Poker/Blackjack

[candyman718]

Some of you have attempted to draw a legal distinction between poker sites and other gambling sites.

1. Is there any case law suggesting that poker is not legally considered gambling? Even though there is clearly some element of skill I find it hard to believe that on balance poker is not gambling.

2. Couldn't someone make a case that there is skill involved in sports wagering? Aren't there a handful of people who make a living betting sports?

3. Doesn't this argument break down for any site that throws in blackjack, sidebets, etc...?

[C0pernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you have attempted to draw a legal distinction between poker sites and other gambling sites.

1. Is there any case law suggesting that poker is not legally considered gambling? Even though there is clearly some element of skill I find it hard to believe that on balance poker is not gambling.

2. Couldn't someone make a case that there is skill involved in sports wagering? Aren't there a handful of people who make a living betting sports?

3. Doesn't this argument break down for any site that throws in blackjack, sidebets, etc...?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. There are many states, including California, that consider poker to be predominantly based on skill, which is how card rooms grew there in the first place. As I recall there were about 30 states where poker is considered predominantly skill, and the others split between not skill and indeterminant. As far as I know there is nothing on the Federal level either way.

2. The distinction between sports books and poker is not the skill element but the fact that you are playing against the house, not other players and just paying rake/seat rental.

3. Does what argument break down? As TruePoker CEO pointed out the Wire Act has been narrowly interpreted to include only sports books and (I think) horse racing, which has its own privleged status. However, any site that accepts a wager that they are at risk for would be in the same position as a "casino", wherever that winds up.

[candyman718]

Sports Book vs. Poker.

Theoretically, in any betting that is done using a paramutual system, it is one player playing against others. The house's job is to make sure there are an even number of players on both sides and (with some exceptions) they make money no matter what the outcome. How is this different than the house's role in running a poker room?

[candyman718]

The point I am trying to make in number 3 is, if you are running an online poker room and you are planning on using the skill vs. luck argument as a defense, why the hell are you adding blackjack to your site?

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
Sports Book vs. Poker.

Theoretically, in any betting that is done using a paramutual system, it is one player playing against others. The house's job is to make sure there are an even number of players on both sides and (with some exceptions) they make money no matter what the outcome. How is this different than the house's role in running a poker room?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly correct (although I have a friend that will argue to his death that his sportsbook "fixes" games and encourages action on the loser of said games).

As far as an argument for sportsbetting being a skill I could allow my bank account to make it for me. Since it is not here...I will only bet on MLB games, I will only bet on MLB teams that are underdogs that day, I will only bet when I possess evidence (in the form of a decent, reliable prediction) that my underdog pick(s) will win that day. There are days when I do not bet on baseball even though upwards of 15 baseball games are scheduled. I love the fact that most bettors believe the Yankees to be unbeatable. The MLB is to poker as the NFL is to "The Wheel of Fortune".

My girlfriend likes expensive thingies and baseball underdogs provide them.

[TruePoker CEO]

The typical sports book is taking the action from all bettors and is betting its own money. The "balancing act" you describe is nothing more than money management by the house, it arises after the fact that the House is booking the sports bets.

It is not for nothing that HR4411 expressly carves out commodities trading by the way. The social utility of commodities trading has been theoretically defended as a laying off of producers risk. The classic theoretical example is orange juice futures. In reality, commodities trading is largely gambling.)

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
The typical sports book is taking the action from all bettors and is betting its own money. The "balancing act" you describe is nothing more than money management by the house, it arises after the fact that the House is booking the sports bets.

It is not for nothing that HR4411 expressly carves out commodities trading by the way. The social utility of commodities trading has been theoretically defended as a laying off of producers risk. The classic theoretical example is orange juice futures. In reality, commodities trading is largely gambling.)

[/ QUOTE ]

http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/crawfor/apmacro/Trading/dukes.jpg

[TruePoker CEO]

Extremely well put.

I had forgotten about that cinematic gem.

[Punker]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any case law suggesting that poker is not legally considered gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a lawyer so take this for what it's worth.

In 2001, several gamblers took Mastercard to court, trying to avoid losses on poker sites, claiming that the credit card companies had violated the wire act by allowing them to fund online poker accounts. The judge in the case found that the wire act applied *solely* to sports betting.

"Comparing the face of the Wire Act and the history surrounding its enactment with the recently proposed legislation, it becomes more certain that the Wire Act's prohibition of gambling activities is restricted to the types of events enumerated in the statute, sporting events or contests." (Id. 132 F. Supp.2d 468, 482.)В In 2002, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana affirmed the lower courts ruling.

Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1733045,00.html)

"...The online firms rely on a 2002 ruling in what is known as the MasterCard case, which found that "the Wire Act does not prohibit non-sports internet gambling"..."

[whaler55]

I'm no lawyer, so maybe someone can help me here. Wouldn't "equal protection under the law" (14th amendment?) come into play here? If a state allows betting on horses via the net, then how can they stop someone from operating a card room over the internet, especially if it's in the same state and they were to only accept players from within that state?

[whitepotatoe]

People receive equal protection under the law; so all people can waste all their money on lottory tickets, but nobody can play poker online. Poker does not get protection equal to that of the horse racing industry. The horse racing industry lobbyists have bought all the politicians, the online poker industry has not.