chance vs. skill games
Colleen
Brie's post this morning about Peter Gray's blog post really got me thinking :-) One thing I want to mention up front - my 9 year loves video games, and I'd by no means ever use the word addicted to describe his passion for playing them. So it's not that I think Dr Gray should say people are video game addicts. I'm just wondering if part of his argument is flawed :-) and I'm quite interested to hear people's thoughts about chance vs. skill games. I also sent what I wrote to Peter Gray, and will be very interested to hear his response (if any).
**Peter Gray recently pointed out that many people make the mistake off relating gambling to playing video games when talking about psychological addictionsthe two acts are nothing at all alike though, and that is exactly where the argument falls short. Gambling is playing on chance. Video gaming is based on skill.**
This is interesting (in my opinion) to consider.
I did some research and it looks like, for example with Poker (on which many people gamble) there is much controversy as to whether it should be considered a game of skill or a game of chance. The answer even has legal implications (there are regulations that control who/what entities can offer games of skill and who can offer games of chance when it comes to making or awarding money).
I have a relative who gambles, rather a lot. He plays poker online and in casinos. Last time I asked him, he said he was spending 5-6 hours a day gambling in online poker games. He doesn't live in a state where there is casino gambling, so he does less of that then he does online. I emailed and asked him if he felt poker was a game of skill or chance, and he says there are aspects of both involved, which is what makes it more interesting and attractive, from his point of view, than things like slot machines and roulette (which are more or entirely chance-based).
There are studies (of course ;-)) to back up what he says. For example one that can be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/13710664/Cigital-100M-Hand-Analysis-Report, and which is described elsewhere online as controversial. The researchers analyzed 103 million hands (!!!!!) of Texas Hold `Em poker and determined that outcomes in the game are often determined by player decisions (skill), rather than chance. Others have argued that the players are making decisions based on cards that they received through chance in the first place, so it's still primarily chance not skill. And round and round in circles it goes :-)
Blackjack is another game, in addition to poker, over which there seems to be much debate in terms of skill vs. chance. I like the description I read that calls blackjack and poker "games of chance which also involve some skill."
As to video games, many indeed are to a great extent skill-based, and some games leave more to chance than others. For example the Mario Party series, which has a high degree of chance influencing the outcome. Online reviews of Mario Party show that many people find the chance aspect frustrating, as you can be winning and then suddenly the computer throws a proverbial wrench into the outcome (through a computerized dice roll) and many people don't like that as they believe they should win based on skill and not lose based on chance. Contrast this to a game like Tetris, in which a small amount of chance comes into play in terms of which pieces the computer gives you in what order (sort of like which cards you get dealt in poker ;-)), but a high degree of skill comes in with what you do with those pieces, how quickly you can make decisions, and (in the higher/faster levels) how fast your fingers can work those controllers and move those pieces into place!
My 9 year old would like to add that there is a lot of skill involved in Pokemon video games. However there is also chance. His words: "With certain legendary Pokemon that run away immediately after your turn if you don't catch them - and you have two different kinds of Pokeballs but only one turn and one of your Pokeballs can catch the Pokemon but you don't know WHICH ball that's chance because if you pick the right ball you catch the Pokemon, and if you don't then it runs away and you need to find it again to try again. You get the point? It's skill yes but it's ALSO got some chance in there!" :-)
Contrast his opinion to what I've heard referred to as the "random rock-paper-scissors nature of Pokemon battles which leave more to chance than to skill " and again, `round and `round in circles we go!
I think the conclusion that I draw (so far still thinking about it!!) is that Peter Gray isn't entirely right on this one. I'm not sure you can neatly take chance and skill and separate them out from each other when discussing gambling or video gaming. I think in many cases both skill and chance are involved. Chance in mostly-skill-based video games often coming into play because of the "random" dice rolls, order in which bad guys sometimes present themselves, order in which puzzle pieces present themselves etc. (I put random in quotes there in honor of my college Number Theory professor who went to great lengths to help us understand that when it comes to computers, there is no true random since somehow, somewhere within that computer something has been programmed to **seem** random but random within a computer program can never truly be achieved ). And skill in mostly-chance-based gambling because in games like poker and blackjack, the player needs to make skill- and experience-based decisions as to what to do with the chance-based cards that are dealt to him/her.
I'd even go so far as to say that I think if you look for example at Tetris (video game) and Poker (gambling), since both involve skill and chance, it might be possible (I'll leave it to the researchers as to whether it is possible, and I'll stick with "might be" :-)) that the conclusions that can be drawn about the addictive (or non-addictive) nature of both might need to be similar.
Peter Gray says """"It's hard to imagine why anyone with a grain of intelligence would spend lots of time gambling unless something irrational was driving him or her to it. Considered as a game, gambling is just dumb. It requires no skill or intelligence whatsoever. You just keep doing the same stupid thing over and over
again and sometimes you win and usually you don't. There's no legitimate sense of mastery.""""""
That statement is all fine and good when it comes to, say, slot machines. But in making such an assertion, does he dismiss blackjack and poker and other such games that can be "mastered" (in terms of being won more often) when skill is employed and involved in the play when people are not just blindly throwing cards and making bets, but where they are using their knowledge and experience (and sometimes things like card counting) to make logic-based decisions about what to do next? How does he account for professional poker players who make a living playing (gambling) card games? Sure they have sponsors and such who pay them, but they also win a disproportionate number of games somehow they consistently beat the odds, and I'd wonder if there needs to be skill involved for someone to beat the odds so consistently
And if he takes poker and blackjack into consideration, are the people who play those hours each day, multiple days per week addicted? Are the people who play Tetris every day for hours addicted then too? Or are neither addicted or where does that leave us?
Interesting stuff. And truly excellent, thoughtful discussion that has just taken place here in our house in New Hampshire about chance, skill, randomness, and the idea that some people (gamblers) make real money playing well somewhere between the two realms!
**Peter Gray recently pointed out that many people make the mistake off relating gambling to playing video games when talking about psychological addictionsthe two acts are nothing at all alike though, and that is exactly where the argument falls short. Gambling is playing on chance. Video gaming is based on skill.**
This is interesting (in my opinion) to consider.
I did some research and it looks like, for example with Poker (on which many people gamble) there is much controversy as to whether it should be considered a game of skill or a game of chance. The answer even has legal implications (there are regulations that control who/what entities can offer games of skill and who can offer games of chance when it comes to making or awarding money).
I have a relative who gambles, rather a lot. He plays poker online and in casinos. Last time I asked him, he said he was spending 5-6 hours a day gambling in online poker games. He doesn't live in a state where there is casino gambling, so he does less of that then he does online. I emailed and asked him if he felt poker was a game of skill or chance, and he says there are aspects of both involved, which is what makes it more interesting and attractive, from his point of view, than things like slot machines and roulette (which are more or entirely chance-based).
There are studies (of course ;-)) to back up what he says. For example one that can be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/13710664/Cigital-100M-Hand-Analysis-Report, and which is described elsewhere online as controversial. The researchers analyzed 103 million hands (!!!!!) of Texas Hold `Em poker and determined that outcomes in the game are often determined by player decisions (skill), rather than chance. Others have argued that the players are making decisions based on cards that they received through chance in the first place, so it's still primarily chance not skill. And round and round in circles it goes :-)
Blackjack is another game, in addition to poker, over which there seems to be much debate in terms of skill vs. chance. I like the description I read that calls blackjack and poker "games of chance which also involve some skill."
As to video games, many indeed are to a great extent skill-based, and some games leave more to chance than others. For example the Mario Party series, which has a high degree of chance influencing the outcome. Online reviews of Mario Party show that many people find the chance aspect frustrating, as you can be winning and then suddenly the computer throws a proverbial wrench into the outcome (through a computerized dice roll) and many people don't like that as they believe they should win based on skill and not lose based on chance. Contrast this to a game like Tetris, in which a small amount of chance comes into play in terms of which pieces the computer gives you in what order (sort of like which cards you get dealt in poker ;-)), but a high degree of skill comes in with what you do with those pieces, how quickly you can make decisions, and (in the higher/faster levels) how fast your fingers can work those controllers and move those pieces into place!
My 9 year old would like to add that there is a lot of skill involved in Pokemon video games. However there is also chance. His words: "With certain legendary Pokemon that run away immediately after your turn if you don't catch them - and you have two different kinds of Pokeballs but only one turn and one of your Pokeballs can catch the Pokemon but you don't know WHICH ball that's chance because if you pick the right ball you catch the Pokemon, and if you don't then it runs away and you need to find it again to try again. You get the point? It's skill yes but it's ALSO got some chance in there!" :-)
Contrast his opinion to what I've heard referred to as the "random rock-paper-scissors nature of Pokemon battles which leave more to chance than to skill " and again, `round and `round in circles we go!
I think the conclusion that I draw (so far still thinking about it!!) is that Peter Gray isn't entirely right on this one. I'm not sure you can neatly take chance and skill and separate them out from each other when discussing gambling or video gaming. I think in many cases both skill and chance are involved. Chance in mostly-skill-based video games often coming into play because of the "random" dice rolls, order in which bad guys sometimes present themselves, order in which puzzle pieces present themselves etc. (I put random in quotes there in honor of my college Number Theory professor who went to great lengths to help us understand that when it comes to computers, there is no true random since somehow, somewhere within that computer something has been programmed to **seem** random but random within a computer program can never truly be achieved ). And skill in mostly-chance-based gambling because in games like poker and blackjack, the player needs to make skill- and experience-based decisions as to what to do with the chance-based cards that are dealt to him/her.
I'd even go so far as to say that I think if you look for example at Tetris (video game) and Poker (gambling), since both involve skill and chance, it might be possible (I'll leave it to the researchers as to whether it is possible, and I'll stick with "might be" :-)) that the conclusions that can be drawn about the addictive (or non-addictive) nature of both might need to be similar.
Peter Gray says """"It's hard to imagine why anyone with a grain of intelligence would spend lots of time gambling unless something irrational was driving him or her to it. Considered as a game, gambling is just dumb. It requires no skill or intelligence whatsoever. You just keep doing the same stupid thing over and over
again and sometimes you win and usually you don't. There's no legitimate sense of mastery.""""""
That statement is all fine and good when it comes to, say, slot machines. But in making such an assertion, does he dismiss blackjack and poker and other such games that can be "mastered" (in terms of being won more often) when skill is employed and involved in the play when people are not just blindly throwing cards and making bets, but where they are using their knowledge and experience (and sometimes things like card counting) to make logic-based decisions about what to do next? How does he account for professional poker players who make a living playing (gambling) card games? Sure they have sponsors and such who pay them, but they also win a disproportionate number of games somehow they consistently beat the odds, and I'd wonder if there needs to be skill involved for someone to beat the odds so consistently
And if he takes poker and blackjack into consideration, are the people who play those hours each day, multiple days per week addicted? Are the people who play Tetris every day for hours addicted then too? Or are neither addicted or where does that leave us?
Interesting stuff. And truly excellent, thoughtful discussion that has just taken place here in our house in New Hampshire about chance, skill, randomness, and the idea that some people (gamblers) make real money playing well somewhere between the two realms!
Sandra Dodd
-=-**Peter Gray recently pointed out that many people make the mistake of relating gambling to playing video games when talking about psychological addictions�-=-
I think that phrase confuses "gambling" with "games of chance."
In the UK, people bet on the American elections (and just about anything else, it seems). Those are neither chance NOR skill gambles. They're messing around with probability and odds. For money. :-)
I've been listening to an audio book called "The Drunkard's Walk." The author talks about the idea that 'Luck will change' or that if someone keeps gambling they'll eventually win, and says it's not true at all. But I think there are situations in which there are some guaranteed winners, on some casino machines--not every "spin" is totally random. When they guarantee winners, there must be some way for there to be winning combinations built in, somehow. And I think when scratch cards are delivered to convenience stores, each set will have some winners, however small. Things like power ball are only identified as to where the card was after the random selection of numbers, but I do think scratchers are not randomly arranged within print runs, but there are some potential winners. I could be wrong.
And gambling laws vary from place to place, I think. Traditions and expectations do, too. I'm pretty sure Americans aren't betting on who will be the next Prime Minister of England.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I think that phrase confuses "gambling" with "games of chance."
In the UK, people bet on the American elections (and just about anything else, it seems). Those are neither chance NOR skill gambles. They're messing around with probability and odds. For money. :-)
I've been listening to an audio book called "The Drunkard's Walk." The author talks about the idea that 'Luck will change' or that if someone keeps gambling they'll eventually win, and says it's not true at all. But I think there are situations in which there are some guaranteed winners, on some casino machines--not every "spin" is totally random. When they guarantee winners, there must be some way for there to be winning combinations built in, somehow. And I think when scratch cards are delivered to convenience stores, each set will have some winners, however small. Things like power ball are only identified as to where the card was after the random selection of numbers, but I do think scratchers are not randomly arranged within print runs, but there are some potential winners. I could be wrong.
And gambling laws vary from place to place, I think. Traditions and expectations do, too. I'm pretty sure Americans aren't betting on who will be the next Prime Minister of England.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sheeboo2
It sounds like you guys had an intense day of conversation and thought. I see what you're saying about skill being at least partially involved in some games that involve gambling, and chance playing a role in some video games. The way I reconcile this is by considering poker and blackjack games first and ways to gamble second. I know lots of people who play poker and no money is involved whatsoever.
I also know people who play chess for money.
While it is interesting to consider the differences between specific games and gambling, the point that I take away from the article remains unchanged: the majority of video games our kids spend hours on are based in mastery and skill--even when there is an element of chance. The rewards are internal, not external. The challenge, as it were, is about figuring things out and gaining skills. The skills and the quest are the prize.
----- And if he takes poker and blackjack into consideration, are the people who play those hours each day, multiple days per week addicted? Are the people who play Tetris every day for hours addicted then too? Or are neither addicted or where does that leave us?-----
Exactly where I was before. If someone does anything for hours on end because it is enjoyable and that action doesn't cause harm to themselves or the people around them, if the activity isn't about hiding and escaping but about engaging and challenging yourself, that doesn't match the definition of addiction:
Addiction
noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
The two components of addiction listed in the DSM: tolerance and withdrawal seem like they'd be absent in both of the situations you listed above.
http://addictions.about.com/od/substancedependence/f/dsmsubdep.htm
Brie
I also know people who play chess for money.
While it is interesting to consider the differences between specific games and gambling, the point that I take away from the article remains unchanged: the majority of video games our kids spend hours on are based in mastery and skill--even when there is an element of chance. The rewards are internal, not external. The challenge, as it were, is about figuring things out and gaining skills. The skills and the quest are the prize.
----- And if he takes poker and blackjack into consideration, are the people who play those hours each day, multiple days per week addicted? Are the people who play Tetris every day for hours addicted then too? Or are neither addicted or where does that leave us?-----
Exactly where I was before. If someone does anything for hours on end because it is enjoyable and that action doesn't cause harm to themselves or the people around them, if the activity isn't about hiding and escaping but about engaging and challenging yourself, that doesn't match the definition of addiction:
Addiction
noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
The two components of addiction listed in the DSM: tolerance and withdrawal seem like they'd be absent in both of the situations you listed above.
http://addictions.about.com/od/substancedependence/f/dsmsubdep.htm
Brie
Pam Sorooshian
I think the difference is that with gambling, over the long haul, winning
is due to chance. If you play long enough, no matter how well you play, the
probably that you will lose money (overall) approaches 100 percent. This is
true EVEN in those games such as Poker in which skill may play a role. The
rules of the game are designed to ensure that, on the average, the house
wins a given percentage. If you play long enough, the law of averages kicks
in and you will almost certainly end up going home with less money than you
had when you started.
The opposite is true of videogames. If you play long enough and develop
enough skill and understanding of the game, the probability that you will
beat the game increases.
Gambling with a serious expectation of winning is delusional. Playing
videogames with a serious expectation of winning is realistic.
(I agree that Peter Grey's argument is flawed....I think I end up agreeing
with his conclusions but for different reasons, though.)
-pam
is due to chance. If you play long enough, no matter how well you play, the
probably that you will lose money (overall) approaches 100 percent. This is
true EVEN in those games such as Poker in which skill may play a role. The
rules of the game are designed to ensure that, on the average, the house
wins a given percentage. If you play long enough, the law of averages kicks
in and you will almost certainly end up going home with less money than you
had when you started.
The opposite is true of videogames. If you play long enough and develop
enough skill and understanding of the game, the probability that you will
beat the game increases.
Gambling with a serious expectation of winning is delusional. Playing
videogames with a serious expectation of winning is realistic.
(I agree that Peter Grey's argument is flawed....I think I end up agreeing
with his conclusions but for different reasons, though.)
-pam
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Colleen <3potatoes@...> wrote:
> Peter Gray says """"It's hard to imagine why anyone with a grain of
> intelligence would spend lots of time gambling unless something irrational
> was driving him or her to it. Considered as a game, gambling is just dumb.
> It requires no skill or intelligence whatsoever. You just keep doing the
> same stupid thing over and over
> again and sometimes you win and usually you don't. There's no legitimate
> sense of mastery.""""""
>
> That statement is all fine and good when it comes to, say, slot machines.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ftb2_ss
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
I wonder about how they assign winners on scratchers, too. The other week we bought 6 of a new ticket. Five of them were winners, and we won 50 bucks or so. Other times we won't win anything out of 24 (this is once a month)
********
>...... And I think when scratch cards are delivered to convenience stores, each set will have some winners, however small. Things like power ball are only identified as to where the card was after the random selection of numbers, but I do think scratchers are not randomly arranged within print runs, but there are some potential winners. I could be wrong.*********
> ......
I wonder about how they assign winners on scratchers, too. The other week we bought 6 of a new ticket. Five of them were winners, and we won 50 bucks or so. Other times we won't win anything out of 24 (this is once a month)
********
ftb2_ss
--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
IF we are talking about puzzle type or single player games. I think the video game issue the game is the multiplayer (usually online), and you are playing against other real people, where the actions of other players is not predictable and the game will not always progress as it would when playing against the game AI. True, you do build skill, (and all the rewards are not external, they can be prestige, items or game skills), but unless you are the very best all time champeen, SOMEONE is better and will beat you.
Greg
>.......
>********
> The opposite is true of videogames. If you play long enough and develop enough skill and understanding of the game, the probability that you will beat the game increases.
>
> Gambling with a serious expectation of winning is delusional. Playing videogames with a serious expectation of winning is realistic.
>
IF we are talking about puzzle type or single player games. I think the video game issue the game is the multiplayer (usually online), and you are playing against other real people, where the actions of other players is not predictable and the game will not always progress as it would when playing against the game AI. True, you do build skill, (and all the rewards are not external, they can be prestige, items or game skills), but unless you are the very best all time champeen, SOMEONE is better and will beat you.
Greg
Pam Sorooshian
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:06 PM, ftb2_ss <gregandrene@...> wrote:
cards are winners, then the expected value is that 2 out of 100 cards at
that store are winners. But that's just a probability - there could be zero
or there could be many winners in any particular bundle or in all bundles
at that store.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> . And I think when scratch cards are delivered to convenience stores, eachEach set may or may not have any winners - it will be random. If 2% of
> set will have some winners, however small.
cards are winners, then the expected value is that 2 out of 100 cards at
that store are winners. But that's just a probability - there could be zero
or there could be many winners in any particular bundle or in all bundles
at that store.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:19 PM, ftb2_ss <gregandrene@...> wrote:
all-time champion! But, the point remains that with videogames, including
multiplayer online rpgs, the increase in your skill that comes from
experience results in improving odds of winning and that continues as you
level up. With gambling, that may happen in a small way at the beginning,
as you learn to play poker or black jack, for example, but the odds are set
(against you) by the rules of the game. No matter how much skill or
experience you gain, those odds kick in eventually for everyone and the
probability of winning will not continue to increase as you play more and
more.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > The opposite is true of videogames. If you play long enough and developGood point - you maybe can't realistically hope to actually become the
> enough skill and understanding of the game, the probability that you will
> beat the game increases.
> >
> > Gambling with a serious expectation of winning is delusional. Playing
> videogames with a serious expectation of winning is realistic.
> >
> ********
> IF we are talking about puzzle type or single player games. I think the
> video game issue the game is the multiplayer (usually online), and you are
> playing against other real people, where the actions of other players is
> not predictable and the game will not always progress as it would when
> playing against the game AI. True, you do build skill, (and all the rewards
> are not external, they can be prestige, items or game skills), but unless
> you are the very best alltime champeen, SOMEONE is better and will beat
> you.
>
>>>>>
all-time champion! But, the point remains that with videogames, including
multiplayer online rpgs, the increase in your skill that comes from
experience results in improving odds of winning and that continues as you
level up. With gambling, that may happen in a small way at the beginning,
as you learn to play poker or black jack, for example, but the odds are set
(against you) by the rules of the game. No matter how much skill or
experience you gain, those odds kick in eventually for everyone and the
probability of winning will not continue to increase as you play more and
more.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Gambling with a serious expectation of winning is delusional. Playing videogames with a serious expectation of winning is realistic.
********
-=-IF we are talking about puzzle type or single player games. I think the video game issue the game is the multiplayer (usually online), and you are playing against other real people, where the actions of other players is not predictable and the game will not always progress as it would when playing against the game AI. True, you do build skill, (and all the rewards are not external, they can be prestige, items or game skills), but unless you are the very best all time champeen, SOMEONE is better and will beat you.-=-
Losing a video game at a high level to a better player isn't the same sort of loss as losing all one's real money in a casino.
Playing against real people is itself already a win. People who are playing the game for the enjoyment of being there can't really lose.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
********
-=-IF we are talking about puzzle type or single player games. I think the video game issue the game is the multiplayer (usually online), and you are playing against other real people, where the actions of other players is not predictable and the game will not always progress as it would when playing against the game AI. True, you do build skill, (and all the rewards are not external, they can be prestige, items or game skills), but unless you are the very best all time champeen, SOMEONE is better and will beat you.-=-
Losing a video game at a high level to a better player isn't the same sort of loss as losing all one's real money in a casino.
Playing against real people is itself already a win. People who are playing the game for the enjoyment of being there can't really lose.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lukesmama2003
> Losing a video game at a high level to a better player isn't the same sort of loss as losing all one's real money in a casino.The games my boys are playing and getting tons of enjoyment out of currently have nothing to do with winning. They play Minecraft, Toontown, Team Fortress 2, Portal 2, Roblox etc. They do it because it is fun! They play very socially with others on multiplayer servers or on Skype with other homeschooled and unschooled friends. Many of the games have to do with getting stronger, like Toon Town and "leveling up" but others are just to play and laugh and socialize with their friends like TF2 where they are trying to sneak up on each other and by playing over time they get better at the game.
>
> Playing against real people is itself already a win. People who are playing the game for the enjoyment of being there can't really lose.
> >
Minecraft is an open end game with infinite options that has to do with building shelter and hunting and survival. Wrapped up into that though, are various modes to play in; one where you can die and other where you can create without limits. They enjoy both types for different reasons. There are challenges to these games that they enjoy and that is part of it too. But definitely it is a "win" the moment they start playing because they are having fun.
Karen