Results tagged “poker” from Center for Gaming Research

This afternoon, Dr. Ole Bjerg of the Copenhagen Business School gave a talk at UNLV called "What's in a Game? The Co-Evolution of Poker and Capitalism.

011_bjerg.mp3

A couple of columns ago, I listed the 15 questions I developed to test whether a poker player is a compulsive gambler. 

Based on the comments I received and my own observations of professional poker players, I would like to add an additional question:

16.  Do you feel you always have to be in action, even when you are not playing poker, so that you often bet on games and propositions that are more luck than skill?

            Readers wondered at my reasoning behind some of my questions.  My columns have a short word limit, so I could not go into detail on the questions.  Here are some additional comments: 

1.  Play for stakes you know are too high - I think a compulsive gambler plays mainly for the thrill of gambling.  If he were merely a poor player, he would not recognize that he is out of his league.

2.  Can't quit when behind -- Chasing is probably the single most common characteristic of problem gamblers.

3.  Can't quit when ahead -- This is less common, but the operative word is can't in "feel you can't quit."  Compulsive gambling is classified as an impulse control disorder.  A winner who has an irrational, irresistible urge to continue while ahead is as much of a compulsive gambler as the loser who chases.

4.  Losing because of bad beats -- Compulsive gamblers usually blame others for their losses.

5.  Often get angry at other players -- A major symptom of compulsive gambling is anger.

6.  On tilt more than once -- I should have worded this, "Have you gone on tilt often?"

7.  Increasing bets when losing is the definition of chasing.

8.  Often stay in too many hands -- Again, I was trying to find players who are more attracted to the risk, rather than the cerebral, side of poker.

9.  Drinking -- there is a very high correlation of problem gambling with problem drinking.

10.  Forget important social obligations -- Compulsive gamblers put gambling first, at the expense of the rest of their personal lives.

11.  Misled or lied about how much poker you played.  Compulsive gamblers are liars.

12.  Increasingly using the ATM in casinos -- Getting cash beyond what the player had budgeted.  Considering the outrageous fees and interest rates on cash withdrawals from these machines, I would say that anyone who used an ATM in a casino more than once is either a compulsive gambler or a very poor poker player.

13.  Lied to get money.  Compulsive gamblers are constantly conning others to get money.

14.  Feel bad about things you have done because of poker.  My first draft had as an example failing to pick up a child from school.  I am trying to get to the compulsion to continue playing, even at the cost of personal obligations.

15.  More interested in poker than sex.  I didn't mean thinking about it 8 hours a day.  Gambling to a compulsive becomes more important than everything else.  Spouses often complain that they thought the compulsive gambler was having an affair.  The problem gamblers' response is that they did not want to take the time away from gambling to have sex.

                                                                          END

#08-17 © Copyright 2009. Professor I Nelson Rose is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on gambling law and is a consultant and expert witness for players, governments and industry.  His latest books, Internet Gaming Law (2^nd edition just published), Gaming Law: Cases and Materials, and Blackjack and the Law are available through his website,www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com.

Pathological Poker

 

            Is it fair to ask someone who plays primarily, or exclusively, poker whether he is a compulsive gambler?

            Is poker even gambling?  Does a person who plays day and night and wins, making a good living, have a gambling problem? 

            Of course, he might have a different problem.  He might be a workaholic. 

            The tests that have been developed to uncover gambling problems are pretty good.  The most famous is the Gamblers Anonymous 20 Questions.  These ask about things like gambling interfering with work and home life, feeling guilty, being unable to quit, breaking the law to get money to gamble, and thinking of suicide.  Most compulsive gamblers answer yes to at least seven.

            But these tests are not specifically designed for poker players.  For example, number 14, "Did you ever gamble longer than you had planned?" won't work with home games.  I have never heard of a social game where players did not go beyond the agreed upon end time, for "one last round."

             Poker has gotten the attention of mental health professionals.  But many of these do not play, or if they do, they may not appreciate how different poker can be.  Someone who plays once a month in a social game is different from someone who plays every day as a professional.  Games played in private homes are different from those played in hotel rooms, which are not the same as licensed card rooms.

            And then there is the Internet.  You can play for free, for micro-stakes of 1 and 2 cents, as well as for big money.  A player who plays occasionally at one table online is not the same as one who plays four, or even eight, tables at a time, all the time.

            To help poker players determine whether they might have a gambling problem, I have created my own test.  I don't claim it is entirely scientific.  But it is not made from scratch.  I've looked at the literature and discussed this with professionals who treat compulsive gamblers.

            I am interested to know what you think.  Some of these questions may be way off.  Let me know if any seem simply wrong, or don't tell us anything.  Or if I left anything out.

            I don't know how many you need to answer to be a compulsive gambler.  My guess is that if you are answering yes a lot, you should call a gambling hot line, like 1-800-GAMBLER, to see if you have a problem.

Questions for Poker Players

1.         Do you play for stakes that you know are too high?

2.         Do you sometimes feel you can't quit because you are behind?

3.         Do you sometimes feel you can't quit because you are ahead?

4.         When you lose, is it often because of bad beats rather than your own bad play?

5.         Do you often get angry at other players at the table, for such things as slowing down the game?

6.         Have you gone on tilt more than once?

7.         When you are losing, do you increase your bets to try to get even?

8.         Do you often stay in too many hands?

9.         Do you drink a lot, sometimes going on binges?

10.       Do you sometimes forget important social obligations, because you are playing?

11.       Have you misled or lied to your family, friends or at work about how much poker you play?

12.       Are you increasingly using the ATM?

13.       Have you lied to get money to play poker?

14.       Do you feel bad about things you have done because of poker?

15.       Are you more interested in poker than sex?

            Send your comments to rose@sprintmail.com.

                                                                          END

#08-14 © Copyright 2009. Professor I Nelson Rose is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on gambling law and is a consultant and expert witness for players, governments and industry.  His latest books, Internet Gaming Law (1^st & 2^nd editions) and Gaming Law: Cases and Materials, are available through his website, www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com.

Another "What Is Poker" Case

 

            Last column I started the discussion of whether the prohibitions on internet gambling should apply to online poker by asking the fundamental question:  "What is poker?"

            Twenty years ago I actually had to answer that question under oath in the "7-card down" case I described in my last column.  The fight was about what games were prohibited by an 1885 statute that outlawed "stud-horse poker."

            But in my next case, the definition of poker was the central issue in the case.

            It was ten years later, April 1997, and Florida had recently legalized poker to be played commercially at the state's parimutuel outlets.  Unfortunately, the proponents were willing to make a compromise to get cardrooms authorized that almost proved fatal:  They agreed that the stakes would be the same low stakes permitted for home social games.

            Everyone called them "penney-ante." but in a way they were worse.  At least with antes of a penney many players play seriously, to avoid the embarrassment of having to buy in again.  In internet Texas hold'em games where chips are entirely free, many players go all in on the first two cards.  But go to a micro-stakes table where players are betting 2 cents - 4 cents or 5 cents - 10 cents, and you see most player wait until they have somewhat decent cards.

            What Florida did was put a $10 limit on how much any player could win in a single game.  This meant at a card club table with eight players, each player simply bet $1.25 before the deal and then the winner got the $10 pot.  There could be no betting after the first round.  And the house charged a seat rental fee.

            The clubs tried desperately to figure out a way around the restriction.  The St. Petersburg Kennel Club requested the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation to permit it to spread Big Poker 21, Florida 21 and Sure-2-Win.  These games are obviously not the games you think of when you think of poker.  In fact, you could say they are not poker according to Hoyle.

            In fact, it was the fact that the games had few of the elements of poker games found in Hoyle, specifically Hoyle's Modern Encyclopedia of Card Games by Walter B. Gibson, 1974, 1^st edition, that they were not considered poker.  The regulator had adopted that book as a guideline in evaluating whether a game would be approved to be played in the new card rooms.

            Edmund Hoyle would probably have approved.  Although he died 200 years earlier and never saw a poker hand, since the game had not yet been invented, he did believe in categorizing games according to their rules.  And these games did not look much like poker.

            I was called to testify that they did not have the basic elements of poker.  In particular, there was no way a player could bluff.

            But before I started testifying, the games first had to be described to the administrative judge hearing the case.  Big Poker 21, for example requires players to make their bets before they see their cards.  They then are dealt two cards.  All face cards have the same value, they are worth ten points.  Aces are one or eleven.  If a player gets 21 on his first two cards, he automatically wins.  Otherwise he can keep drawing cards until he decides to stand, with the player getting closer to 21 being the winner.

            Before I could be asked a single question, the judge said, "That's not poker, that's blackjack."

                                                                          END

08-16 © Copyright 2009. Professor I Nelson Rose is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on gambling law and is a consultant and expert witness for players, governments and industry.  His latest books, Internet Gaming Law (2^nd edition just published) and Gaming Law: Cases and Materials, are available through his website, www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com.

What Is Poker?

 

            Should the prohibitions on internet gambling have a carve-out for online poker?

            The question is much more complicated than it seems.             If the argument is that poker is not gambling but rather a contest of skill, should the exemption be limited to poker tournaments?  What is "online" - what about people playing against each others at terminals in a club, or linked clubs?  Which laws are getting changed, federal or state?  And who is doing the changing, legislature, courts or regulators?

            Let's start with what should be the easiest question:  "What is poker?"       

            I have been asked that question twice while on the witness stand and under oath.  Fortunately, in both cases I was prepared.

            The first came in the 1980s when California card clubs were trying to expand beyond 5-card high, 5-card low and panguini, the only games they were spreading at the time.  Even Texas hold 'em was thought to be illegal.  The problem was a statute from 1885 which outlawed "stud-horse poker."

            The Attorney General and local law enforcement thought this outlawed any poker game where a card was dealt face up.  They also thought that all forms of poker were illegal except for draw.

            So, the now defunct Huntington Park Club invented a game to test the law: "7-card down."  Here are the rules: players are dealt two cards face down, there is a round of betting; then each remaining player receives three cards face down and there's another round of betting; then the fourth and then the fifth cards are dealt face down with betting rounds.  The best five card hand wins.

            It was purposely designed to look like hold 'em, but clearly to be something else.

            The L.A. County Counsel tried to shut it down, claiming it violated the prohibition on stud-horse poker.

            I testified about the years of research I had conducted trying to find out what the stud-horse poker was that was outlawed in 1885.  The best I can tell from court cases, 123 year-old newspapers and interviews with an old-timer in Arkansas, which had a case within living memory, stud-horse poker was either a house banked game, 5-card stud, or code for "Let's cheat the newcomer."  Whatever it was, it was played with players getting at least one card face up.

            The judge interrupted my testimony as an expert witness to ask his own question: "What is poker?"  My answer was that players got equal number of cards, there was a ranking of hands based on how rare the hand was, but players could win with lower ranked hands if they made a bet that was not called.

            He then asked, "What is stud poker?"  The County's expert testified that multiple betting rounds distinguished stud from draw.  I said there are additional forms of poker, including straight poker, the original game, where all the cards are face down but without a draw, and community card games like spit in the ocean and hold 'em.  

            I said that stud poker means at least one of the players' own cards is face up, so that the strength of their hands is shown to all.

            Journalists speak of a "stud horse headline."  These are the ones in gigantic, bold print, like "WAR."

            My theory is that we know a real live "stud-horse" is a stud horse because he is (don't blush) obviously male.

            Later, the Legislature removed stud-horse poker from the list of prohibited games, leaving us with the simple question of what is poker?  No problem there, right?

            More next column.

                                                                          END

08-15 © Copyright 2009. Professor I Nelson Rose is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on gambling law and is a consultant and expert witness for players, governments and industry.  His latest books, Internet Gaming Law (2^nd edition just published) and Gaming Law: Cases and Materials, are available through his website, www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com.

The fifth episode of the UNLV Gaming Research podcast series is up, and it's a great one: Jacob Avery, our February 2009 Research Fellow, talks about his sociological research into poker, which started in an Atlantic City card room and has taken him to UNLV Special Collections' Reading Room.

Avery, a graduate student in sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, has made excellent use of the collections here at UNLV, integrating them with his field notes to create a fascinating analysis of the "action" at the poker table. I hope to see more fine work from him in the future.

005_avery.mp3

One of the more common themes you will find in Card Player are articles that describe poker hands. Sometimes these are instructive in nature, and sometimes they are just describing a dramatic situation, especially an important hand played late in a tournament where much money was at stake.


In fact, a few of these articles have been written by me, and I enjoy reading many of them. They are informative, in many instances illustrate the dramatics and complexities of poker, and help to explain why this wonderful game keeps all of us occupied to some degree.


But it turns out that among all the poker hands ever played and written about, there is one particular hand whose importance is probably far more significant than all other poker hands ever played put together. Now that's a mouthful, and the real shame is that most of you who will read this essay don't know anything about it. Of course, that will soon be corrected.
First some background. The year was 1864 and the United States Civil War was nearing its climax. Even though the North was winning, it was not winning by enough to assure that the war would end with a favorable conclusion for the Union side. The Confederate Army led by Robert E. Lee in Northern Virginia had frustrated all Northern attempts to capture the city of Richmond, and the price the North would have to pay for total victory seemed to great for many people. This meant that there was a good chance that Lincoln would not be reelected, and that his opponent, General George B. McClellan would be the new president in 1865. There was also much speculation that McClellan would end the killing and split the United States into two countries.

However, the war in the West had gone much better for the North. The Confederacy had been split in two with the capture of Vicksburg, and they had a large army in Northern Georgia that was headed towards Atlanta. But there were still problems. The Confederate Army of The Tennesse was in its way.
This army also had a new commander, General Joseph E. Johnston, an extraordinary defensive tactician. Johnston understood that as long as his army survived, the Southern nation would survive, and didn't want to fight unless he had a clear advantage.

Thus a war of maneuver began where the two armies "danced" their way towards the city of Atlanta.
In addition, Johnston knew what might happen in the election of 1864. If he could hold out against Sherman, and not allow him that ultimate victory the North so badly needed, then Lincoln might be defeated at the polls. This was literally the best chance the South had.


Unfortunately for Johnston, Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, did not see things quite the same way. Davis wanted the invader brought to battle and defeated. So at the outskirts of Atlanta, Johnston was relieved of his command and was replaced by the aggressive and courageous fighter General John B. Hood


Now some of you might be wondering what all this has to do with a poker hand. Well, a curious event now occurred. One of Sherman's subordinates, whose name I have never seen in my reading, related a story to his commander about Hood playing in a poker game many years before the Civil War began. Apparently, Hood had bet $2,500, a very large sum in those days, with "nary a pair" in his hand. Sherman immediately understood what this meant. Instead of being against a defensive tactician who was forcing him to fight a war of maneuver, the Union Army should brace itself for an attack. Sherman correctly assumed that someone's aggressive tendencies were as likely to show up at the poker table as they were on the battlefield. He now knew that he was against a fighter, not a tactician.

In fact, if his army was still on maneuver and was hit directly in the "side," the Confederates could punch a hole in his lines, separate his forces, and perhaps even defeat the whole Union cause. The dance was now over, and big betting would begin.
As suspected, the attack soon came, and after several vicious battles, including the Battle of Atlanta, Sherman - who had correctly predicted his opponent's intention all because of a poker game held many years before - finally achieved the decisive victory that the North and President Lincoln so badly needed.


So how important was this poker hand. Well, if it hadn't been played, there might not have been a United States as we know it, and all of world history might have been different. So don't let anyone ever tell you that poker isn't important, or that they just played a hand of a lifetime. I don't care what they might claim, the results can't compare to that hand played perhaps over 150 years ago.


Finally, a few of things that we don't know:

1. We don't know what form of poker Hood was playing. My guess would be some form of no limit draw poker, but that doesn't have to be the case.
2. We don't know if Hood was caught bluffing or showed the hand after raking in a big pot.
3. We don't know if this was a well thought out play on Hood's part or whether he was just steaming.
4. We have no idea as to how good a poker player Hood might have been. But I do suspect that Sherman would have been very good if he ever sat at the poker table.

by Mason Malmuth