Semantics Question: Game of chance or skill?

[Z²+]

If you will, help me settle a friendly debate I was having with a fellow RA last night. Our university has a policy reading: "Participating in games of chance for money and/or personal gain is strictly prohibited within the residence halls." Obviously, the intent of this policy is to forbid gambling within the dorms. However, because of the specific wording used, it seems open to interpretation to me. For example, if I happened upon 2 kids playing craps in the lounge, it would clearly be a "game of chance" and against the policy. However, our argument centered on the terminology "games of chance". My two examples were a game of Texas Hold'em, and placing bets on sporting events. Because it is theoretically possible to win every single hand of Texas Hold'em (theoretical, mind you, if everyone else folded every hand because of your incredible bluffing skills - but I never said this was likely), I argued that Texas Hold'em would be considered a game of skill, and not of chance. While chance does determine what cards are dealt and the order of the remaining cards for the flop, turn, and river, players can often win/lose irrespective of what cards chance has dealt them simply by using their poker abilities. Secondly, it would be theoretically possible, with extensive research, to win every sports bet placed (again, not likely, but simply theoretically possible). Would that not make sports betting a game a skill as well?

A rather pointless debate, I am aware. But just something that sparked our interest last night and led to considerable debate. I am fully aware that the "spirit" of the rule is to prohibit gambling. But as written, could you reasonably argue that certain gambling activites similar to what I mentioned could easily be classified as games of skill, and thereby not technically violations of the policy?

[rkmsuf]

I would guess you could argue anything you do in the universe involves an element of skill

[Z²+]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I would guess you could argue anything you do in the universe involves an element of skill

True.
But I was thinking more along the lines of the following arguement:
The end result of a craps dice roll are completely and utterly random. You can control what you bet on, and use knowledge to only bet on the "better" options, such as pass and come. But the resulting roll is random, and no skill is involved. Clearly a game a chance.
The poker game, on the other hand, involved decisions by each of the players that ultimately affects the outcome of the hand. Skill is used in this case, and the winners of each hand are not determined randomly. In my eyes, a game of skill.

[Maple Leafs]

Craps actually involves skill too. Much like poker (although not to the same extent), it's a game of recognizing when and how to bet. Not rocket science, but not exactly a coin-flipping contest either.

[RPI-Fan]

Your argument is completely wrong re: the comparison to craps.

In the same way that it's possible to win every hand of hold 'em, it's possible to win every roll of the dice in craps. At this point, we're still at games of chance.

The difference is re: long-term expectancy. In craps, you CANNOT mathematically expect to win in the long-term. In Hold 'Em, it is indeed possible.

But, for this rule, it seems the intent is basically to prevent money from getting thrown around, which is what happens in Hold 'Em whether you are a long term winner or loser.

So, I'd say, "No, the Hold 'Em is not Ok".

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Z²+

True.
But I was thinking more along the lines of the following arguement:
The end result of a craps dice roll are completely and utterly random. You can control what you bet on, and use knowledge to only bet on the "better" options, such as pass and come. But the resulting roll is random, and no skill is involved. Clearly a game a chance.
The poker game, on the other hand, involved decisions by each of the players that ultimately affects the outcome of the hand. Skill is used in this case, and the winners of each hand are not determined randomly. In my eyes, a game of skill.

ultimately rolling the dice and flipping a card are basically the same activity. whether you are playing against the house or other players makes no difference. poker is more competitve but that doesn't factor out odds and luck.

look at it this way. a novice craps player may not realize the odds against a hard way roll just as a novice holdem player may not know the odds of 27 off suit being a winning hand with 5 players or the odds of catching a straight on the river.

[Maple Leafs]

I think it's pretty much a given that if you play a certain game of chance, you probably attribute far more skill to that game than is really involved.

[Z²+]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

Your argument is completely wrong re: the comparison to craps.

In the same way that it's possible to win every hand of hold 'em, it's possible to win every roll of the dice in craps. At this point, we're still at games of chance.

.

Good point. Although probability says it is unlikely, you could correctly call the dice outcome every time. After further review, my argument here falls flat.

What about the end-result argument, though? In craps, your decisions on how/when/what to bet have no bearing on what outcome will appear on the dice. This randomness, to me, screams chance! However, players in the poker hand can affect the outcome by their actions during the game. To me, skill!

Originally Posted by RPI-FAN

But, for this rule, it seems the intent is basically to prevent money from getting thrown around, which is what happens in Hold 'Em whether you are a long term winner or loser.

So, I'd say, "No, the Hold 'Em is not Ok".

Agreed here as well. Just playing devil's advocate, thinking up possible justifications for not filling out triplicate documentation at 2 am every time we find a card game in the lounge

[JeeberD]

I think the only betting that should be allowed in dorms is betting on who can make the most consecutive paper wads into the trashcan...

[Z²+]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

I think the only betting that should be allowed in dorms is betting on who can make the most consecutive paper wads into the trashcan...

Cleary, a game of skill. As such, no violation of the policy in my eyes. Carry on as you were

[QuikSand]

Setting aside the actual intentions of the policy...

I agree with Z²+, for the most part, that gambling with card games (where your outcomes are at least substantially based on your decision-making) is fundamentally different than gambling on totally random events like rolling of dice (where each proposition has a fixed risk and reward, out of the control of the player).

That's essentially California's position in declaring poker a game of skill and therefore legal, unlike games like craps which they judge to be chancem and illegal.



I agree with RPI-Fan that the hypothetical possibility that you can win every hand in poker is immaterial to the difference between the two games. But I disagree that the long-term expectation being positive or negative is the critical difference. If a stupid person set up a gambling game where you rolled a die for $1 and he paid out $7 every time you rolled a six -- that would still be a game of chance, but it would have a positive expectation in the long run, of course.

[JonInMiddleGA]

There might be some interesting reading for you at
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=383988

And, although laws vary from state to state, the explanation of Minnesota law here is pretty good.
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/alcgamb/gamfaq.html

In your specific case, when you boil everything down, the "luck of the draw" introduces an element of chance that exceeds the element of skill involved in being a good card player.

[QuikSand]

The Minnesota description seems useful on the matter of what is actual gambling or betting -- but I didn't see any real distinction between games of skill and games of chance.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In your specific case, when you boil everything down, the "luck of the draw" introduces an element of chance that exceeds the element of skill involved in being a good card player.

I disagree with this -- at least to the extent that you might claim that it's an inarguable point. Unless you are prepared to argue that any transaction that involves uncertainty is gambling, then this is a very broad definition. What if a resident wanted to invest in the stock market? That clearly involves uncertainty along with his own decision-making and risk-taking, for the purpose of gaining or losing money. Is that a clear call as a gambling activity (and/or "game of chance") just the same as betting on a roll of dice with fixed payouts?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The Minnesota description seems useful on the matter of what is actual gambling or betting -- but I didn't see any real distinction between games of skill and games of chance.

The point I thought was most relevant to the original question was the notion of chance mitigating the skill aspect. Also, by providing examples of what are termed "games of skill", I believe it lends insight to what is considered moreso a "game of chance".

Unless you are prepared to argue that any transaction that involves uncertainty is gambling, then this is a very broad definition. What if a resident wanted to invest in the stock market? That clearly involves uncertainty along with his own decision-making and risk-taking, for the purpose of gaining or losing money. Is that a clear call as a gambling activity (and/or "game of chance") just the same as betting on a roll of dice with fixed payouts?

I think the dividing line might be somewhere along here:

If you were being randomly given stocks to play the market with, it'd be a game of chance. Since you're allowed to choose your stocks, it's a game of skill.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The point I thought was most relevant to the original question was the notion of chance mitigating the skill aspect. Also, by providing examples of what are termed "games of skill", I believe it lends insight to what is considered moreso a "game of chance".

Now I see the item you mention -- the relevant selection is this:

"What about games of skill? If the activity is a game of skill, then criminal penalties don't apply. Skill activities might include darts, bowling and pool tournaments. However, "casino nights" do not usually include activities based on the outcome of a player's skill, but rather the luck of the draw or some other chance event."

Seems fair enough -- they draw the line a bit differently that I would, but it is certainly one interpretation, and not wholly without merit.

[Z²+]

So then, let's say that my residents are playing darts in the lounge. Everyone pays $1 to play, and the winner of whatever dart game they play receives the $20 pot. No vig for the "host" of the event, all money goes to the winner.

While they are certainly violating the spirit and intent of the rule, I don't feel they are technically in violation of the codified rule which prohibits "games of chance for money and or personal gain."

QS, agree?

[Jon]

As soon as I saw this, I thought of the "shell games" and the "three card monty." In New York, people are arrested for this all of the time, but are seldom convicted. Why? Caselaw recently has said that shell games and 3 card monty are games of skill and not chance, because you have a chance to win. THe case pointed out the "shell game" shown on the screen at most ballparks (which hat is the ball under?). But, I think craps is really a game of chance, while the other is a game of skill.
And I think you're right Z squared.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Jon

Why? Caselaw recently has said that shell games and 3 card monty are games of skill and not chance, because you have a chance to win. THe case pointed out the "shell game" shown on the screen at most ballparks

What kind of logic is this? Was this argued in Beavis and Butthead court?

[Jon]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

What kind of logic is this? Was this argued in Beavis and Butthead court?

New York Criminal Court. The logic behind it is that in three card monty and the shell games you can win if you have the skill to follow the card or follow the shell. Now, if they cheat, that's a different story.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Jon

New York Criminal Court. The logic behind it is that in three card monty and the shell games you can win if you have the skill to follow the card or follow the shell. Now, if they cheat, that's a different story.

Cheating is the whole point of the game!

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Z²+

So then, let's say that my residents are playing darts in the lounge. Everyone pays $1 to play, and the winner of whatever dart game they play receives the $20 pot. No vig for the "host" of the event, all money goes to the winner.

While they are certainly violating the spirit and intent of the rule, I don't feel they are technically in violation of the codified rule which prohibits "games of chance for money and or personal gain."

QS, agree?

I agree. I don't think the management wants people gambling on darts, but I agree that this would clearly be a "game of skill" by any reasonable definition.