John Kyl "addresses" online gaming

[ekdikeo]

http://www.cappersmall.com/sportscenter/...-poker2196.html (http://www.cappersmall.com/sportscenter/CM-Columns/Jon-Kyl-addresses-online-gambling-and-poker2196.html)

[Skallagrim]

There is only one interesting point to this drival by Kyl: at the end of the statement he writes:

"And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions."

Those of you familiar with my posts know I have spent a lot of time effort and thought DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE CHALLENGES US TO DO! See:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9566359&page=5&fpart=2&v c=1)

which I am bumping.

Skallagrim

[meleader2]

wow. ty mr. kyl, you have opened my eyes to the worrisome rise of the gambling trend by stating that "Risk survey". Coupled with your definitions and explanation of the numbers, which were non-existent, i am now convinced.

i am a problem youth gambler.

[JOHNY CA$H]

And... this is about the time where Sklansky and Co. intellectually tear Sen. Kyl to pieces. Poor sucker, shouldn't have given us an opening.

[ekdikeo]

I don't know about everywhere, but in the states that I've researched, all games involving "cards" are considered gambling.

[Skallagrim]

Look up the legal status of the game of bridge, ekdikeo ...

In California, at least, it was held to be a game of skill by a Court of Appeals. And that was regular bridge, not duplicate. See: In re Allen, 59 Cal.2d 5, 377 P.2d 280 (1961).

Hmm...what if stars and ftp had a few for-money bridge tables too, how could the feds or the banks ever know which of the 2 games you were playing...?

Skallagrim

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
Look up the legal status of the game of bridge, ekdikeo ...

In California, at least, it was held to be a game of skill by a Court of Appeals. And that was regular bridge, not duplicate. See: In re Allen, 59 Cal.2d 5, 377 P.2d 280 (1961).

Hmm...what if stars and ftp had a few for-money bridge tables too, how could the feds or the banks ever know which of the 2 games you were playing...?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

That's like saying you can buy a bag of herbs from a drug dealer if that dealer sells both oregano and weed. The police can't know!

that will never fly... it's a very weak loophole

[Eaglebauer]

[ QUOTE ]
While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but what if I win 20 BBs on the hands that I win as a result of "luck of the draw" and lose only 1 BB on the ones that I don't?

What an ignoramus.

[Skallagrim]

You just are not devious enough Karak567, and you understimate me (where do you play poker by the way? /images/graemlins/wink.gif ).

If your dealer sells both oregano and weed and the only thing the police can prove is that you went to his house and came out with a baggie containing a green material, I guarantee you even a half-witted lawyer will get you acquitted.

Think ftp or stars would tell the cops which game you played?

Skallagrim

[Coy_Roy]

While yes, "luck of the draw" is a reality, what makes poker a "skill" game is the ability to make decisions AFTER the draw.

Fold, raise, check, etc;.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

what a [censored] retard.

[Sniper]

Skall,

Why do you keep acting like this is going to play out in a US court... that hasn't been the case so far and the world has significantly changed...

[Skallagrim]

Sniper,

When someone from FTP or Stars or epassporte or whomever is actually busted for providing, promoting, funding or even just playing online poker, all of the arguments I have advanced at one time or another will be made in Court. Either that or there will be a guilty plea.

The "world," meaning legislation, may change ... but until it does, I want to be ready to defend my (and everyone else's) online poker playing under current law.

You should too.

Skallagrim

[lfairban]

What about the Neteller case? Is that what you are talking about?

[Sniper]

Skall, yes, but,

what about the impact before things even get to court?...

[lfairban]

If you read carefully, you will notice that he never once aledges that playing poker for money online is illegal.

He does however imply it.

[Skallagrim]

Neteller was hooked because of its involvement with sportsbetting.

And yes sniper, things do happen before cases go to court, just like people fold before the showdown (again neteller comes to mind). But as soon as the Feds mess with one person or company willing to take their chances in court, these arguments will matter.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
"And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the relevance of this, especially considering the legality of lotteries and horse betting. Americans should have the right to gamble in their homes, be it on poker, sports, slots, keno, etc. To hell with having to prove that a form of betting is skill-based in order for it to be legal.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the relevance of this, especially considering the legality of lotteries and horse betting. Americans should have the right to gamble in their homes, be it on poker, sports, slots, keno, etc. To hell with having to prove that a form of betting is skill-based in order for it to be legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

One last time. It shouldnt matter, but in terms of what is politicially possible, it does at this time.

So choose: hold out for full freedom (may have a long wait)
or
take whatever freedom you can get now (and dont stop working for full freedom later).

Anyone know how to make poll in these forums?

Skallagrim

[Grasshopp3r]

I think that you pursue both as they are not mutually exclusive.

[SmackinYaUp]

His arguments are so weak. Was his last paragraph a legit challenge or just a hot fart?

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know how to make poll in these forums?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you create a post, there is an option to "add a poll to this post"

[Uglyowl]

Right now I think the burden of proof for online poker is on Mr. Kyl's side and not us.

[Jeffage]

[ QUOTE ]
It is important to note that the UIGEA does not affect online poker for entertainment. If a poker player does not bet with a gambling entity or stake anything of value on the game, it does not constitute “gambling” and does not violate the law. Your Saturday night poker game is not affected. Nor are “dot-net” and other poker sites that are free to play. Poker enthusiasts are not deprived of the opportunity to play the game – only online financial gambling is affected.


[/ QUOTE ]

What a d-bag.

Jeff

[Eaglesfan1]

Hasn't this already been proven in court? Billy Baxter had a case against the USA on pretty much this same issue which he won. I have no idea about the details but someone should look into it.