You're a Bunch of Factors

ive had this out with many people, and at the moment, i sit on the fence.

i have argued the point that poker, in a tournament format, is a sport, because its putting players against each other in a battle of skills - the cards are just a device to allow this to happen.

so i put it that the premise of a sport is players putting their skills against each other

one of my other mates made a good point as well. he said that a sport is something that involves hand-eye coordination - i.e the skill is controlling your body in a certain way. so this would make darts a sport, even though it is not very physical


so i think i have come to the conclusion that poker is a game, but in certain cases like the WSOP, it is presented in a sport-like fashion.

what does everyone think? vote above.

Maybe you should have gone to court today to see the APA case...

To me, the argument is more whether it is a game of skill, or a game of chance.

Which is the crux of the above case, btw.

Definition from Wikipedia
Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Some of the physical sports include association football, basketball, water polo, and baseball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport

Scott wrote:To me, the argument is more whether it is a game of skill, or a game of chance.

Which is the crux of the above case, btw.

every sport contains an element of chance - otherwise tiger woods would win every golf tournament he plays, and geelong would be undefeated.

poker contains more chance than golf or footy, thats undoubtedly so, but the overriding factor is still skill.

otherwise, i would have as much chance as phil ivey to win the WSOP.

i think poker goes beyond some basic strategy, as what can be employed in blackjack.

so poker is essentially a game of skill that has a higher degree of chance than a lot of other games, but a game of skill nonetheless.

Ben, what you're arguing is the APA case.

When was the last time you saw an amateur take down a golf major? There was a WTP even in 2006 where there was a mechanic(?) who took it down (Mind you, port made it to the "final table" last year)

That is a fair amount of "extra" chance..... and Tiger does win a fair chunk of tournaments he plays in 14 "majors" - is there a poker pro with 14 "major" titles to their name? I'm talking 10/50k buy in a wsop, wpt etc. There might well be, I'm asking.

Federer and Sampras? Sure, poker players can finish consistently well but to my mind, in sport you can train those imperfections out of your game.

hmmmm. I can't even convince myself one way of the other, but I strongly lean toward game, presented as a sport. Either way, still a lot of fun to play/watch.

Hmm, that's a hard one - great discussion benny the cunt.

I'm sorta on the fence about it too. There's definitely a great deal of chance, or luck, in poker - more so than other sports - but to use that as a defining characteristic to not call it a sport seems a bit much. We all know there is definite skill involved in playing poker, which is one of the main reasons why the pro's are so successful.

What do we define as a "game," anyway? A game of chance? Poker is definitely not a game of chance. I find it a bit of a stretch to call it a sport, but I wouldn't be correcting anyone if they used that term

David wrote:Ben, what you're arguing is the APA case.

is this what you are talking about with the "APA" case?
the laws seemed to have changed since then

i think that poker is probably a game, but the whole skill/chance thing is closely related, as the more you argue that its a game of skill, the more sport-like you can also argue it to be, and vice versa.