Is poker a mind sport?

I don't want to write the same thing everywhere, so I'll write my thoughts here so I can refer to them later. You can express your opinion! There are two ways to define a mind sport: Either we strictly state that there must be no randomness in the game, or we claim that randomness can exist in the field of mind sports. Deciding in favor of the second option is a slippery slope: Around the World and Monopoly contain randomness and these games require thinking, but probably no one considers these games to be mind sports. Is it possible for us to determine the proportion of randomness in a game? For example: 10% of the game's outcome can be decided by randomness, the rest must come from knowledge/skills. I ask myself, I answer myself - it is very difficult to estimate the proportion of randomness in a game, so we cannot define mind sports that way. The Estonian Mind Sports Association chose the first definition. Now about poker: 1) When listening to interviews with athletes who have left the final table of major tournaments, you can almost always hear the phrase "The card didn't run" 2) In poker, it is not possible to determine the best within the framework of one tournament. This is also shown by the results at the WSOP and other major tournaments in the world: There is no specific "World's Best". World champions are different every year because one year one card simply runs better than the other. I do not dispute the fact that poker is a game that requires serious thinking and specialists in this field earn their living with it. I am also aware that poker was accepted as a member of the world organization of mental sports. For me, this decision was purely populist: Since poker is currently IN in the world (by the way: already losing popularity!), the hope was to simply get people to join the organization. Finally, a quote from the new World Champion of Mind Games ( Mind Games World Championship 2010 ): "Poker players always claim that it is a game of skill - sorry, poker aces, but this can only be true in the very long term and to quote John Maynard Keynes, then ´In the long run we are all dead´. In a particular tournament, even an experienced player cannot do anything without luck, and if you still have significantly more luck than everyone else, you can close the tournament without even understanding the game."

If you play about 60,000 hands in cash games at NL50 every month and you have recorded your results for the last three years and have not had any negative months, then I'm still a lucky man.

You probably missed the paragraph "I don't dispute the fact that poker is a game that requires serious thinking, and that professionals in this field earn their living from it." My emphasis is on the element of randomness, which should not be present in a classic mental sport.

Why is it even necessary to define it? Poker is a mental sport (you have to think), where randomness also plays a role. In the long run, however, randomness is of only marginal importance.

According to your definition, the board game "Journey Around the World" is also a mental sport, which the Estonian Mental Sports Association does not like at all.

The question is also how anyone bothers to play a game. And there is another quirk in this matter that I will try to explain. If I play Monopoly, for example, you can play it in such a way that I think crazy and consider all the options and then make a considered move. Another option is to play it as a pastime, without thinking much. If we equate this idea with chess, for example, then it can undoubtedly be played in such a way that the moves are thought through, it is actually intended to be played that way. But chess can also be played in such a way that you do not think much, but both players make relatively random moves. In fact, in this case, the excitement disappears from the game. Chess is exactly the kind of game that is exciting when you use your thinking skills. Monopoly, however, can be played without thinking, and is about as exciting as playing without thinking. Or what I want to say. That the definition could be based on this idea a little (it is difficult to draw the line anyway, because luck is needed in every game - even 0.1%). So if there is a game that does not lose its excitement because people do not think, for example, then it cannot be called a mind sport. However, if playing arbitrarily without thinking makes the game uninteresting, then it is a mind sport - a mind sport in the sense that thinking makes the activity more attractive. A few examples: Checkers and Chess quickly get boring if played thoughtlessly. However, if you delve into it, you will want to play more and more. I usually play Monopoly and Scrabble without thinking so much. Even Scrabble usually starts with the first words that come to mind. But it is exciting. I have also played Monopoly at the 2010 World Mind Sports Championship, and I still tried to think and consider the moves. I honestly admit that it was not more exciting than just playing in a group. Entropy - this is a game where the final score is actually determined by luck. The order in which the last pieces appear can change the final score somewhat. But it really adds to the game if you think along and delve into it. According to Meikop's definition, it's not a mind game, but according to mine, it could even be considered a mind game. In short, if you go by my logic, what's a mind game for some might not be one for others - maybe this definition is more flexible and why not set things up for yourself according to that.

In the long term, of course, it is. But whether a person's lifespan is long enough for this to happen is a personal question. In fact, Tiidu's comment about entropy puzzled me: "The last balls come randomly" - so the first ones don't come at all? And you can always see which colors have come less often and the strategy has to be adjusted accordingly. I also challenge the young man of the same name to a duel in the aforementioned game (entropy) and I promise that during the first 10 games I will have so much "luck" that you will not win any of them! If I am wrong, I am willing to compensate you for your time in the agreed amount.

You can't play Entropy for money either :) - it's a game of chance!

Have I stated that the first pieces do not come randomly? I said that the last ones come and thereby made the claim that the final score depends on their arrival. I also did not indicate to what extent this changes the final score - the fact is that, for example, the order in which the last three pieces arrive can somewhat affect the final score. I'm not saying that this should decide the winner. But how can you promise that you will win 10 games? Unfortunately, there seemed to be a very bitter comment on this point...

Poker is as much a mind sport as a mind sport is a sport.