Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 535–550 | Cite as

Is Poker a Game of Skill or Chance? A Quasi-Experimental Study

  • Gerhard Meyer
  • Marc von Meduna
  • Tim Brosowski
  • Tobias Hayer
Original Paper

Abstract

Due to intensive marketing and the rapid growth of online gambling, poker currently enjoys great popularity among large sections of the population. Although poker is legally a game of chance in most countries, some (particularly operators of private poker web sites) argue that it should be regarded as a game of skill or sport because the outcome of the game primarily depends on individual aptitude and skill. The available findings indicate that skill plays a meaningful role; however, serious methodological weaknesses and the absence of reliable information regarding the relative importance of chance and skill considerably limit the validity of extant research. Adopting a quasi-experimental approach, the present study examined the extent to which the influence of poker playing skill was more important than card distribution. Three average players and three experts sat down at a six-player table and played 60 computer-based hands of the poker variant “Texas Hold’em” for money. In each hand, one of the average players and one expert received (a) better-than-average cards (winner’s box), (b) average cards (neutral box) and (c) worse-than-average cards (loser’s box). The standardized manipulation of the card distribution controlled the factor of chance to determine differences in performance between the average and expert groups. Overall, 150 individuals participated in a “fixed-limit” game variant, and 150 individuals participated in a “no-limit” game variant. ANOVA results showed that experts did not outperform average players in terms of final cash balance. Rather, card distribution was the decisive factor for successful poker playing. However, expert players were better able to minimize losses when confronted with disadvantageous conditions (i.e., worse-than-average cards). No significant differences were observed between the game variants. Furthermore, supplementary analyses confirm differential game-related actions dependent on the card distribution, player status, and game variant. In conclusion, the study findings indicate that poker should be regarded as a game of chance, at least under certain basic conditions, and suggest new directions for further research.

Keywords

Gambling Game of chance Poker Quasi-experiment Regulation 

References

  1. Berthet, V. (2010). Best hand wins: How poker is governed by chance. Chance, 23(3), 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjerg, O. (2010). Problem gambling in poker: Money, rationality and control in a skill-based social game. International Gambling Studies, 10, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breen, R. B., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). ‘Chasing’ in gambling behavior: Personality and cognitive determinants. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1097–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browne, B. R. (1989). Going on tilt: Frequent poker players and control. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 5, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabot, A., & Hannum, R. (2005). Poker: Public policy, law, mathematics, and the future of an American tradition. Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 22, 443–513.Google Scholar
  6. Cabot, A. N., Light, G. J., & Rutledge, K. F. (2009). Alex Rodriguez, a monkey, and the game of scrabble: The hazard of using illogic to define the legality of games of mixed skill and chance. Drake Law Review, 57, 383–412.Google Scholar
  7. Croson, R., Fishman, P., & Pope, D. G. (2008). Poker superstars: Skill or luck? Similarities between golf—thought to be a game of skill—and poker. Chance, 21(4), 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dedonno, M., & Detterman, D. (2008). Poker is a skill. Gaming Law Review, 12, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreef, M., Borm, P., & van der Genugten, B. (2004). Measuring skill in games: Several approaches discussed. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, 59, 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fiedler, I., & Rock, J.-P. (2009). Quantifying skill in games—Theory and empirical evidence for poker. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 13, 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiedler, I., & Wilcke, A.-C. (2011). Der Markt für Onlinepoker: Spielerherkunft und Spielerverhalten [The online poker market: Players‘nationality and players‘gambling habits]. Norderstedt: BoD Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Hambach, W., Hettich, M., & Kruis, T. (2009). Verabschiedet sich Poker aus dem Glücksspielrecht? [Does poker say goodbye to the gambling law?]. Medien und Recht International, 6(2), 41–50.Google Scholar
  13. Hannum, R. C., & Cabot, A. N. (2009). Toward legalization of poker: The skill vs. chance debate. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 13(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  14. Heubeck, S. (2008). Measuring skill in games: A critical review of methodologies. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 12(3), 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hope, P., & McCulloch, S. (2009). Statistical analysis of Texas Hold’em. Retrieved August 9, 2010 from http://cigital.com/resources/gaming/poker/100M-Hand-AnalysisReport.pdf.
  16. Jackson, J. W. (2007). Using WinPoker 6.0 to study gambling behavior. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 1, 59–75.Google Scholar
  17. Kelly, J. M., Dhar, Z., & Verbiest, T. (2007). Poker and the law: Is it a game of skill or chance and legally does it matter? Gaming Law Review, 11, 190–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larkey, P., Kadane, J. B., Austin, R., & Zamir, S. (1997). Skill in games. Management Science, 43, 596–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levitt, S. D., & Miles, T. J. (2011). The role of skill versus luck in poker: Evidence from the World Series of Poker. NBER Working Paper no. 17023.Google Scholar
  20. Linnet, J., Frøslev, M., Ramsgaard, S., Gebauer, L., Mouridsen, K., & Wohlert, V. (2012). Impaired probability estimation and decision-making in pathological gambling poker players. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 113–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCormack, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). What differentiates professional poker players from recreational poker players? A qualitative interview study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McMullan, J. L., & Kervin, M. (2011). Selling Internet gambling: Advertising, new media and the content of poker promotion. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. doi:10.1007/s11469-011-9336-3.
  23. Meyer, G., & Hayer, T. (2008). Poker—Glücksspiel mit Geschicklichkeitsanteil und Suchtpotential [Poker—Gambling with skill elements and addictive potential]. Zeitschrift für Wett- und Glücksspielrecht, 3, 153–160.Google Scholar
  24. Palomäki, J., Laakasuo, M., & Salmela, M. (2012). “Don’t Worry, It’s Just Poker!”–Experience, self-rumination and self-reflection as determinants of decision-making in on-line poker. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:10.1007/s10899-012-9311-3.
  25. Rasch, B., Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Naumann, E. (2010). Quantitative Methoden Band1: Einführung in die Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler [Quantitative methods Volume1: Introduction in statistics for psychologists and social researchers]. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Sharpe, L. (2002). A reformulated cognitive-behavioural of problem gambling: A biopsychosocial perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shead, N. W., Hodgins, D. C., & Scharf, D. (2008). Differences between poker players and non-poker-playing gamblers. International Gambling Studies, 8, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siler, K. (2010). Social and psychological challenges of poker. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 401–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, G., Levere, M., & Kurtzman, R. (2009). Poker playing behavior after big wins und big losses. Management Science, 55, 1547–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. St. Germain, J., & Tenenbaum, G. (2011). Decision-making and thought processes among poker players. High Ability Studies, 22, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Towfigh, E., & Glöckner, A. (2011). Game over: Empirical support for soccer bets regulation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 475–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tryggvesson, K. (2009). Internet poker—Prevalence and problems in Sweden 2006. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 26, 503–519.Google Scholar
  33. Turner, N., & Fritz, B. (2001). The effect of skilled gamblers on the success of less skilled gamblers. Journal of Gambling Issues, 5, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wood, R. T. A., Griffiths, M. D., & Parke, J. (2007). Acquisition, development, and maintenance of online poker playing in a student sample. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 354–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Meyer
    • 1
  • Marc von Meduna
    • 1
  • Tim Brosowski
    • 1
  • Tobias Hayer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Psychology and Cognition ResearchUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations