View Full Version : Online Gambling Funding Prohibition LaW
ChuckHumphrey
10-13-2006, 04:39 PM
I have now posted my analysis of the full Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. See:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/internet-gambling-ban.htm
That new article should be read in conjunction with the two previous pieces on the subject, which are available at:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/unlawful-internet-gambling-act.htm
and
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/dalla.htm
SackUp
10-13-2006, 04:52 PM
who are you?
what qualifications do you have for your opinions?
Phil153
10-13-2006, 05:08 PM
Excellent site and analysis. This is what I've been saying all along.
I'm curious about this though:
[ QUOTE ]
Online poker operators should consider mathematical analysis of their vast data bases of poker results to support attempts to overturn the case law that views the "luck of the draw" aspect of poker as resulting in its being a game of chance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Does the dominant factor test examine the element of chance in a single game, or can it include an aggregate of games? I would like to see an expert address this. To me it would make sense that it would apply to a single game or bet/wager, but I hope I'm wrong.
The point about the average player is interesting. With this included I can't see any court ruling that poker is predominately a game of skill.
John Rwanda
10-13-2006, 05:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
who are you?
what qualifications do you have for your opinions?
[/ QUOTE ]
Along with Mike Sexton, he was the founder of the Tournament of Champions. It was to the World Poker Tour what the League of Nations was to the United Nations. I believe that he is also a lawyer.
MiltonFriedman
10-13-2006, 05:33 PM
Chuck,
Thanks for the analysis. I think you failed to address the strict construction of this criminal statute.
Poker Sites never place, bank or make a bet or wager:
The poker business model does not "bet or wager", it's business is not dependent upon the outcome of any game, "subject to chance" or othwerwise. A poker site is not in "the business of betting or wagering" because it does not b et or wager.
A casual player is not in the "business of betting or wagering":
If a casual player is not in "the business of betting or wagering", and is not engaged in "unlawful Internet gaming", what would criminalize acceptance of a deposit under Section 5363?
I do not think States without an express "Internet" gaming prohibition can be assumed to outlaw Internet gaming for their citizens. The Act, by its terms did not expand the scope of State laws to add "Internet offenses*" and its trigger definition is reliant upon State laws, no bootstrapping of a federal criminal violation.
Further, take for example NY, which apparently does not outlaw residents from merely playing poker in an illegal game ? How does that trigger criminalization under this Act ?
Finally, and I am curious, what about cash ? Could a site accept cash deposits, and to make is simple, do so in the United States in a State where it does NO other business ? (Not that there would be many volunteers to staff the deposit facility.) (What it could do with the cash becomes kind of tricky, but the "Deposit" has been accepted in cash.)
Milton
MiltonFriedman
10-13-2006, 05:35 PM
I disagree with Chuck's analysis in that he missed the "business of betting or wagering" point, but his credentials are solid.
Milton
FearNoEvil
10-13-2006, 06:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The point about the average player is interesting. With this included I can't see any court ruling that poker is predominately a game of skill.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? If taken in aggregate, the results of the average player are entirely the result of his skill level, give or take the appropriate number of standard deviations as a confidence interval. Other than the decreasing material effect of the standard deviation on the player's lon-term results, there is no other element of luck to poker in the long-term.
Phil153
10-13-2006, 06:56 PM
Because it won't be taken in aggregate. Think about it. If a game has ANY percentage of skill, over the long term, results in that game will tend towards the player's level of skill. This would render the <u>dominant</u> factor test pointless. The focus of this test is clearly a single wager, game, or possibly a session. Not a large aggregate. That's my take anyway. Again, I'd like to hear an expert opinion on it.
My comment about the average player was in regards to a single hand or session.
FearNoEvil
10-13-2006, 07:53 PM
I don't think it is remotely clear that the dominant test refers to a single hand. That is like saying a football game is the result of a single play.
Furthermore, I was not debating the "aggregate" question. You asked the question in your post as to whether an "aggregate" test would apply, and deferred to an expert opinion. My comment was specifically geared to the assumption that the game is taken in aggregate, which it should be, logically.
But, even if it is not, the average player's result on a certain hand is far more a result of his mathematical advantage on that hand than it is luck. AA vs. 44 is about an 80% favorite. Last time I checked, that is greater than 51%. Thus, in the "single hand" case, there are obvious arguments that poker meets the 51% test. Detailing the argument for poker would be an interesting project, and there are obvious counter-arguments to the AA example I gave, but it shows that the argument has potential.
tautomer
10-13-2006, 08:00 PM
Can't it be said that luck in poker evens out in the long term? Whereas in typical gambling the odds are always stacked against you and a "lucky" player will still end up losing to the house.
permafrost
10-13-2006, 08:43 PM
Very good analyses, Mr. Humphrey.
One question about the "ISP's" not being affected unless they are the "actual host of the offending Website"; that loses me and would you elaborate when and if you can?
murph0110
10-13-2006, 08:48 PM
i freaking love it when morons like you (with ur wanna be million posts) try to make new posters look bad...
what a moron u are.... lol, lol, lol.....
Phil153
10-13-2006, 08:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is remotely clear that the dominant test refers to a single hand.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's clear it doesn't refer to long term results. See below.
[ QUOTE ]
That is like saying a football game is the result of a single play.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not quite. You're confusing results with the level of skill.
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, I was not debating the "aggregate" question. You asked the question in your post as to whether an "aggregate" test would apply, and deferred to an expert opinion. My comment was specifically geared to the assumption that the game is taken in aggregate, which it should be, logically.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. If taken in aggregate, over the long term, I agree with your point that poker is obviously predominantly a game of skill for the average player.
But then this also applies to games that have a 0.0001% element of skill. Over the long term, they would also be classified games of skill. This is a corruption of the dominant factor test and the reason (in my uninformed opinion) a long term aggregate would never stand up in court.
[ QUOTE ]
But, even if it is not, the average player's result on a certain hand is far more a result of his mathematical advantage on that hand than it is luck. AA vs. 44 is about an 80% favorite. Last time I checked, that is greater than 51%. Thus, in the "single hand" case, there are obvious arguments that poker meets the 51% test. Detailing the argument for poker would be an interesting project, and there are obvious counter-arguments to the AA example I gave, but it shows that the argument has potential.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're confusing the probability of winning with the percentage of skill.
What about the skill involved with manipulating the pot size and pot odds in your favor? It is not just the PROBABILITY OF WINNING involved in poker but also manipulation of the results.
Even when you lose a pot, there is skill involved. For instance, you used your skill to minimize your "investment" in the pot.
I say get Johnny Cochran to represent the skill in poker case. He'd bring out Ivey, a chart of his tournament showings and chant, "In the case of Phil IT MUST BE SKILL!"
PA32R
10-13-2006, 09:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I say get Johnny Cochran to represent the skill in poker case. He'd bring out Ivey, a chart of his tournament showings and chant, "In the case of Phil IT MUST BE SKILL!"
[/ QUOTE ]
Johnny's not looking too good these days.
SackUp
10-13-2006, 09:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
i freaking love it when morons like you (with ur wanna be million posts) try to make new posters look bad...
what a moron u are.... lol, lol, lol.....
[/ QUOTE ]
If this was an attack at me you are greatly mistaken friend. I asked the question for a couple reason - none of which had anything to do with thinking that you need to have a million posts on here to make a relevant point. There are several posters on here who have a million posts that I give far lest respect to than those with none.
The reason I asked was b/c I didn't want to read what someone with no legal background thought the bill said - there is enough of that crap on here going around. If I'm going to read something and am expected to believe the analysis then I want to know the qualifications of the person. I had no clue who he was, so I asked - pretty standard thing to do in the real world. If you don't do this, then you get stuck listening to a bunch of idiots who have no clue what they are talking about (here is a good place to point fingers at some of the folks here with a billion posts).
Also, with the flurry of viruses going around in links I want to know that the guy is a for real dude and not some two bit hack virus punk.
With that said I can tell from a mere 13 posts that you have an infiority complex about post count and that you like to jump to conclusions with little thought or basis. Good luck to yourself.
Thanks for the background info on the guy - I will read now.
mikeh1975
10-13-2006, 09:35 PM
the last time i checked johnny stopped breathing.its a little case thats baffled scientists for centuries and thats a little thing called death which is a state johnny cochran is in right now.digging him up isn't going to help our case although it might have before he "saw heaven".
murph0110
10-13-2006, 09:42 PM
i really give a [censored] rat's ass about how many posts i have, moron....
constantly a fight over here anyways, getting worse than rgp, cause morons like you jump to conclusions, and immediately want to make the new guy look bad cause he has not posted since 2002... lol
i thought you could atleast be a man, step to the plate, and admit ur a retard.... nice attempt at legitimizing yourself though(hahhahahaha)...
i cant quit laughing at you..... hahahahha
FearNoEvil
10-13-2006, 10:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is remotely clear that the dominant test refers to a single hand.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's clear it doesn't refer to long term results. See below.
[ QUOTE ]
That is like saying a football game is the result of a single play.
[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Not quite. You're confusing results with the level of skill..
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I am not. I am not even addressing the skill question with this statement; and neither were you in the statement to which I responded. I am simply addressing the question of how the length of a poker "game" should be defined. You are reading something into my use of the word "result" which is not contained within the context of what I said and which I did not intend. Like the "result" of a football game (read, final outcome, who wins or loses) is not the "result" of a single play, neither is a poker session or a poker "game" (read, a few people playing for the night until they decide to settle up) the result of a single hand. This is a point for potential legal arguments. Why should the dominant factor test refer to a single trial, or a single session? That is an arbitrary choice in my view. Poker experts certainly don't judge their level of skill by a single hand or session. Why should the courts? [ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, I was not debating the "aggregate" question. You asked the question in your post as to whether an "aggregate" test would apply, and deferred to an expert opinion. My comment was specifically geared to the assumption that the game is taken in aggregate, which it should be, logically.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. If taken in aggregate, over the long term, I agree with your point that poker is obviously predominantly a game of skill for the average player.
But then this also applies to games that have a 0.0001% element of skill. Over the long term, they would also be classified games of skill. This is a corruption of the dominant factor test and the reason a long term aggregate would never stand up in court.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct in stating that the skill factor for the average player in poker (when taken as a game in aggregate) approachs 100% in the long-term. Or, to put it another way, the probability that the average player's long term result will be determined by luck is zero percent. This is true in any game with a random element. However, I believe you are mixing definitions when you say a game with a 0.0001% would be classified as a game of skill in the long-term. If a game is a game of skill in the long-term, I believe the game should be re-classified as a "long-term" game, period. Thus, that would remove the relevancy of the "skill" element of any given hand.
From OP's site:
"That general rule is set forth in the California decision In re Allen as follows:
“The term ‘game of chance’ has an accepted meaning established by numerous adjudications. Although different language is used in some of the cases in defining the term, the definitions are substantially the same. It is the character of the game rather than a particular player's skill or lack of it that determines whether the game is one of chance or skill. The test is not whether the game contains an element of chance or an element of skill but which of them is the dominating factor in determining the result of the game.”[2]"
Further, a statement by OP on his site:
"The body of law in the area of skill versus chance is a fractured one."
Your statement that classifying poker as a long-term game is a corruption of the dominant factor test is, in my view, more a testament to the illogical and arbitrary nature of the test than to anything else. This test is what some states are using now, but I don't see any clear reason why they have to look at individual trials rather than a longer period of time when defining "game".
One thing the courts may worry about is that defining games as long-term may re-classify games like craps or roulette as games of skill, because an average player's long-term results are not determined by chance. But consider the following, from OP's site:
"The Wisconsin anti-gambling statute (sec. 945.01 (3)(b)(3) has a unique definition of skill in the context of machines like these. It says:
“In this subdivision, ‘skill’ means, within an opportunity provided for all players fairly to obtain prizes or rewards of merchandise, a player's precision, dexterity or ability to use his or her knowledge which enables him or her to obtain more frequent rewards or prizes than does another less precise, dexterous or knowledgeable player.""
The "all players" distinction may be important, because, if the house is considered a "player", then it has an unfair advantage, as it is well known that no element of skill can give a player an advantage over the house's built in mathematical advantage in games like craps or roulette. Using this definition, combined with defining poker as a long-term game, might be one way to argue that poker is a game of skill while not simultaneously defining "house" games as games of skill.
[ QUOTE ]
But, even if it is not, the average player's result on a certain hand is far more a result of his mathematical advantage on that hand than it is luck. AA vs. 44 is about an 80% favorite. Last time I checked, that is greater than 51%. Thus, in the "single hand" case, there are obvious arguments that poker meets the 51% test. Detailing the argument for poker would be an interesting project, and there are obvious counter-arguments to the AA example I gave, but it shows that the argument has potential.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're confusing the probability of winning with the percentage of skill.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am not confusing the two. I am implying that a player who has the "skill" to know that AA is a favorite over 44, is 80% to win, and therefore, "skill" will win out more often than "chance" in this situation. However, after looking at OP's site, it seems that this type of argument will likely not hold up, as:
In State v. Gambling Device, 859 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.App.-Hous) (1 Dist.), 1993) the court ruled against a digger game (called a “Bulldozer” in the text) being a game of skill in the following language:
“Even a contrivance that is predominantly a game of skill may be determined by chance. For example, assume that a novice player of Bulldozer, through a minimal exercise of skill, has a 25 percent chance of winning an award. Assume also that an experienced Bulldozer player, through the exercise of his superior skill, has a 75 percent chance of winning an award. Chance would appear to predominate over skill in the former case, while in the latter case; skill would appear to predominate over chance. Yet in either case, the outcome in each particular game played is ‘determined by chance.’ A player's level of skill may influence the degree of chance involved, but it does not eliminate the element of chance altogether. The outcome is always determined by chance because no player, through the exercise of skill alone, can control the outcome of any given trial. It is chance that finally determines the outcome of each and every trial. Thus, it is the incorporation of chance that is the essential element of a gambling device, not the incorporation of a particular proportion of chance and skill." Id at 523.
Ignignokt
10-13-2006, 10:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Along with Mike Sexton, he was the founder of the Tournament of Champions. It was to the World Poker Tour what the League of Nations was to the United Nations.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would hope that it didn't blow THAT horribly.
[ QUOTE ]
i really give a [censored] rat's ass about how many posts i have, moron....
constantly a fight over here anyways, getting worse than rgp, cause morons like you jump to conclusions, and immediately want to make the new guy look bad cause he has not posted since 2002... lol
i thought you could atleast be a man, step to the plate, and admit ur a retard.... nice attempt at legitimizing yourself though(hahhahahaha)...
i cant quit laughing at you..... hahahahha
[/ QUOTE ]
Get a grip man. You are the only one who looks like an idiot here. It was a legitimate question and this is a legitimate post.
Kevmath
10-13-2006, 10:57 PM
From what I've read, it was just an idea held a bit too soon, here's some articles from the late Andy Glazer: 1999 TOC (http://www.gocee.com/poker/trips/toc_99_glazer.htm)
2000 TOC (http://www.pokerpages.com/tournament/result878.htm)
2001 TOC (http://www.casino.com/poker/TournamenT-of-Champions-2001.html)
Phil153
10-13-2006, 11:19 PM
Thanks for taking the time to comment. An in depth discussion like this is good.
I agree it's not a settled issue in all states, certainly Wisconsin's law which you quoted is extremely favorable to poker.
I agree it's an interesting question and one which I'd love to see argued before a court by competent lawyers. I'd also like to see it debated more on here.
Of course, the practical danger is that the DOJ only needs the law to agree in one state that the site services to do a successful prosecution of a gaming executive - at least as far as this section of the law is concerned (illegal bet or wager).
permafrost
10-14-2006, 02:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with Chuck's analysis in that he missed the "business of betting or wagering" point, but his credentials are solid.
Milton
[/ QUOTE ]
The customer is making a bet (by definition) when instructing an Internet gambling site to move funds to, or from his account. The site is taking the bet and in the business of betting.
Steve Brecher
10-14-2006, 03:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have now posted my analysis of the full Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. See:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/internet-gambling-ban.htm
[/ QUOTE ]Chuck's article says, "Section 5363 contains the basic prohibition of the new law. It bans online gambling operators from accepting most forms of funds to be used by the players to gamble on their Websites. The ban applies to: [the various forms of funds transmittals]."
This omits the "in connection with" clause of 5363: "No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling [the various forms of funds transmittals]."
"No person engaged in the business" applies to (what we call) a site. "[A]nother person" applies to a player. The Act explicitly makes clear that it enacts only enforcement of pre-existing laws; as Chuck's article says, "[m]ere participation in online betting or wagering is not banned or criminalized by the Act."
Therefore, a site accepting funds from a player whose bets or wagers are not in violation of other laws is not in violation of 5363.
(I am not a lawyer.)
D.L.M.
10-14-2006, 03:24 PM
we b fuct
Steve Brecher
10-14-2006, 03:35 PM
Thanks for your timely and pertinent contribution to the topic.
permafrost
10-14-2006, 06:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have now posted my analysis of the full Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. See:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/internet-gambling-ban.htm
[/ QUOTE ]Chuck's article says, "Section 5363 contains the basic prohibition of the new law. It bans online gambling operators from accepting most forms of funds to be used by the players to gamble on their Websites. The ban applies to: [the various forms of funds transmittals]."
This omits the "in connection with" clause of 5363: "No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling [the various forms of funds transmittals]."
"No person engaged in the business" applies to (what we call) a site. "[A]nother person" applies to a player. The Act explicitly makes clear that it enacts only enforcement of pre-existing laws; as Chuck's article says, "[m]ere participation in online betting or wagering is not banned or criminalized by the Act."
Therefore, a site accepting funds from a player whose bets or wagers are not in violation of other laws is not in violation of 5363.
(I am not a lawyer.)
[/ QUOTE ]
That may be why they call it the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act".
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.