Poker in the Olympics

Some people believe that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) should include chess and bridge as “intellectual sports” in the Olympics. Poker also should be included in this category.

Poker has become extremely popular, and play has grown around the world substantially more than that of both chess and bridge. During a recent PokerStars online tournament, I checked the standings and noted that only two of the top 10 players were from the U.S. The other eight were from a variety of countries. And at the World Series of Poker, there are players from all over the world in attendance.

Although there is sometimes a rather annoying luck factor in poker (we all have suffered bad beats), the good players consistently win and the bad players usually lose. There is some amount of luck in all games and sports (any team can win on a good day), but the teams with the best players usually win the most games, and make the playoffs. And even the best bridge and chess players often admit that they “got lucky” and won because a certain card was on-side (the finesse won) or a certain line of play turned out to be better than they expected.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that poker is a “game of skill.” Although just what constitutes a game of skill is not rigorously defined, it seems clear that a game of skill requires the expertise to make decisions that figure to win or gain an advantage. But in all games and sports, even if a player or coach makes what is undeniably the best decision in a given situation, luck sometimes chooses the 20 percent side instead of the 80 percent side (yet another bad beat).

Perhaps the best test to determine the depth or the amount of skill in a game or sport is to consider the number of specific situations in which general skill and experience are necessary to make the best percentage decision. Clearly, in poker, as in bridge, there are at least thousands of very different situations in which there are many factors to consider and weigh. Oftentimes, psychological aspects outweigh the mathematics, and in poker, “opposite psychology” is often several levels deep. Poker is indeed a game of great depth, especially when played at the highest levels.
One easy-to-understand example of applying skill to basic situations is when holding a good starting hand. All good players usually press their advantage by raising on the first round of betting (in hold’em and Omaha, that’s preflop). And after the flop, it is usually a good percentage play to follow up with a bet.

But there are many exceptions to raising before the flop or betting after the flop, as much depends on the momentum of the game and perhaps previous interactions of the players. Sometimes it is best to play very aggressively or even bluff, and sometimes it is best to trap with good cards. A great deal of skill is required to optimize results in these basic yet complex situations.
There are also many situations in poker in which all experts know that it is “always right” to take a given action. Several years ago, I wrote a column titled, “The MAW Bet” (might as well bet), which applies in a situation in which you have the nuts going to the last card, and have already bet most of your chips. Then, a scary card hits the board (for example, it pairs the board or is the third card of a suit). If you are pot-committed and acting first, you “might as well bet” your remaining chips, since your opponent will certainly bet if he has hit, and being pot-committed, you will call.

It is clearly right to bet your remaining chips, since you would lose them anyway if your opponent hit, and he might call with a losing hand. Of course, the above does not apply in the rare instance in which you are playing against an opponent who never bluffs, and you therefore might check and fold if he bets (but, obviously, that would be poor economics if you could be wrong about his never bluffing).

What I have just mentioned are merely examples of thousands of “high-percentage” situations in poker in which an expert player either “knows what to do” or occasionally decides to deviate and attempt an “over the board innovation” (a chess term for trying a novel approach). We all have heard of “intentional walks,” “power plays,” and perhaps “safety plays” in bridge. Please note that there are even more of these high-percentage plays in poker than in most other games and sports that require skill.

So, given that poker really is a game of skill, what is the next step in getting it included in the Olympics? Probably, getting the IOC to recognize an organization as an International Federation (IF) representing and administrating the sport of poker (in accordance with IOC Rule 29). Perhaps the International Federation of Poker, the World Poker Association, the International Poker Association, or some combination thereof would be so recognized. Then, perhaps, poker would be added to the “programme” for the Olympics.

Someone recently asked me if I could picture Doyle Brunson receiving an Olympic gold medal. Definitely, yes; better late than never. ♠