Q&A: Poker
Poker
Question
I’ve recently become interested in the game of poker. I checked a number of responsa about the game, and they all make the mistake of treating it as chance (like dice), and therefore prohibit it, even those who do not see a problem of reliance on an uncertain commitment.
Unlike its image, poker is clearly a game of strategy. There is a mathematically solved GTO for all positions, and it differs from chess in that psychology and “bluffs” are a very significant part of the game. Of course psychology is also not chance, it’s just hard to measure or “solve.”
In the short run, anything can happen of course, but by the law of large numbers, over time better technique will beat worse technique.
Even relatively small gaps in players’ skill will show up clearly over the course of a career.
Is there any other aspect of playing for money that would make the game prohibited?
Answer
From what you describe, I don’t think there is a halakhic problem with it.
The question of deception within the framework of a game is an interesting one. I touched on it in a discussion about Golden Balls on the BBC (I’ve now found it in note 6 of column 197, but I seem to remember an explicit discussion of it).