legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:41 am Post subject: The Ol' Game of Skill versus Game of Chance Argument |
 |
|
WELCOME!
'Poker is a game of skill, not of chance,' say poker enthusiasts:
The New York Times Magazine
Magazine Subscription
My Son's Gamble
Dan started playing online poker full time, made money and quit college. What's a mother to do?
By Lucy Ferriss
June 28/09
| Quote: | ... I did what any self-respecting, psychically torn professor would do. I went to the library. And I learned many things.
I learned, for instance, that what I thought of as the addict-versus-pro argument (what other people might call the chance-versus-skill argument) is working itself out now in our legislatures and courts, in particular around a 2006 federal law, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The U.I.G.E.A. prohibits Internet gambling businesses from accepting money for “unlawful” gambling. But this term turns out to be clear as mud; the definition of unlawful gambling varies according to state laws. An important concern for many opponents of the U.I.G.E.A. — which means most poker players — are those states that use the “dominant-factor test,” wherein chance, rather than skill, must dominate for a game to be considered gambling. As one article I read put it, if “poker is a game of skill and thus not a game subject to chance,” online poker sites would be free to do business with U.S. customers.
Thus went my rationalizing: If poker is a game in which skill predominates — like chess or Scrabble — then it isn't “just gambling.” Perhaps it really does sharpen the mind, as Charles R. Nesson, a Harvard law professor, has argued in promoting the game as “an environment for experiencing the dynamics of strategy.” My son is not being sucked into a zero-sum addictive game of luck that gives nothing back to society; he is benefiting from a challenging form of entertainment for which other rational adults are willing to pay.
Countering this nifty argument were the studies correlating compulsive poker playing with mood disorders, with substance abuse, with other risky or criminal behaviors. Even Charles Humphrey, a poker-law expert who has advised the Poker Players Alliance in its efforts to repeal the act, acknowledges the luck involved in poker when he observes that no one has ever repeated as Poker Player of the Year from one year to the next. “Indeed,” he writes, “few repeat in the Top 10 of those lists.”
I contacted Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling. I wanted an answer, I told him — and at first, he gave me one. “Poker is gambling,” he said flatly. “It involves the same three things all gambling involves — prize, chance and consideration.” What’s more, I learned as I perused The Journal of Gambling Studies, most of us tend to risk more on the outcome of a task involving chance when it also requires just a dollop of skill — a not-inaccurate description of poker. ...
I remembered Keith Whyte’s response when I told him I was educating myself about state and national laws regarding poker. “The legal lens is the least helpful way to view this issue,” he advised me. (emphasis added) “How and why you gamble — those are the important questions.” How was clear, at least for the moment: daily, nightly, online, alone and with some success. The key to acceptance came to me in considering why. (-- pgs. 38- 43) |
Just how nuts is U.S. gambling legislation?
| Quote: | | Footnote 2 Brief from Charles E. Humphrey, Jr., to Honorable Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General (Jan. 25,2005) (on file with Opinion Committee) (Click v. MTVNetworks, 796 F. Supp. 743,746 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) attached which quotes the New Jersey statute) (attachment to Brief). |
More about Charles E. Humphrey, Jr. v. Viacom, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2768 (DMC) (D.N.J., June 20/07), Participants In Sports Fantasy Leagues Are Not Gamblers, by Martin Samson at Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions:
| Quote: | Court dismisses claims brought by plaintiff under the qui tam laws of a number of states, including New Jersey, to recover as gambling losses the entry fees paid to defendants by participants in online sport “fantasy” leagues. Qui tam statutes permit the recovery of gambling losses sustained by gamblers in various gaming activities. The online sport fantasy leagues run by defendants permit participants, for a fee, to manage a fantasy team of professional athletes and compete against others for fixed prizes designated before the league commences. The winner is determined based on the relative performance of the selected athletes.
The Court dismissed the suit, holding that fantasy league participants do not sustain gambling losses within the meaning of the statutes at issue. Rather, they pay an entry fee for which they bargain for and receive a number of services. These services include statistical tracking and analysis of the performance of both their team and those of their competitors, and access to analytical information concerning athletes, which participants may use in managing their teams. The Court further held that the activities in question do not constitute gambling within the meaning of the statute, because “(1) the entry fees are paid unconditionally, (2) the prizes offered to fantasy sports contestants are for amounts certain and are guaranteed to be awarded and (3) defendants do not compete for the prizes.” The Court further held that plaintiffs are neither gambling “losers” nor defendants gambling “winners” within the meaning of the statute, another ground for dismissal. Finally, the Court dismissed the suit as a result of plaintiff’s failure to name a single participant in his complaint who had actually sustained a loss, or the amount of loss he purportedly sustained. |
Finally, was 'game of skill' part of Antigua's WTO win over U.S. gambling laws?
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=679#679 |
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
From UIGEA, 2006 (Prohibition 2.0) - Repeal?
In Pennsylvania:
| Quote: | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Walter Watkins
Decision by by Thomas James Jr.., J. in Columbia County Court
Jan. 14/09
| Quote: | Both the state and the defense attorneys agreed ... that the "controlling issue" was whether Texas hold 'em is illegal gambling under the state's criminal code. In his opinion, Judge Thomas A. James Jr. determined that the question was if Texas hold 'em is a "game of skill or a game of chance ... if chance predominates, Texas hold 'em is gambling. If skill predominates, it is not gambling." (emphasis added)
In evaluating the case, Judge James explained the "dominant factor test" that most jurisdictions use in cases dealing with what is and is not gambling. The Dominant Factor Test relies upon four criteria:
1. Participants must have a distinct possibility of exercising skill and must have sufficient data upon which to calculate an informed judgment.
2. Participants must have the opportunity to exercise the skill, and the general class of participants must posses the skill.
3. Skill or the competitors efforts must sufficiently govern the results.
4. The standard of skill must be known to the participants, and this standard must govern the results.
In reaching his conclusion, the Judge pointed out that there are over 600 books on the subject of poker strategy and that all agree that poker is a game of skill. He quoted Mike Caro's book Secrets of Winning Poker - "money flows from the bad players to the good players." He also cited "a number of mathematical studies that link 'poker and economics.'" One study in particular showed that "Beginning poker players rely on big hands and lucky draws. Expert poker players use their skill to minimize their losses on their bad hands and maximize their profits on their big hands."
James cited a 2005 study In Poker: Public Policy, Law, Mathematics, and the Future of American Tradition. The study compared the results of black jack, roulette, poker, and other forms of gambling. "If you ask who are the top five poker players in the world, you will receive a meaningful response because skill is a determining factor. But if you ask who are the top five roulette players in the world, the response is utterly meaningless: roulette is purely a game of chance... The collective expert opinion is unequivocal: poker is a game of skill, and in the long run, a skilled player will beat an unskilled player... Poker is the one and only [card] game where a skilled player may hold bad cards for hours and still win the money."
Poker Player Alliance Executive Director John Pappas hails the decision as a key victory in legalizing online poker. Since the ruling, speculation has emerged on the Web that online poker sites might take the US to court to overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act prohibition against online poker. The United States has, however, in previous litigation shown a preference to pay fines when countries sue it for trade restrictions than reverse the UIGEA. (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added) (From Wikipedia) |
|
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=688#688 |
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
