Syndicated columnist on Internet gambling

[RKuczek]

I was thinking along the lines of looking at a distribution of results, and looking for anomalous results which would prove that skill played a role, but, we would not necessarily need to do that. I do think that simply looking at some individual players and their performance over time might be meaningful and convincing.

I've played online for almost three years now, my total investment, made three years ago, was $50, never made additional deposits, and am still playing and have cashed out thousands in profit. I certainly have played more than 2,000 SnGs and tournaments, and my winnings haven't come from lucking out and hitting one big payday, but from grinding out a modest edge over many many tournaments/SnGs, many of them small money tournaments/SnGs. There are certainly some other players on UB that I am confident have earned a long term profit. I would guess that it would be possible to demonstrate that at least a few players have consistently earned a profit off their play over time, and that simple variance is not an adequate explanation of their performance.

Likewise, it might be possible to demonstrate the opposite, players that are so bad that luck can't explain their losses. I could nominate a few for that category as well.

Maybe looking at BJTers as a group, and their average performance might be enlightening.

[Monkeysystem]

My thought in a research project was to record financial results in poker cash games of good players versus random average players seated opposite of them. This would eliminate bias in the results of both opponents' skills and position advantage. The raw data would be a score calculated as bankroll change divided by number of hands and big blind. You could then apply ANOVA and regression analysis to this data. These analyses tell you if your sample size was big enough to yield significant results, as well as variance and win rates.

If you can't obtain data in such a study by watching players, you can observe known online players. Another source of info someone suggested to me was recordings of televised games, though I imagine most of the "boring" hands are edited out. This would bias the data.

In blackjack tournaments you could track the results of known high-performance players versus random opponents seated opposite of them as well. Instead of money win rates you would track their performance in winning their table and advancing. You would have to factor in number of players advancing and number of players seated. A multiple ANOVA analysis could not only yield a skill factor for players but also the effect of different formats on the high-performance players' outcomes.

The data from such a tbj study would probably have to be furnished by the high-performance players being studied.

I don't think you would need thousands of iterations to obtain significant statistical results. The magic number in statistics for sample size for all kinds of studies is thirty. If you use multiple ANOVA you need bigger sample sizes than that. You could probably record the results for some number of players through thirty tournaments and obtain statistically significant results. If your results turn out to be insignificant you would need to obtain more data.

[LeftNut]

TV won't work for the reason Monkey stated, plus you cannot trust the editing. I was able to see the program showing my win at Winstar last year, and they changed the order of the hands significantly (probably to liven up the presentation). So, you don't get to see all the hands and you don't know if they're really showing how it happened.

[Venture]

Tex makes a good point. They have no problem with chess, bridge, auto racing or a rodeo where everyone pays an entry fee and the winners share the pot plus the promoter's contribution.

Usually it is those on the left who usurp the freedom of the people in the name of government. This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue (check the votes).

This is not a moral issue.

This is an issue of taxation. An issue where the Republicans join Democrats to tax the people for the power of government and to promote their own greed for money and power. True Conservatives or Libertarians would puke!

I believe George Will is a true Conservative, and at least this time, I think he gets it!

It's not illegal, immoral or fattening if they can tax it.

[RKuczek]

Canada does not tax gambling winnings, nor can Canadians take off gambling losses. I believe quite a few other countries do the same. When you consider that the casino profits are taxed, as regular corporate income, or even subject to additional special taxes, and those profits are actually the difference between the players' wins and losses, then that makes a great deal of sense.

Taxing the players just taxes the money twice, once on the casino side, then once on the player's.

[Venture]

It makes sense to us, but not to the government in the US. If you are a greedy politician, why not tax the money on both ends?

But I think that is what you were really saying.

[black-jack]

Gaming operators would acutally love to be taxed if they could legally offer their services. Unfortunately US government behaves as if the issue didn't exist, which in the era of financial crisis is even more difficult to understand. The same problem occurs on my side of the Atlantic, however some countries in Europe already decided to legalize internet gambling. Other will follow, it's just a matter of time.

[TXtourplayer]

Just let the goverment take control of the internet gaming. They would probably go for that, seems they want to take control of everything else.

Only problem I see is that at the goverments current rate of spending money they many not have enough to payout...lol