Poker.

[fatshaft]

But you still don't "play" cards

You've lost me completely?

I understrand in Blackjack there is no "card playing" involved as it is a house game - although there is still optimum strategy - but once you have that there is essentially no decision to make becasue every hand v. the dealer should be played the same every time.

In poker it is nothing like that, you have to "play cards" not just "play your own cards" which is a big and important difference that bad poker players don't get, and as Verbal says, it's not always the best hand that wins, but the guy who can make the other guy think he has a better hand. Playing cards is exactly what it is.

No, gambling is exactly what it is.

In Whist or Bridge (or even good old Hearts) you choose which cards to play and when, trumping others and winning tricks. You develop a strategy around the cards in front of you, and must choose which ones to play and when to be successful. In the case of Bridge this also involves working well in a pair and working out which strategy (and bids) would be best for your team. This is 'playing the cards'.

Blackjack and Poker all you can do is gamble based on the information in front of you. Yes, that's a skill, and in poker it requires more skill than in blackjack, but at no point do you ever play the cards - you just gamble against your opponents and their assessment of the cards they have in front of them.

That's what W4E is getting at.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. You're both wrong then.

[Worthy4England]

But you still don't "play" cards

You've lost me completely?

I understrand in Blackjack there is no "card playing" involved as it is a house game - although there is still optimum strategy - but once you have that there is essentially no decision to make becasue every hand v. the dealer should be played the same every time.

In poker it is nothing like that, you have to "play cards" not just "play your own cards" which is a big and important difference that bad poker players don't get, and as Verbal says, it's not always the best hand that wins, but the guy who can make the other guy think he has a better hand. Playing cards is exactly what it is.

No, gambling is exactly what it is.

In Whist or Bridge (or even good old Hearts) you choose which cards to play and when, trumping others and winning tricks. You develop a strategy around the cards in front of you, and must choose which ones to play and when to be successful. In the case of Bridge this also involves working well in a pair and working out which strategy (and bids) would be best for your team. This is 'playing the cards'.

Blackjack and Poker all you can do is gamble based on the information in front of you. Yes, that's a skill, and in poker it requires more skill than in blackjack, but at no point do you ever play the cards - you just gamble against your opponents and their assessment of the cards they have in front of them.

That's what W4E is getting at.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. You're both wrong then.

In your opinion.

Remind me at which point during the game of poker, you play a card from your hand, to the table?

[fatshaft]

In your opinion.

Remind me at which point during the game of poker, you play a card from your hand, to the table?

Which has got what to do with playing cards?

Remind me at which point during the game of bridge, does the board show a possible boat, and with nothing but an ace in your hand, you push for 30BB into a 60BB pot and your opponent (who has made low boat) folds?

[Prufrock]

In your opinion.

Remind me at which point during the game of poker, you play a card from your hand, to the table?

Which has got what to do with playing cards?

Remind me at which point during the game of bridge, does the board show a possible boat, and with nothing but an ace in your hand, you push for 30BB into a 60BB pot and your opponent (who has made low boat) folds?

I don't think Worthy's point is there is no skill, just that you don't play with cards in themselves, it's more a mind game. That for me is why I love poker, but i see Worthy's point. He's not (I think) knocking theskill involved in poker, just explaining why he prefers other games.

[Worthy4England]

In your opinion.

Remind me at which point during the game of poker, you play a card from your hand, to the table?

Which has got what to do with playing cards?

Remind me at which point during the game of bridge, does the board show a possible boat, and with nothing but an ace in your hand, you push for 30BB into a 60BB pot and your opponent (who has made low boat) folds?

I don't think Worthy's point is there is no skill, just that you don't play with cards in themselves, it's more a mind game. That for me is why I love poker, but i see Worthy's point. He's not (I think) knocking theskill involved in poker, just explaining why he prefers other games.

Sort of Pru - my point certainly isn't that Poker is a game devoid of skill. Occasionally, I enjoy a game of poker. Just that you don't play cards at it. You receive cards and try and convince people that the cards you have are better than theirs - you don't actually play an cards at all.

So, Fatty has not managed yet to convince me that poker is about "playing cards", instead, he's taken the view that rather than answering the question, he'll try and draw some other comparison.

Unfortunately he's picked a bad example, as in bridge, it's quite possible during the bidding phase to bid with nothing but an ace in your hand and effectively knock the opposition out of the bidding to win the Contract - an opponent who might have a better hand. The only problem is, that after doing this, you actually have to play the cards you have, to try and reach the contract that you've just won. It is more than possible through the distribution of the cards and the players skill, to beat a partnership that actually have better cards, but you have to put your money where your mouth it and show you have the skill to play the hand and win. Play the cards being the operative bit.

The bit about turning a 30BB into a 60BB with a possible full house on the board has what, to do with playing any cards?

[blurred]

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. You're both wrong then.

In poker it is perfectly possible to win the game without even looking at your cards. This is not possible in Whist, Bridge, Hearts, or many other card games. You are categorically not playing the cards in poker. You are wrong.

[Verbal]

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. You're both wrong then.

In poker it is perfectly possible to win the game without even looking at your cards. This is not possible in Whist, Bridge, Hearts, or many other card games. You are categorically not playing the cards in poker. You are wrong.

I was reading a story in some poker magazine once, proper fascinating. This guy walks into a casino in Atlantic City with $20,000 in a bag. He sits down at the poker table, starts playinghands. He's being very aggressive, raising, re-raising, etc. The thing that made that odd was that he never once looked at his cards. He cleaned out a few players before eventually succumbing. So yeah I can see yr point.


Although tbh, can we draw a line under this whole cards debate? It's pretty clear neither side of this is gonna budge!