online play -- it's much more akin to VP than to live poker in my opinion.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: madameguyon@embarqmail.com
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:03:08 -0700
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Two disturbing articles on casino gambling

GMan,

As a tennis player I believe your analogy is seriously flawed. It is extremely rare for a tennis match to be decided on a lucky bounce or two. It is possible in an extremely close match, but very rare.

Most poker games between closely matched players are decided by the luck of the draw on a few big hands. Many big pots are lost by the best player on a well played hand. The exact opposite of tennis.

I think the main, if not only, difference between the two is that
poker games are more of a short run than tennis matches are. If poker
matches were long enough, the better players would win as often as
better tennis players win their matches. Often, there are points in
tennis in which one player dominates but the other hits a lucky shot
and wins the point.

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]