Why the poker cash game cannot be legalized as skill based

[RayBornert]

Why the poker cash game cannot be legalized as skill based

I believe that I can finally formulate a very concise opinion as to the reason why I believe that the open cash game cannot ever be accepted as a game of 51% skill
(even though i would be quite happy if that were to occur)

First I will lay a reference point here which is discussed in the chance/skill cusp thread

SNG skill based claim

A single table Hold'em tournament where:

- each entrant pays a fixed fee
- the blinds do not increase
- the number of hands played is exactly 221
- the winner is determined by the largest stack after 221 hands
- the winner is awarded 100% of the entry fee prize pool

is a contest that involves more skill than chance.

*note - that the chips in play during the tournament are only a means of keeping score and are not actual cash.

This game is quite different than the open cash game. It is true that a table of 10 players could voluntarily seat themselves at a cash game and play exactly 221 hands and then stop. But the key point here is that they are not required to do that in an open cash game.

A given player can in fact seat himself and play a single hand and then leave - that is gambling - that act involves luck much more so than skill.

The key mathematical distinction is the number of hands involved before the winner is awarded a prize.

In the cash game, the winner is awarded a prize at the end of each hand.

In the SNG game (described above), the winner is awarded a prize after X number of hands.

In the cash game, you cannot prevent players from gambling (i.e. playing in such a way that luck is dominant) this is mathematically provable.

A court is not going to bless a claim for a game of skill where that game cannot prevent participants from playing a gambling game.

A court will bless a claim for a game of skill if it is possible to prevent players from gambling.

YOU MUST SHOW THAT THE CONTEST ITSELF PREVENTS GAMBLING

In the sng game, you can prevent players from gambling.
In the cash game, you cannot prevent players from gambling.

It is true that a player can play the 221 hand SNG badly but this does not mean that they are gambling; it means they're playing like a moron. There is no rule that says that you must play wise or that you cannot play like an idiot.

This same idea applies to chess; you cannot gamble in chess, but you can play poorly if you want - it's your entry fee after all so you can do what you will.

Ray Bornert

[thylacine]

Let me point out a problem with having a fixed number of hands, especially if it is no limit (and it is very unambitious to exclude this). As the final hand approaches you will start getting crazy all-in action from the small stacks. Just consider what must happen in the last hand if 3 players remain with 40/30/30 chip distribution.

You can avoid the `horizon problem' by saying that after each hand the tournament may `unexpectedly' finish with probability 1/221 (or whatever).



[ QUOTE ]
A court is not going to bless a claim for a game of skill where that game cannot prevent participants from playing a gambling game.

A court will bless a claim for a game of skill if it is possible to prevent players from gambling.

YOU MUST SHOW THAT THE CONTEST ITSELF PREVENTS GAMBLING


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh realy. That's an additional rule. Where did that one come from. IT'S NOT MATHEMATICS. IT'S POLITICS!

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me point out a problem with having a fixed number of hands, especially if it is no limit (and it is very unambitious to exclude this). As the final hand approaches you will start getting crazy all-in action from the small stacks. Just consider what must happen in the last hand if 3 players remain with 40/30/30 chip distribution.

You can avoid the `horizon problem' by saying that after each hand the tournament may `unexpectedly' finish with probability 1/221 (or whatever).



[ QUOTE ]
A court is not going to bless a claim for a game of skill where that game cannot prevent participants from playing a gambling game.

A court will bless a claim for a game of skill if it is possible to prevent players from gambling.

YOU MUST SHOW THAT THE CONTEST ITSELF PREVENTS GAMBLING


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh realy. That's an additional rule. Where did that one come from. IT'S NOT MATHEMATICS. IT'S POLITICS!

[/ QUOTE ]

thy,

i agree with you about the politics issue. i totally agree with you that a given state might have constraints that we dont agree with. i'm on your side dude.

but if you want to have a discussion about how to change the political landscape on this issue then lets do that in another thread.

this thread is devoted to the idea in the OP where a state will not let you or me offer any game structure wherein it is possible to gamble (without being regulated). and so if either one of us opened a cash game server here in the states we would be offering a gambling game because that server presumably would not prevent a gambler from entering a game and playing a single hand and leaving.

as to your NL observations: once again i agree dude. your example is quite effective. i am specifically choosing to focus on FIXED LIMIT as a matter of constraint - i am looking to get my foot in the legal door.

so right now i'm not looking to ask how much we can get through the door but instead just simply what is the thing that has the highest probability of making it through the door in the first place.

ray

[JMAnon]

Your post makes an incorrect assumption about the law. In most states (maybe in all of them), it doesn't matter whether poker is skill-based or not. Most state laws describe wagering on the outcome of card games as illegal gambling.

I also don't see any categorical difference between tournaments and cash play. Both involve wagering on contingent events. I am not sure you have a clear definition of what you mean by "gambling" squared away in your head. Most people use the word to mean wagering on contingent events.

You seem to be defining gambling as wagering where "luck [is] dominant." In my view, the only form of wagering in which luck is the dominant factor is neutral EV betting (e.g., 1:1 odds on coinflipping). The SNG you describe does not prohibit players from playing in such a way as to make luck the dominant factor in who wins the reward (e.g., all players push all-in everyhand).

Calling poker a game of skill (and thus distinguishing it from other types of gambling) is a political device to make legalization more palatable to the average voter; it doesn't turn on any real difference between poker and many other forms of illegal gambling (i.e., sportsbetting, horseracing, golf).

I am somewhat skeptical of the game-of-skill political strategy, because I think even ridiculously stupid voters realize that poker involves wagering on contingent events, which accords with the widely used meaning of the word "gambling."

[hmkpoker]

We should ban the stock market too.

[SlapPappy]

In my mind most politicians equally detest games of skill and games of chance involving money.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post makes an incorrect assumption about the law. In most states (maybe in all of them), it doesn't matter whether poker is skill-based or not. Most state laws describe wagering on the outcome of card games as illegal gambling.

I also don't see any categorical difference between tournaments and cash play. Both involve wagering on contingent events. I am not sure you have a clear definition of what you mean by "gambling" squared away in your head. Most people use the word to mean wagering on contingent events.

You seem to be defining gambling as wagering where "luck [is] dominant." In my view, the only form of wagering in which luck is the dominant factor is neutral EV betting (e.g., 1:1 odds on coinflipping). The SNG you describe does not prohibit players from playing in such a way as to make luck the dominant factor in who wins the reward (e.g., all players push all-in everyhand).

Calling poker a game of skill (and thus distinguishing it from other types of gambling) is a political device to make legalization more palatable to the average voter; it doesn't turn on any real difference between poker and many other forms of illegal gambling (i.e., sportsbetting, horseracing, golf).

I am somewhat skeptical of the game-of-skill political strategy, because I think even ridiculously stupid voters realize that poker involves wagering on contingent events, which accords with the widely used meaning of the word "gambling."

[/ QUOTE ]

focusing on your "wagering" statement for a moment.
(note that this word is the same as "betting" or "bet")

and state laws typically do very explicitly define what does not constitute a "bet"

here is an excerpt from the georgia code

[ QUOTE ]
16-12-20.

"As used in this part, the term:
(1) "Bet" means an agreement that, dependent upon chance even though accompanied by some skill, one stands to win or lose something of value. A bet does not include:
(A) Contracts of indemnity or guaranty or life, health, property, or accident insurance; or
(B) An offer of a prize, award, or compensation to the actual contestants in any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength, or endurance or to the owners of animals, vehicles, watercraft, or aircraft entered in such contest."

[/ QUOTE ]

if i can get a court to accept the 221 hand limit sng winner take all game definition as

"An offer of a prize, award, or compensation to the actual contestants in any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength, or endurance"

then the gambling code does not apply.

a single hand of cash poker does not meet this criteria but there might be some structure involving a prolonged contest of many hands that does.

ray

[keith123]

the gambling code would still apply if the compensation was derived from participant contributions. a casino could take a entry fee, but if that money was pooled and awarded to the winners, the gambling code would apply. if poker tournaments were sponsered to the point that an entry fee only included the house take, and all prizes came from a seperate source than player contributions, then i think it would no longer be considered gambling.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
the gambling code would still apply if the compensation was derived from participant contributions. a casino could take a entry fee, but if that money was pooled and awarded to the winners, the gambling code would apply. if poker tournaments were sponsered to the point that an entry fee only included the house take, and all prizes came from a seperate source than player contributions, then i think it would no longer be considered gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think this analysis is correct. if it were then the annual peach tree 10k here in atlanta would be gambling because the winners are paid from a prize pool of the runner entry fees after the track club deducts event expenses.

i think the same situation applies to a chess tournament as well.

ray

[keith123]

the prize pool consists of solely of participants entry fees?!? and it isn't charity based? maybe that should be illegal too.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
the gambling code would still apply if the compensation was derived from participant contributions. a casino could take a entry fee, but if that money was pooled and awarded to the winners, the gambling code would apply. if poker tournaments were sponsered to the point that an entry fee only included the house take, and all prizes came from a seperate source than player contributions, then i think it would no longer be considered gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

begin with the identical financial structure as that of any local chess tournament.

but swap the chess board and pieces with cards and chips in a headsup match of 221 hands.

see my point?

ray

[keith123]

yes your point is obvious. but the chess example is still gambling. are outsiders allowed to bet on a particular player winning? can they sponser someone, effectively gambling on them? it is like sports gambling. even if the NBA allowed the players to gamble on themselves, i don't think legally they could do so.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
yes your point is obvious. but the chess example is still gambling. are outsiders allowed to bet on a particular player winning? can they sponser someone, effectively gambling on them? it is like sports gambling. even if the NBA allowed the players to gamble on themselves, i don't think legally they could do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

the chess example is not gambling man.

all states allow tournament contests involving entree fees where the participants are paid prizes from those entry fees - as long as the game is not a chance based game.

there are real money pool tournaments in a bar near here. i can go down there right now and pay an entry fee and compete against others and try and win a prize that is paid to me from those entry fees. that is not gambling.

ray

[keith123]

it may not be illegal but it is as much gambling as betting on sports or betting an outsider placing a bet on a particular player in that chess tournament or pool tournament.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
it may not be illegal but it is as much gambling as betting on sports or betting an outsider placing a bet on a particular player in that chess tournament or pool tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

incorrect. there is a difference between an entry fee risked in favor of yourself winning a skill based contest as opposed to betting on a team to win the world series.

skill based risk is not gambling.
chance based risk is gambling.

if you enter a chess tournament then you have some control over the outcome.

if you bet on a world cup team you have no control over the outcome.

ray.

[keith123]

oh so you can bet on who wins a race?

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
oh so you can bet on who wins a race?

[/ QUOTE ]

if i own a horse and
you own a horse then
we can both race those
horses against each other
for an agreed amount risked
by each of us (winner take all)
and it is not gambling.

this is a legal fact.

skill based risk is not gambling.
chance based risk is gambling.

there's nothing illegal about taking risks.
but the laws usually describe what types of
risks are allowed.

ray

[keith123]

i think the problem is that the skill involved in the outcome of a race is unrelated to whether you yourself are one of the participants. this argument is getting old though, as you have repeated several lines several times that support my argument and hurt yours. nice talking with you though. good luck.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
i think the problem is that the skill involved in the outcome of a race is unrelated to whether you yourself are one of the participants. this argument is getting old though, as you have repeated several lines several times that support my argument and hurt yours. nice talking with you though. good luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

dont be so smug dude.

you've not made your case in the least.

as long as both you and i are the only parties risking cash then we are not gambling - risking yes; gambling no; there is a legal difference man.

however, if others bet on our horses then they are gambling.

and it is these other bettors that are regulated, any wager between you and i is not regulated.

i'm not stating a personal view to you here. i am stating the conditions of the legal landscape as i understand it.

ray.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
yes your point is obvious. but the chess example is still gambling. are outsiders allowed to bet on a particular player winning? can they sponser someone, effectively gambling on them? it is like sports gambling. even if the NBA allowed the players to gamble on themselves, i don't think legally they could do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

an outsider betting on a chess player is gambling according to the law.

ray.

[MaxWeiss]

JMAnon correctly identified that your big flaw is in your assessment of what the state considers skill and luck.

The thing is that every game has skill and luck. Skill is the ability to gather and utilize useful information. Luck is the fact that you do not have access to all relevant information and the outcome is therefore not 100% certain. People can also "gamble" at any point by taking various bets which create +EV, zero EV, or -EV for them, or given the available information are likely to create a specific one of those three.

The trouble is the state cannot define skill based games in those terms. If poker must be allowed, then blackjack should also be allowed. Unless they define how much of a disadvantage an average player would face playing poker or blackjack. Then if BJ is allowed, why not Spanish 21, which technically falls in there too. Pretty soon we have all the card games allowed. Then we can make a case that some of them are just as good as craps, but using cards. Then we get into all of the table games, which BTW do have a skill element as well, it's just normally not enough to overcome the house edge.

You see how hard it is for us, skilled card players, to identify what should be allowed and what shouldn't. So how do you think clueless legislators are going to do!?

It's an impossible task for them. Some have just taken shortcuts, like saying a card game is skill, but roulette and craps aren't. (I can get into biased wheels and controlled dice shooting if you want to argue they aren't skill based.) I know Washington state just allows card games, except for the Indian tribes of course.

You can gamble in chess too--you are just gambling on the other guy calling, not on the fall of the cards.

[RayBornert]

kid,

[ QUOTE ]
JMAnon correctly identified that your big flaw is in your assessment of what the state considers skill and luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying that i have incorrectly communicated the criteria for the state of georgia (and others) or that the criteria that they use is flawed?

please clarify.

thx.

ray

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
kid,

[ QUOTE ]
JMAnon correctly identified that your big flaw is in your assessment of what the state considers skill and luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying that i have incorrectly communicated the criteria for the state of georgia (and others) or that the criteria that they use is flawed?

please clarify.

thx.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You never specified a state. You did, however, say that

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that I can finally formulate a very concise opinion as to the reason why I believe that the open cash game cannot ever be accepted as a game of 51% skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

which seems to have a premise that some specific amount of skill can be accepted and used as a determination of what is acceptable gambling and what is not. JMAnon said

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be defining gambling as wagering where "luck [is] dominant." In my view, the only form of wagering in which luck is the dominant factor is neutral EV betting (e.g., 1:1 odds on coinflipping).

[/ QUOTE ]

and what I am saying is that the very reason the state (any) will have trouble legalizing one form of gambling over another is the very same argument of semantics that we are now having, whereas it seemed in your post that you had a good way to set about what level of skill we should consider to be acceptable in determining whether to allow a game. In my post I said

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that every game has skill and luck. Skill is the ability to gather and utilize useful information. Luck is the fact that you do not have access to all relevant information and the outcome is therefore not 100% certain. People can also "gamble" at any point by taking various bets which create +EV, zero EV, or -EV for them, or given the available information are likely to create a specific one of those three.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every game has skill. What if a dealer draws a card from a deck and pays 50:1 if you guess correctly. Well, now what id they don't shuffle until six cards out. This is a beatable game, even if you have to stay and play from round one to six, flat betting. It doesn't mean people will pay attention and beat it. Now what if the bet pays 45:1? 30:1? 1:1. (What if the dealer was prematurely flashing the card to me 2/3 of the time, and I could still beat the game with a 1:1 payout??)

By your post, it seems that there should be some payout, some amount which will relate the potential win and potential loss based on observance, that the state will consider skill instead of luck.

My point is that it's hard to draw the line in that fashion at all. I haven't read the skill/chance cusp thread, but I do know that while skill and luck are connected, it's impossible to have a good definition of when the line is crossed. If a craps game paid out 2:1 on all pass line bets, to the state, it's still basically the same game even if to you and me it's mortgage the house and fly to the casino to bet as much as I can on it.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
kid,

[ QUOTE ]
JMAnon correctly identified that your big flaw is in your assessment of what the state considers skill and luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying that i have incorrectly communicated the criteria for the state of georgia (and others) or that the criteria that they use is flawed?

please clarify.

thx.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You never specified a state. You did, however, say that

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that I can finally formulate a very concise opinion as to the reason why I believe that the open cash game cannot ever be accepted as a game of 51% skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

which seems to have a premise that some specific amount of skill can be accepted and used as a determination of what is acceptable gambling and what is not. JMAnon said

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be defining gambling as wagering where "luck [is] dominant." In my view, the only form of wagering in which luck is the dominant factor is neutral EV betting (e.g., 1:1 odds on coinflipping).

[/ QUOTE ]

and what I am saying is that the very reason the state (any) will have trouble legalizing one form of gambling over another is the very same argument of semantics that we are now having, whereas it seemed in your post that you had a good way to set about what level of skill we should consider to be acceptable in determining whether to allow a game. In my post I said

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that every game has skill and luck. Skill is the ability to gather and utilize useful information. Luck is the fact that you do not have access to all relevant information and the outcome is therefore not 100% certain. People can also "gamble" at any point by taking various bets which create +EV, zero EV, or -EV for them, or given the available information are likely to create a specific one of those three.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every game has skill. What if a dealer draws a card from a deck and pays 50:1 if you guess correctly. Well, now what id they don't shuffle until six cards out. This is a beatable game, even if you have to stay and play from round one to six, flat betting. It doesn't mean people will pay attention and beat it. Now what if the bet pays 45:1? 30:1? 1:1. (What if the dealer was prematurely flashing the card to me 2/3 of the time, and I could still beat the game with a 1:1 payout??)

By your post, it seems that there should be some payout, some amount which will relate the potential win and potential loss based on observance, that the state will consider skill instead of luck.

My point is that it's hard to draw the line in that fashion at all. I haven't read the skill/chance cusp thread, but I do know that while skill and luck are connected, it's impossible to have a good definition of when the line is crossed. If a craps game paid out 2:1 on all pass line bets, to the state, it's still basically the same game even if to you and me it's mortgage the house and fly to the casino to bet as much as I can on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

kid,

i feel like we're off track a bit.

read the dominant factor test here
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Law-Summary/

there are games that are 100% luck (i.e. a lottery or bingo)
there are games that are 100% skill (i.e. chess or checkers)

there are games that have some of both.

apparently some states allow skill based games as non-gambling games even if there is some chance element as long as the game is not predominantly chance based (i.e. 51%)

holdem has both skill and luck but if the game you want to play is accepted as a game that is predominantly skill based then it does not have to be regulated as a gambling game - this is the jist of the chance/skill cusp thread.

you cannot offer a gambling game in georgia. and the point of this thread here is to point out that a cash game is an offer to gamble on a single hand of holdem even though a player can (and most likely would) stay for many hands. anything can happen in a single hand and the skill of the best players in the world is mitigated by the randomness of the cards.

the skill factor does not become dominant until there is an aggregate of hands over time.

the chance/skill cusp thread discusses a 221 hand holdem sng as being a candidate for a game that might be blessed as a game that requires more skill than luck.

ray

[MaxWeiss]

It sounds like you are arguing to spread out a cash game, because one hand is too "lucky" and 221 is enough "skill" to warrant it dominant whereas the cash game would not. (Thanks for that link BTW, that was a big help.)

My point is that legislators do not understand gambling enough to make that distinction and therefore, trying to define a game in such a way does not serve much of a purpose, because the law makers don't get it to begin with! The games they allow, while trying to fit the mold you are setting out by you new SNG game, are not going to be fairly represented. They'll allow Spanish 21 if they allow blackjack, I've seen that all over and asked about it in many states, because I was curious about this very issue. (For example, in Washington state, they allow limit hold em cash games, but NOT NL cash games. What player is going to say that NL is MORE luck than limit for crying out loud! Nobody, that's who!!!!) The law makers just don't understand gambling, or if they do, they don't know enough about it or the specific games to make an accurate determination.

I think your best bet is to find a way (petition, lawyers) to show lawmakers in your state that NL cash games are less luck than some games they allow.

While I think you're idea is interesting as a new form of SNG, I just don't think it's the way to go about this whole topic. That's my point.

Also, on a side, I would argue there is a skill factor in lotteries and bingo, and a luck factor in chess and checkers. That's beside the point and the factors are small, so I won't continue!

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the gambling code would still apply if the compensation was derived from participant contributions. a casino could take a entry fee, but if that money was pooled and awarded to the winners, the gambling code would apply. if poker tournaments were sponsered to the point that an entry fee only included the house take, and all prizes came from a seperate source than player contributions, then i think it would no longer be considered gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think this analysis is correct. if it were then the annual peach tree 10k here in atlanta would be gambling because the winners are paid from a prize pool of the runner entry fees after the track club deducts event expenses.

i think the same situation applies to a chess tournament as well.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analysis of Georgia law is incomplete. Ga. Code s 16-12-21(a)(3) states:

[ QUOTE ]
A person commits the offense of gambling when he:


(1) Makes a bet upon the partial or final result of any game or contest or upon the performance of any participant in such game or contest;

(2) Makes a bet upon the result of any political nomination, appointment, or election or upon the degree of success of any nominee, appointee, or candidate; or

(3) Plays and bets for money or other thing of value at any game played with cards, dice, or balls.



[/ QUOTE ]

Georgia courts have interpreted "gambling" as anything involving "consideration, prize and chance." Kemp v. AT&T, 393 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2004). As the Georgia Court of Appeals has explained, in order for a game to amount to illegal gambling, it is only necessary that "among those persons who receive a chance to win a prize there must be some who have paid a consideration." Tierce v. State, 122 Ga. App. 845, 846 (1970). Your proposed SNG would certainly qualify as illegal gambling under Georgia law.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the gambling code would still apply if the compensation was derived from participant contributions. a casino could take a entry fee, but if that money was pooled and awarded to the winners, the gambling code would apply. if poker tournaments were sponsered to the point that an entry fee only included the house take, and all prizes came from a seperate source than player contributions, then i think it would no longer be considered gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think this analysis is correct. if it were then the annual peach tree 10k here in atlanta would be gambling because the winners are paid from a prize pool of the runner entry fees after the track club deducts event expenses.

i think the same situation applies to a chess tournament as well.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analysis of Georgia law is incomplete. Ga. Code s 16-12-21(a)(3) states:

[ QUOTE ]
A person commits the offense of gambling when he:


(1) Makes a bet upon the partial or final result of any game or contest or upon the performance of any participant in such game or contest;

(2) Makes a bet upon the result of any political nomination, appointment, or election or upon the degree of success of any nominee, appointee, or candidate; or

(3) Plays and bets for money or other thing of value at any game played with cards, dice, or balls.



[/ QUOTE ]

Georgia courts have interpreted "gambling" as anything involving "consideration, prize and chance." Kemp v. AT&T, 393 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2004). As the Georgia Court of Appeals has explained, in order for a game to amount to illegal gambling, it is only necessary that "among those persons who receive a chance to win a prize there must be some who have paid a consideration." Tierce v. State, 122 Ga. App. 845, 846 (1970). Your proposed SNG would certainly qualify as illegal gambling under Georgia law.

[/ QUOTE ]

jm,

the wording you just posted is contingent upon the definition of "bet".

now please refer to this section of the georgia code for
their legal definition of "bet:

[ QUOTE ]
16-12-20.

As used in this part, the term:
(1) "Bet" means an agreement that, dependent upon chance even though accompanied by some skill, one stands to win or lose something of value. A bet does not include:
(A) Contracts of indemnity or guaranty or life, health, property, or accident insurance; or
(B) An offer of a prize, award, or compensation to the actual contestants in any bona fide contest for the determination of skill, speed, strength, or endurance or to the owners of animals, vehicles, watercraft, or aircraft entered in such contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

if we take your assertion at face value then:
- chess tournaments with entry fee are illegal
- the peachtree 10k with entry fee is illegal
- billiard tournaments with entry fee are illegal
- etc.

the reason they are not illegal is because the entry fee does not meet the georgia criteria for their legal meaning of the word "bet"

if you begin with the exact identical financial structure as that of any local chess tournament but instead of any two entrants playing chess, they play 221 hands of holdem to determine who can max their stack better than the other, then i'm asking everyone to consider the possibility that this game might be accepted as having more skill than luck and if it does then georgia would accept it as a non-regulated game of skill because it passes their predominance test which asks that contests have more skill than luck.

*note: i must very emphatically point out that these 221 hands are just score keeping events - no money changes hands. the 221 hands are simply part of a headsup match to max out the player stack to determine a winner for that particular match. (just like a chess game determines a winner based on a set outcome criteria)

ray

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]

if we take your assertion at face value then:
- chess tournaments with entry fee are illegal
- the peachtree 10k with entry fee is illegal
- billiard tournaments with entry fee are illegal
- etc.

the reason they are not illegal is because the entry fee does not meet the georgia criteria for their legal meaning of the word "bet"


[/ QUOTE ]

Except none of those are explicitly mentioned as activities that count as illegal gambling. "Game[s] played with cards" are expressly noted in the statute to be illegal gambling. A court will surely use that more specific provision to interpret what the legislature meant by something that involves "chance" in the definition of "bet." In statutory interpretation, the specific always controls the general. No court would accept that a poker tournament is not something "dependent upon chance even though accompanied by some skill," when the legislature has expressly noted that betting on "game[s] played with cards" is illegal gambling.

I will lay you 200:1 that the Georgia Supreme Court will not (under the current statutes) accept any poker tournament as something other than illegal gambling if the entrants pay a fee for a chance to win a prize.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

if we take your assertion at face value then:
- chess tournaments with entry fee are illegal
- the peachtree 10k with entry fee is illegal
- billiard tournaments with entry fee are illegal
- etc.

the reason they are not illegal is because the entry fee does not meet the georgia criteria for their legal meaning of the word "bet"


[/ QUOTE ]

Except none of those are explicitly mentioned as activities that count as illegal gambling. "Game[s] played with cards" are expressly noted in the statute to be illegal gambling. A court will surely use that more specific provision to interpret what the legislature meant by something that involves "chance" in the definition of "bet." In statutory interpretation, the specific always controls the general. No court would accept that a poker tournament is not something "dependent upon chance even though accompanied by some skill," when the legislature has expressly noted that betting on "game[s] played with cards" is illegal gambling.

I will lay you 200:1 that the Georgia Supreme Court will not (under the current statutes) accept any poker tournament as something other than illegal gambling if the entrants pay a fee for a chance to win a prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

i forgot to add bridge tournaments to the list.
they are legal and they are played with cards.

if you put up $200k, i'll put up $1k.
let's work out the terms and decide who will be
the broker for the wager.

ray

[RayBornert]

imagine for a moment 10 players paying a $10 entry fee to enter a round robin style headsup tournament - each must play a single match against the other 9 to decide the overall winner - a single match is the 221 hand variant.

2 points for a win
1 point for a draw
0 points for a loss

the winner is the guy with the most points after the 9th round. if you can do 3 rounds per day then you can start on a friday and finish sunday night whereupon the winner gets about $50.

that's not gambling.

now contrast that scenario above with the standard cash ring game with real money wagers and pots where a single contest is completed about once per minute - in this context i agree 100% with everything you're saying.

ray

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

if we take your assertion at face value then:
- chess tournaments with entry fee are illegal
- the peachtree 10k with entry fee is illegal
- billiard tournaments with entry fee are illegal
- etc.

the reason they are not illegal is because the entry fee does not meet the georgia criteria for their legal meaning of the word "bet"


[/ QUOTE ]

Except none of those are explicitly mentioned as activities that count as illegal gambling. "Game[s] played with cards" are expressly noted in the statute to be illegal gambling. A court will surely use that more specific provision to interpret what the legislature meant by something that involves "chance" in the definition of "bet." In statutory interpretation, the specific always controls the general. No court would accept that a poker tournament is not something "dependent upon chance even though accompanied by some skill," when the legislature has expressly noted that betting on "game[s] played with cards" is illegal gambling.

I will lay you 200:1 that the Georgia Supreme Court will not (under the current statutes) accept any poker tournament as something other than illegal gambling if the entrants pay a fee for a chance to win a prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

i forgot to add bridge tournaments to the list.
they are legal and they are played with cards.

if you put up $200k, i'll put up $1k.
let's work out the terms and decide who will be
the broker for the wager.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Bridge tournaments cannot be played for money in Georgia. If you can show me a statute, case, attorney general opinion, or regulation saying otherwise, I will take back my opinion.

As for 200K, unfortunately, I don't have that much to be betting, and I would be too risk-averse to wager it even if I had it. Let's make more like a free-roll. I will give you $200 if you win, and I won't even take the dollar if I win. It will take forever to find out if we wait for the Georgia Supreme Court to decide the issue (someone would have to spend a whole lot of atty fees as well). Instead, why don't you submit an opinion request to Attorney General Thurbert Baker. If General Baker opines that a poker tournament, in which participants buy in and are paid out prize money for winning, are legal (you can characterize the structure however you like), I will pay you $200.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

if we take your assertion at face value then:
- chess tournaments with entry fee are illegal
- the peachtree 10k with entry fee is illegal
- billiard tournaments with entry fee are illegal
- etc.

the reason they are not illegal is because the entry fee does not meet the georgia criteria for their legal meaning of the word "bet"


[/ QUOTE ]

Except none of those are explicitly mentioned as activities that count as illegal gambling. "Game[s] played with cards" are expressly noted in the statute to be illegal gambling. A court will surely use that more specific provision to interpret what the legislature meant by something that involves "chance" in the definition of "bet." In statutory interpretation, the specific always controls the general. No court would accept that a poker tournament is not something "dependent upon chance even though accompanied by some skill," when the legislature has expressly noted that betting on "game[s] played with cards" is illegal gambling.

I will lay you 200:1 that the Georgia Supreme Court will not (under the current statutes) accept any poker tournament as something other than illegal gambling if the entrants pay a fee for a chance to win a prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

i forgot to add bridge tournaments to the list.
they are legal and they are played with cards.

if you put up $200k, i'll put up $1k.
let's work out the terms and decide who will be
the broker for the wager.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Bridge tournaments cannot be played for money in Georgia. If you can show me a statute, case, attorney general opinion, or regulation saying otherwise, I will take back my opinion.

As for 200K, unfortunately, I don't have that much to be betting, and I would be too risk-averse to wager it even if I had it. Let's make more like a free-roll. I will give you $200 if you win, and I won't even take the dollar if I win. It will take forever to find out if we wait for the Georgia Supreme Court to decide the issue (someone would have to spend a whole lot of atty fees as well). Instead, why don't you submit an opinion request to Attorney General Thurbert Baker. If General Baker opines that a poker tournament, in which participants buy in and are paid out prize money for winning, are legal (you can characterize the structure however you like), I will pay you $200.

[/ QUOTE ]

show me why people cant pay a $10 entry fee and compete in a weekend bridge tournament for a prize. it's nearly the same as chess; especially duplicate bridge. i'm not into bridge so my knowledge here is limited.

as for the 221-style game i've been discussing:
it cant be tested like that unfortunately. it would be much better customer service if government offered that level of advice but alas lawyers want to make money from writing opinions and so somebody must pay 1.2 buttloads of cash to have a pinstripe write a legal brief about the current rules. the only people able to ask the state attorneys are the state officials themselves (i.e. they are the hired employees of the state and so that's who they serve); if you and i want legal advice then we're on our own.

in most cases the only thing you can really do is test the waters by actually doing the deed and staking a claim. the state district attorney then decides if it's worth a fight based on budget and the amount of revenue at stake; part of my analysis is based on this very pragmatic point; if a 221 style headsup type of game is really only as lucrative as the average chess tournament (i.e. not very lucrative) then a state government is probably not going to care.

they would care about a real money cash game; why? because a poker cash game is at least 100 times more lucrative.

ray

[RayBornert]

there is another important political point to make here and that is

finanacial frequency factor

a cash poker game has a financial frequency similar to a slot machine or blackjack or craps - about 1 cycle per minute or so.

one of the notable aspects of gambling is the intentional pavlovian addictive response incited by financial frequency.

it's this drug like effect that government will always demand to regulate.

there is a big difference between a $2/$4 game where i can risk up to $10/minute and a weekend 221-style holdem tourney where i risk about $5/day

ray.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
show me why people cant pay a $10 entry fee and compete in a weekend bridge tournament for a prize. it's nearly the same as chess; especially duplicate bridge. i'm not into bridge so my knowledge here is limited.

as for the 221-style game i've been discussing:
it cant be tested like that unfortunately. it would be much better customer service if government offered that level of advice but alas lawyers want to make money from writing opinions and so somebody must pay 1.2 buttloads of cash to have a pinstripe write a legal brief about the current rules. the only people able to ask the state attorneys are the state officials themselves (i.e. they are the hired employees of the state and so that's who they serve); if you and i want legal advice then we're on our own.

in most cases the only thing you can really do is test the waters by actually doing the deed and staking a claim. the state district attorney then decides if it's worth a fight based on budget and the amount of revenue at stake; part of my analysis is based on this very pragmatic point; if a 221 style headsup type of game is really only as lucrative as the average chess tournament (i.e. not very lucrative) then a state government is probably not going to care.

they would care about a real money cash game; why? because a poker cash game is at least 100 times more lucrative.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

As for why bridge tournaments are illegal, it is for the same reasons as poker tournaments. Even if people are doing it, that does not make it legal. People play in home poker games all the time, but they are not legal.

Any legislator, judge, or district attorney can request an opinion of the Attorney General, as can the Governor, his cabinet or the head of any administrative agency. If you send your question to your local State Representative or Senator (draft it as a business plan you are hoping to pursue), he or she will most likely send it along to the AG's office. You should draft the question yourself, so that the legislator doesn't need to do anything other than submit it.

If you search through the AG opinions, you will see that many of them are actually on behalf of business interests. Here is a link to the AG web page addressing the issue:
http://www.ganet.org/ago/opinions.html

The biggest problem, of course, is that even if the Supreme Court held that poker tournaments were legal, the legislature would act quickly to ban them. It would be seen as competition to the State lottery by the urban legislators, and the rurals would see it as a vice like all other gambling.

There have been plans put forth to turn Atlanta Underground into a gambling center on several occasions, but there isn't enough political will to get it done.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
show me why people cant pay a $10 entry fee and compete in a weekend bridge tournament for a prize. it's nearly the same as chess; especially duplicate bridge. i'm not into bridge so my knowledge here is limited.

as for the 221-style game i've been discussing:
it cant be tested like that unfortunately. it would be much better customer service if government offered that level of advice but alas lawyers want to make money from writing opinions and so somebody must pay 1.2 buttloads of cash to have a pinstripe write a legal brief about the current rules. the only people able to ask the state attorneys are the state officials themselves (i.e. they are the hired employees of the state and so that's who they serve); if you and i want legal advice then we're on our own.

in most cases the only thing you can really do is test the waters by actually doing the deed and staking a claim. the state district attorney then decides if it's worth a fight based on budget and the amount of revenue at stake; part of my analysis is based on this very pragmatic point; if a 221 style headsup type of game is really only as lucrative as the average chess tournament (i.e. not very lucrative) then a state government is probably not going to care.

they would care about a real money cash game; why? because a poker cash game is at least 100 times more lucrative.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

As for why bridge tournaments are illegal, it is for the same reasons as poker tournaments. Even if people are doing it, that does not make it legal. People play in home poker games all the time, but they are not legal.

Any legislator, judge, or district attorney can request an opinion of the Attorney General, as can the Governor, his cabinet or the head of any administrative agency. If you send your question to your local State Representative or Senator (draft it as a business plan you are hoping to pursue), he or she will most likely send it along to the AG's office. You should draft the question yourself, so that the legislator doesn't need to do anything other than submit it.

If you search through the AG opinions, you will see that many of them are actually on behalf of business interests. Here is a link to the AG web page addressing the issue:
http://www.ganet.org/ago/opinions.html

The biggest problem, of course, is that even if the Supreme Court held that poker tournaments were legal, the legislature would act quickly to ban them. It would be seen as competition to the State lottery by the urban legislators, and the rurals would see it as a vice like all other gambling.

There have been plans put forth to turn Atlanta Underground into a gambling center on several occasions, but there isn't enough political will to get it done.

[/ QUOTE ]

all of your points are well taken.

however, given that the type of weekend event i'm talking about would net the operator on the order of no more than 10% of the entry fees. at best the operator could make about $100 / weekend for a total of maybe $5k per year. minimum wage workers make $10k / year.

i agree that the state has the political power to do most anything they want to do.

ray