have federal courts/laws weighed in on luck vs skill?

[schwza]

it came up in conversation recently and i was embarassed i didn't know.

is there a couple-page summary somewhere of the current status of everything regarding legality issues that i could look at?

[oldbookguy]

One case, does not address skill.

Gambling 5th circuit federal court mastercard

I believe around 2002

Court ruled current law (1961 Wire Act) does NOT cover casino gaming, only Sports Wagering.

Also, card games are classified as skill; I.E. Solitaire, Hearts, spades.

offered on AOL, Cash Compititions from

worldwinner.com based in Newton, Mass.

Thus the argument over poker.

obg

[wpr101]

I don't believe federal courts have recently. I know some state courts have though. I believe in North Carolina some idiot judge proclaimed poker is all luck.

[MiltonFriedman]

Never have as far as I know, and have no reason to do so now. It is not an issue under any federal law I know of ..... and, yes, I actually have read the UIGE Act.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

There is a USDC east coast case that stated that poker was not covered by the wire act. Don't recall if the analysis required looking at skill/luck; it could have have just been a "plain language" case.

[Skallagrim]

There are no Federal Cases that specifically discuss luck vs. skill in poker. There is a Federal District court case that found backgammon to be a game of skill.

The luck v. skill argument is important though, because (sorry Milton) if poker is a game of predominantly luck it is illegal in almost every state. If it is illegal under state law, then it is covered by the UIGEA.

This is still a difficulty, however, and one of the reasons there have been no Federal poker prosecutions (yet). How does a Federal Court go about determining how the courts of any particular state will decide the issue (since only 4 or 5 states have court opinions on the subject)?

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

NOTE THE TIME INVOLVED, this case started in 1978, decided finally in 1987, NINE full years.

Actually there is a Supreme Court case, though it deals with Dog track Wagering.

One important aspect states

"...[W]e conclude that if one's gambling activity is pursued full time, in good faith, and with regularity, to the production of income for a livelihood, and is not a mere hobby, it is a trade or business within the meaning of the statutes with which we are here concerned. Respondent [480 U.S. 23, 36] Groetzinger satisfied that test in 1978. Constant and largescale effort on his part was made. Skill was required and was applied. He did what he did for a livelihood, though with a less-than-successful result. This was not a hobby or a passing fancy or an occasional bet for amusement. [Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23 (1987)]"

However, this case delt with allowing IRS deductions, business v hobby aspect, though 'SKILL' is still mentioned and is a possible way out, a stretch though.

Read Taxable Talk:
http://www.taxabletalk.com/posts/1125006725.shtml

Read the ENTIRE Supreme Court Case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=480&invol=23

obg

[MiltonFriedman]

Np Skill, I stand corrected .... I forgot about the bootstrap, violation of the commerce clause that subjected internet businesses to a federal court prosecution for running afoul of conflicting, uncertain state laws which might have skill/luck as germane.

You are right.

[MiltonFriedman]

good find

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
good find

[/ QUOTE ]

Ty Milton, this could be relivant to the IMEGA suit as well.

obg