Poker Under Attack

[dowdall]

Sadly, its not just in the US that poker is under government attack. I am a poker player and also a lawyer currently defending a poker club in Glasgow,Scotland which was raided by the Strathclyde police. The case hinges on whether or not poker is a "game of chance" as defined by the Uk legislation. If it is not the club can operate un impeded.
The legislation defines a games of chance as including games which are "partly luck and partly skill." There is an additional proviso that it does not matter if someone "by exceptional skill" can still beat such a game.
In the past it has been difficult to persaude a UK judge that a game with a random deal can be a game of skill. It seems to me that this is because of a fundemental misunderstanding of the game of poker. It is not a game of one random deal just as golf is not a game of one drive and no other shot.A skilled player wins by making better decisions than his less skilled opponents over a large number of hands. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the poker tracker results given in stoxtraders recent book.In addition how can a man like Doyle Brunson win every year for a lifetime if poker is not a game of skill. I would greatly appreciate the opinion of posters on this site where i believe the best information about poker related subjects can generally be found.

[Grasshopp3r]

Start searching as this topic has been beaten to death.

[Skallagrim]

Really, you dont have to go very far into this forum to find all the answers you seek.

As most of them relate to american law, though, they wont be 100% on point: most US states define gambling as a game of "predominantly chance." My understanding of UK law is that "predominantly" is not part of the law. The Gutshot case is appealing the lower court's decision to not make it part of the law.

If you cant use "predominantly" though, some quantification must apply: all games have some (if even minute) element of chance.

From there you can try to fit the arguments we've come up with, which are (in a nutshell):

1) Lots of players (and apparantly bots too) consistently win. This is statistically impossible in a game of chance.

2) If chance were the most important factor, players would have no reason to worry about their opponents, but no average player expects to win against Doyle, though it happens once in a great while.

3) The amount of factors to consider in poker is far greater than one unfamiliar with the game realizes and goes way beyond what cards have been dealt: probability, pot odds, deception, psychology...etc. Consider submitting one of the key poker books like Sklasky's Theory of Poker for the Court to review.

AND, the one I consider most effective:

4) The chance factor in poker is the random distribution of the cards. We can show statistically that this is the least important factor in determiming the outcome of a poker game or tournament - the vast majority of hands (and the vaster majority of the money distributed) are determined by the decisions of the players whether to bet, call, raise, or fold. In most hands the final card is not seen, hence there is no logcial way to conclude such a hand is determined by the cards/chance. And even in hands where the final card is shown, which players are there to see it and how much the pot is are also directly determined by decisions, not cards. Really the only time the cards determine the outcome is when there is a showdown and the underdog hits the improbable card. It cant be denied this happens in poker, but it does not happen that frequently and can be overcome over time by skilled play in other hands.

Good luck.

Skallagrim

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly...The legislation defines a games of chance as including games which are "partly luck and partly skill."

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's where your stuck. Luck is a factor in poker. The debate in the U.S. hinges on how much luck is involved, as we only need to demonstrate that luck is less than 50% of the game.

You can play the game perfectly, but your opponent(s) can get lucky. You can play the game poorly and get lucky.

It's going to be tough to show that poker is 100% skill (or 0% luck). You should focus your argument on what happens in the majority of hands where there is no showdown. Skallagrim has posted on this subject a number of times.

[TakenItEasy]

If you consider the extremes of the best player in the world vs someone who always folds a good hand and calls with with a bad hand than skill can be shown to be near 100% even over a 1 hand sample size and would approach 100% very quickly as the number of hands increase.

If you take the best player vs the wrst calling station who calls 100% of hands, than the skill level over 1 hand can be shown to be close to 50% and again very quickly increase to 100% as the number of hands increase.

If you take the best player in the world vs the average player than again you have something close to 50% over 1 hand but the skill factor approaches 100% more slowly than the calling station but again as the number increases it approaches 100% as the number of hands increase. In each case it is inevitable that skill completely dominates the game as the number of hands increase.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition how can a man like Doyle Brunson win every year for a lifetime if poker is not a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's just on a super heater. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Grasshopp3r]

I like the argument that states that you can deliberately lose in poker, whilst in a game of chance, you can not.

Loose definitions of chance games would also bring in any other card game, including bridge.

[MiltonFriedman]

Post a link or the text of the UK law you are quoting. That is the first step in getting assistance with crafting an appropriate argument on the facts.

In the Gutshot case, there was an argument which might have carried the day but lacked the foundation in the proofs.

PLEASE take the time to post a link to the Act, including the "exceptional skill" provision.

(This is really a licensing case isn't it ? Licensed brick & mortar poker is thriving in the US, so your circumstances are a bit different from ours. However, I would be glad to help out with an argument.)

[davmcg]

[ QUOTE ]
Post a link or the text of the UK law you are quoting.


[/ QUOTE ]

As the OP is a busy man I'm happy to step in.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.asp...;filesize=18543 (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&Brow seLetter=G&NavFrom=1&parentActiveTextDocId=1395940 &ActiveTextDocId=1396005&filesize=18543)

“game of chance” does not include any athletic game or sport, but, with that exception, and subject to subsection (6) of this section, includes a game of chance and skill combined and a pretended game of chance or of chance and skill combined; ......


......
(6) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether a game, which is played otherwise than against one or more other players, is a game of chance and skill combined, the possibility of superlative skill eliminating the element of chance shall be disregarded

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
(6) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether a game, which is played <u>otherwise than against one or more other players</u>, is a game of chance and skill combined, the possibility of superlative skill eliminating the element of chance shall be disregarded

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something? I read the emphasized words as meaning that this provision does not apply to games where one or more players play against each other.

[davmcg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(6) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether a game, which is played <u>otherwise than against one or more other players</u>, is a game of chance and skill combined, the possibility of superlative skill eliminating the element of chance shall be disregarded

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something? I read the emphasized words as meaning that this provision does not apply to games where one or more players play against each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

That very point occured to me when I cut and pasted, but I wouldn't assume readily that a clause in legislation means what any sane person would assume it to mean.......

[Tuff_Fish]

That could be taken to mean that it would take an unusually superior amount of skill to succeed as opposed to the journeyman player who would have no reasonable chance. I would consider blackjack to be such a case. I think it is a rare breed that can actually count cards accurately and consistantly over a lengthy period of time. The skill required is too great for perhaps 95% of the population.

An even more extreme case might be certain craps shooters who, with a great deal of practice, can hold and throw the dice so as to affect a winning outcome over time. I think there are maybe a dozen or so such skilled craps shooters.

In both cases the practioner is relying on extreme skill to overcome an innate disadvantage built into the game by the house. And, these are house banked games where it is expected that the majority of players cannot win.

Poker is absolutely different. An average player with a modest amount of effort can be consistantly successful even as a recreational player. It does not take extrordinary skill or mind numbing practice. The winner in a poker game is the person who wants it the most, who is willing to observe and be patient.

In poker, the player are not competing against the house and against a built in bias against that participant. As in golf, tennis, prize fighting, wrestling, and every olympic sport, the player is competing against the other players and is competing solely on the basis of the paticipants relative skill. I can beat you over time, I can't beat Doyle Brunson for very long at all. He is more skilled in the various arts involve in winning at poker.

Tuff ( the winner ) /images/graemlins/grin.gif
.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
The chance factor in poker is the random distribution of the cards. We can show statistically that this is the least important factor in determiming the outcome of a poker game or tournament - the vast majority of hands (and the vaster majority of the money distributed) are determined by the decisions of the players whether to bet, call, raise, or fold. In most hands the final card is not seen, hence there is no logcial way to conclude such a hand is determined by the cards/chance. And even in hands where the final card is shown, which players are there to see it and how much the pot is are also directly determined by decisions, not cards. Really the only time the cards determine the outcome is when there is a showdown and the underdog hits the improbable card. It cant be denied this happens in poker, but it it happens as statistically expected to, over time,and can be overcome over time by skilled play in other hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, your ending greeting was rather ironic... :P

[morphball]

Skallagrim said it before, there is no "luck" in poker. Even if this statement is wrong, and there is some luck, why concede it in an opening position.

When people ask for grants, do they ask for an amount they will settle for, or do they triple the amount they think they will actually need?

[Truthiness24]

No one really talks about this, but the rules of poker can be manipulated so as to make a particular game predominately luck or predominantly skill.

For example, straight $2/2 limit holdem as played at the FL dog tracks is more luck than skill. Skill plays a small role, but not as it does in $5/10 PLO, for example, or a tourney with 90 minute levels.

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]

The legislation defines a games of chance as including games which are "partly luck and partly skill." There is an additional proviso that it does not matter if someone "by exceptional skill" can still beat such a game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes it sound like you have no shot. By such a definition poker is unequivocally a game of chance. In fact this sounds like the legislators who wrote the law specifically phrased it such that it would clearly apply to poker and other skill-based gambling (for instance, backgammon). I'm pretty sure you're drawing dead.

[ QUOTE ]

In the past it has been difficult to persaude a UK judge that a game with a random deal can be a game of skill. It seems to me that this is because of a fundemental misunderstanding of the game of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that this is because a game with a random deal is very, very, clearly "partly luck."

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
No one really talks about this, but the rules of poker can be manipulated so as to make a particular game predominately luck or predominantly skill.

For example, straight $2/2 limit holdem as played at the FL dog tracks is more luck than skill. Skill plays a small role, but not as it does in $5/10 PLO, for example, or a tourney with 90 minute levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your observation is correct, but it really only proves that small stakes players will CHOOSE to make poker more chance. The rules of the game haven't changed, just that people dont really care if they lose $2 on a 2 outer, cause they dont really care if they lose $2.

Although winning a hand in that situation does require cards (because there will always be a showdown), overall winning money in that game can still be mostly skill (by folding a lot, and betting only when you are really strong).

Skallagrim

[Dunkman]

This is going to be an uphill fight, there's no doubt about that. In reality, to be honest, I'm not sure that in one hand in isolation, skill is more of a factor than luck. I mean I think it is in deep stack NL, but like truth was saying, in other games (minbet, omaha, etc.) edges on one given hand are so small that it's hard to argue skill is the predominant factor if you just look at one hand in isolation. Obviously, skill is the major factor with any decent sample size, since if you continually have the edges in the situations you come out ahead. I just think we should try to frame argument in a different way. If we let our opponents dictate that the discussion be about 1 hand in isolation, I'm not sure we can win.

edit: I do think skill is the major factor in a given hand (then again, I almost exclusively play cash nl.) I mean we put opponents on ranges of hands, assess our EV against those ranges, think about how our opponent will play those hands, whether we can a) bet for value against that range b) profit by bluffing against that range c) just call bets from that range, but not raise because their calling range of a raise plus our fold equity doesn't add up to enough EV to make it profitable, etc. The problem we have is, how are we going to get people who don't play to understand the nuances of a very complex game.

[Skallagrim]

Agreed, Dunkman.

But I dont think the legal test requires a focus on one hand. In fact, so far, the Courts, even the North Carolina Court, have been quite willing to consider the long(er) term.

The problem I have seen in the past, though, is echoed in your thoughts about luck v. skill in any one hand. This is, IMHO, mostly a semantic problem. You are not saying that luck is the key factor in EVERY SINGLE HAND (because if you were, then, logically, luck is the key factor overall), you are saying that in your experience your ability to win with skill occurs in less than half the hands. For the legal test, I can accept this because, even though you see your hand determined by the cards (you fold 2-6os UTG) the other players are still exercising skill.

Furthermore, your DECISION to fold 2-6os UTG is SKILL.

The flop could be 2,2,6 couldn't it?

So what is hard is imagining that the next hand will most likely be one where YOU can execise skill to win it, but its not hard to imagine that the next hand is most likely to be one where SOMEONE's (or the players as a whole) skill/decision(s) is going to determine who wins that hand and by how much.

Skallagrim

[MiltonFriedman]

You need to read the Act a bit more carefully. You have a real argument under the very "exceptional skill provision" you decry. It says:

"(6) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether a game, which is played otherwise than against one or more other players, is a game of chance and skill combined, the possibility of superlative skill eliminating the element of chance shall be disregarded."

The operative language is "a game, which is played otherwise than one against one or more other players" .....

Poker is clearly played against "one or more players".

In such games, the possibility of superlative skill eliminating chance is definitely allowed in making the deterination of the role of "chance". Chance can arguably be "eliminated".

So, counsel, your burden is simply to show that a player of exceptional skill can "eliminate the element of chance". If so, then poker is not a mixed game of chance and skill ..... chance, although present in the initial dealing, can be eliminated by skill in determining the outcome.

I would think that the argument is sound, as the carve out for exceptional skill clearly contemplates such a showing that skill, which can predominate in games played between players, can legally negate chance as an element. Otherwise, the quoted provision has NO purpose or meaning and is superfluous verbiage ..... a statutory interpreatory red flag.

Try Professor Joe Kelly for more on this.

Good luck.

[gurgeh]

[ QUOTE ]
The legislation defines a games of chance as including games which are "partly luck and partly skill."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's unblievable how denial allows for people to compartmentalize different reasoning for things they like or don't like. If the above definition stands, then football is illegal. Period. There can be no argument that bad days, bad weather, freak injuries, illnesses, or who knows what else can contribute to a lesser team winning a game by chance. The difference is that with more players who work hard at conditioning and studying films and listening to their coaches, the team is more likely to win, and this is based on skill.

It is no different in poker. No professional sports team finishes with a record as the result of one single game, down, score, or pitch. If you study the game and are honest about your abilities, get feedback, and play enough hands, then your results are good, although you end up occasionally getting the worst of it. This does not mean poker is a game of chance. It is, pun intended, par for the course.

[MiltonFriedman]

See my post above, please ask him to take the time to read the law thoroughly.

Thanks for the link.

[Tuff_Fish]

Another example of skill based playing, both good and questionable skill, but certainly not chance.

San Diego Paper (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070518/news_lz1c18poker.html)

Here is the text.

POKER STEVE ROSENBLOOM
Weigh the payoff and count your outs

May 18, 2007
Playing 5-6 under the gun, suited or otherwise, is not the recommended play in many of the poker texts on the market.
But wild pro Michael “The Grinder” Mizrachi has his own book, and there are many more chapters when it comes to a deep-stack tournament, such as the $25,000-buy-in World Poker Tour Championship at Las Vegas' Bellagio in 2006 when the blinds were only $50-$100.

You're not playing an event where you have $3,000 in chips,” said Mizrachi, the 2006 Card Player magazine player of the year. “You have $50,000. It only costs you $100, and I'm getting so much value against every other stack if I hit it because I'll get paid off.”
So, Mizrachi, holding 5-6 of diamonds, limped for the $100, as did four other players. The flop came Q-4-7, rainbow, giving Mizrachi an open-ended straight draw.
The big blind checked, as did Mizrachi. The next player bet $600. Two players folded. The big blind called, as did Mizrachi.
“I just flat-called. I wanted the other guys behind me in because I wanted to get as much value for the hand as possible,” Mizrachi said.
The turn came the king of diamonds, giving Mizrachi a flush draw to go with his open-ended straight draw.
Table Talk Under the gun: The first player to act after the blinds. Blinds: A rotating series of forced bets before the cards are dealt, meant to ensure action; the small blind is usually half of the big blind.

The big blind checked. So did Mizrachi. The last player bet $1,000. The big blind folded. Mizrachi called. He was getting more than 3-1 on his money – $1,000 into a pot worth more than $3,300 – but he had 15 outs (the nine unseen diamonds to make his flush and the six non-diamond 3s and 8s that made his straight), so he was 2-1 to hit a winning card if both of his draws were good.
“It's not just the price; it's the chips he has in front of him,” said Mizrachi. “I probably wouldn't have called if it was a $2,000 buy-in, but with $50,000, you can take the risk with that hand and hope and pray he bets the river.”
The river came the 8 of hearts, giving Mizrachi the nut straight. He checked, as did his opponent, likely fearful of a reraise. Mizrachi took a pot that was smaller than it might have been for all his machinations.
“I checked trying to trap him, but he checked, too,” Mizrachi said. “He made a great check. I was stuck with the nuts and didn't make any extra money. I don't think he put me on 5-6, but they know the way I play. I'm the kind of player who will bet you off your hand. I play a lot of hands at the early levels. I'll probably stab out at it next time.”

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

I was wondering what games, if any, that might have an element of luck, but are classified as skill, and are offered by a commercial entity to the general public, and that involve the exchange of money as a result of the game outcome?

There is a lady at work who plays serious dominoe competitions over the internet, but she didn't know of any dominoe games played for money.

Anybody know of anything? All we really need is one example and we can claim equal status.

Tuff

[Skallagrim]

Tuff, check out these guys:

http://www.worldwinner.com/cgi/legal/terms.html

But note even they have to exclude certain states.