Is this a game of chance? Not the way I play it...

[lovingboth]

Part of me is surprised about yesterday's decision in relation to the commercial hosting of poker games without a licence.

Just because a game involves an element of chance does not make it one without skill.

An example given of 'pure skill' is quiz machines - yet the machine picks the questions to ask at random from a fixed selection of supposed difficulty. If you happen to be 'dealt' the 'right' questions, i.e. ones you already know the answers to, you win. If you're dealt the 'wrong' ones, then you lose.

The setters of the questions for Who Wants to be a Millionaire thought knowing the size of a google was worth £1m - I knew this at primary school! They also think questions about soap operas are easy, but I typically won't have a clue about the answer. Does this make me skillful or not?

So I'm sure this one will go to appeal, not least as I am sure I remember a decision relating to Backgammon going the other way in the late 70s/early 80s. Yet that turns out to be currently considered a game of luck by the Gaming Commission. To which I can only say 'Would they like to play for money?'

Another amazing discovery is that they think 'French Roulette' (single 0 on the wheel) has effectively died out in Britain and been almost totally replaced by 'American Roulette' (0 and 00 on the wheel = double the house's advantage). Instead of insisting that casinos offer both, or even banning the American version, they've acquiesced in this theft.

Comments

[vampwillow]

When I first saw that case coming to court a few weeks back I could see he was on a definite hiding to nothing as the court case was specifically about the about "Texas-hold 'em" version of poker which is, by definition, pure luck and not skill. In other versions of poker, where the player can change the cards in their hand, there is clearly an element of skill in deciding which, if any, cards to hand in for replacement. In "hold-'em" though the player has no choice in the cards whatsoever as they are dealt out and can't be changed. The only "skill", if one could even try to call it that, is in deciding not to play (and given you'd have to ante up to get dealt cards in the first place even that is debatable)

The concept that Backgammon is 'luck' whilst Chess continues to be 'skill' is, indeed, wrong though ...

[lovingboth]

Hmm, it's not a game I would feel comfortable playing for money, but I recognise that even with this variant, there are consistently good players and consistently bad players = there's a substantial element of skill.

If it were not the case, then good players would seek to play another variant as it would increase their advantage.

Indeed, before its widespread adoption, skilled players prefered Stud Poker (similar idea - everyone shares some cards, you don't get to replace any) to Draw Poker.

[vampwillow]

but the thing with <no changes to card selection> games is that the only "skill" involved (if such it is) is in 'reading' the expectations and behaviour of the other players, it isn't actually about the 'game' being played (or rather the game is psyching out the other players and basically nothing to do with the cards)

[a-musing-amazon.livejournal.com]

I understand the argument not to be about the presence, or otherwise, of an element of skill but whether there is an element of chance.

There is no chance in chess, or Go, but there is a considerable element of chance in games of skill such as 21 (especially if you count cards) or bridge.

What I find really annoying is those TV/Radio phone-a-premium-number games of chance where you have to 'skillfully' answer a difficult question such as which is a Spanish city: Barcelona, Paris or Lisbon. These are in truth nothing but lotteries.

[lovingboth]

Except in an all-play-all twice tournament, there's the draw as to who plays what colour...

That's one of the harder ones :) It's usually 'Madrid, cat or deckchair' :)