Results Of Any Skill vs Luck Court Cases?

[The Big Sleazy]

this is my state's definition of gambling
[ QUOTE ]
(2) "Gambling" means risking any money, credit, deposit, or other thing of value for gain contingent in
whole or in part
upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device, or the happening or outcome of an event, including
a sporting event,
over which the person taking a risk has no control, but does not include:
(a) Bona fide contests of skill , speed, strength, or endurance in which awards are made only to entrants
or the owners of
entries;
(b) Bona fide business transactions which are valid under the law of contracts;
(c) Other acts or transactions now or hereafter expressly authorized by law;
(d) Any game, wager, or transaction which is incidental to a bona fide social relationship, is participated
in by natural
persons only, and in which no person is participating, directly or indirectly, in professional gambling

[/ QUOTE ]

by you enterpretation of this definition of gambling, would i have a legitament defence for opperating a poker room?

[MiltonFriedman]

Huh, yeah sure ..... go right ahead. I think you have the perfect defense:

"Hey, your honor, I asked a bunch of anonymous posters on 2+2 if it was legal."

Do not waste time with actually consulting an actual attorney in your actual state. After all, all those guys want is to take your money. You are FAR better off seeking advice here, and you do not even have to tell anyone WHAT state you live in, that would be too much information.

Seriously, get a lawyer, understand that your state may distinguish between playing poker and operating a poker game, and do not ask perfect strangers on the internet if what you are thinking of is legal.

[The Big Sleazy]

exactly what part of "Results Of Any Skill vs Luck Court Cases?" did you not get?

[The Big Sleazy]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh, yeah sure ..... go right ahead. I think you have the perfect defense:

"Hey, your honor, I asked a bunch of anonymous posters on 2+2 if it was legal."

Do not waste time with actually consulting an actual attorney in your actual state. After all, all those guys want is to take your money. You are FAR better off seeking advice here, and you do not even have to tell anyone WHAT state you live in, that would be too much information.

Seriously, get a lawyer, understand that your state may distinguish between playing poker and operating a poker game, and do not ask perfect strangers on the internet if what you are thinking of is legal.

[/ QUOTE ] i plan on consulting a lawer first, i a'm just looking for links to other cases in other states.

[MiltonFriedman]

Uh, what "other states" ?

You did not post what state you are starting in.

Look, it's your time and money and possible criminal record, but why not let a professional advise you about YOUR State ?

[MiltonFriedman]

I did not get how that had any relevance to your content or what you were asking for. Yeah, there are cases, so what about them. Guess what ... the results are mixed and likely NONE are of any precedential value in your circumstances.

Look, the value of advice you get here will be worthless if you are serious .... but vaya con dios.

[The Big Sleazy]

look man it's colorado, i didn't realy want to say at first but there you go.

[MiltonFriedman]

1. Try Chuck Humphries. He is in Colorado.

2. My less-educated guess is that as Colorado expressly licenses and regulates brick and mortar casinos in your state, you are out of luck.

3. I used to play poker in a number of saloons in Colorado in small towns, but those were informal games and a long time ago.

4. There is an active thread about some punishment for an unlicensed room in Colorado, but I have not read it.

[The Big Sleazy]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Try Chuck Humphries. He is in Colorado.

[/ QUOTE ]is he a gambling layer?

[ QUOTE ]
2. My less-educated guess is that as Colorado expressly licenses and regulates brick and mortar casinos in your state, you are out of luck.

[/ QUOTE ]they do and they have exemptions and bar poker is played everywhere


[ QUOTE ]
4. There is an active thread about some punishment for an unlicensed room in Colorado, but I have not read it.

[/ QUOTE ]that is my thread

[MiltonFriedman]

Vaya con dios, the free advice is over. Try Googling Chuck.

[The Big Sleazy]

Go with God?

[The Big Sleazy]

btw thanks for the chuck contact, i'll be getting ahold of him soon.

[DeliciousBass]

I think Tworooks is the guy to ask.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
exactly what part of "Results Of Any Skill vs Luck Court Cases?" did you not get?

[/ QUOTE ]

fyi you came across like a real dick in this thread.

[Punker]

Look up Billy Baxter's case vs the IRS. Favorable ruling, with the judge finishing up by saying "If the government really believes poker is not a game of skill, I invite them to sit down at a table with Mr Baxter" or something similar.

[The Big Sleazy]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh, yeah sure ..... go right ahead. I think you have the perfect defense:

"Hey, your honor, I asked a bunch of anonymous posters on 2+2 if it was legal."


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
exactly what part of "Results Of Any Skill vs Luck Court Cases?" did you not get?

[/ QUOTE ]

fyi you came across like a real dick in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]sorry that comment kind of irked me

[The Big Sleazy]

[ QUOTE ]
Look up Billy Baxter's case vs the IRS. Favorable ruling, with the judge finishing up by saying "If the government really believes poker is not a game of skill, I invite them to sit down at a table with Mr Baxter" or something similar.

[/ QUOTE ]thank you

[oldbookguy]

Though everyone credits Billy Baxter, the IRS chose a different case they thought there was a better chance to win, http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~acadian/poland/class4/groetzinger/groetzingered.pdf

This case was decided in 1987.

The REAL importance here is an argument that everyone overlooks, in the case the Supreme Court ruled for Groetzinger AND STATES that GAMBLING is a 'SKILL'!

He wagered on Dog racing.

You will find this at the bottom of page 5 in Red.

obg

[The Big Sleazy]

Billy Baxter vs United States (http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/14882)

[The Big Sleazy]

thank you oldbookguy

[oldbookguy]

A most intersting case there by an unknown person who actually lost more than he won.

More interesting is the 'skill' mention, this could be a plus that has been overlooked, any lawyers out there have a comment after reading the case?

obg

[Skallagrim]

Virtually all Courts would concede that there is SOME skill in poker and most forms of gambling (slots and Roulette type games, maybe not), and this explains the tax rulings in the cases above. They allow you to file as a professional gambler. They do not examine or conclude whether or not poker is a game of chance.

Colorado's law is an interesting one, and IMHO attackable in Court. Be prepared for a battle, however. There are two key points: The law defines gambling as wagering on an outcome "contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device, or the happening or outcome of an event, including a sporting event, over which the person taking a risk has no control...." A poker game's outcome is certainly contingent IN PART on chance: when there is a showdown its who has the best cards who wins, and who has the best cards is determined by chance. But what about when there is no showdown? How can that hand be said to be contingent on the cards: when everyone has folded to the winner, the actual cards are irrelevant to the outcome. Note also that the statute includes the language "over which the the person taking the risk has no control." Well you certainly have no control over what the next card will be, but you do have some control over who will be in the hand to see the next card: YOU CAN FOLD. You also have an ability to influence, if not control, whether others will see that next card: YOU CAN RAISE. Because poker in all its modern forms is determined more by the decisions players make than by the actual cards dealt, I believe there is a possibility of a Court ruling poker is not gambling under CO law. A possibility....Before you do anything that will lead to possible criminal prosecution you had better consult with a CO lawyer just like MF said.

You may also wish to consider how you construct this card room given the law's "social play" exemption. Clearly a casino style rake is making a profit that is dependent on the amount bet, and therefore you are making a profit from the game (illegal). But if you create a social club that has dues independent of the gaming, that may be quite legal. Again, only a CO lawyer will have enough information to answer these questions specifically.

AS to actual cases: USE THE INTERNET THING. You will find that a mix of court opinions on this subject. The most recent was a poorly argued NC Court of Appeals case that went against us and was discussed heavily in this forum. Older cases in Calif. and Missouri ruled poker was not a lottery where a lottery was defined as any game more chance than skill. Neb. has a case ruling the other way.

If you want to send me money, I will do the research for you /images/graemlins/wink.gif. But you are still better off hiring a CO attorney if you are serious about such a venture.

Skallagrim

[The Big Sleazy]

[ QUOTE ]
Virtually all Courts would concede that there is SOME skill in poker and most forms of gambling (slots and Roulette type games, maybe not), and this explains the tax rulings in the cases above. They allow you to file as a professional gambler. They do not examine or conclude whether or not poker is a game of chance.

Colorado's law is an interesting one, and IMHO attackable in Court. Be prepared for a battle, however. There are two key points: The law defines gambling as wagering on an outcome "contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device, or the happening or outcome of an event, including a sporting event, over which the person taking a risk has no control...." A poker game's outcome is certainly contingent IN PART on chance: when there is a showdown its who has the best cards who wins, and who has the best cards is determined by chance. But what about when there is no showdown? How can that hand be said to be contingent on the cards: when everyone has folded to the winner, the actual cards are irrelevant to the outcome. Note also that the statute includes the language "over which the the person taking the risk has no control." Well you certainly have no control over what the next card will be, but you do have some control over who will be in the hand to see the next card: YOU CAN FOLD. You also have an ability to influence, if not control, whether others will see that next card: YOU CAN RAISE. Because poker in all its modern forms is determined more by the decisions players make than by the actual cards dealt, I believe there is a possibility of a Court ruling poker is not gambling under CO law. A possibility....Before you do anything that will lead to possible criminal prosecution you had better consult with a CO lawyer just like MF said.

You may also wish to consider how you construct this card room given the law's "social play" exemption. Clearly a casino style rake is making a profit that is dependent on the amount bet, and therefore you are making a profit from the game (illegal). But if you create a social club that has dues independent of the gaming, that may be quite legal. Again, only a CO lawyer will have enough information to answer these questions specifically.

AS to actual cases: USE THE INTERNET THING. You will find that a mix of court opinions on this subject. The most recent was a poorly argued NC Court of Appeals case that went against us and was discussed heavily in this forum. Older cases in Calif. and Missouri ruled poker was not a lottery where a lottery was defined as any game more chance than skill. Neb. has a case ruling the other way.

If you want to send me money, I will do the research for you /images/graemlins/wink.gif. But you are still better off hiring a CO attorney if you are serious about such a venture.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]i pretty much agree with you on everything but if i did a time charge instead of a rake then it may work, because i would have zero intrest in the outcome and they would just be paying to be inside my place of buisness. i am also considering making it a members only club with low fee's. also to avoid posible charges could i file sute against colorado first?

[Grasshopp3r]

There should be some active research on gambling topics as almost all of the major illegal poker rooms in Denver have been raided in the past year, including a few that were operating as "social clubs". It is a good time for litigation, so please post some updates as you learn more.

More importantly, most players know that raking a game is illegal and you will run into some resistance in getting players. You may want to start a game without rake as a social game and then raking it in the future.

[Skallagrim]

Look this really is something you need to HIRE a lawyer for if you are serious. Any further comment by me would be inappropriate because I am not familiar with all the nuances of the law in Colorado.

If you do hire a lawyer and that lawyer would like some help in structuring the argument that poker is not a "game of chance" under CO law you may PM at that time and I will be glad to help. I have developed a formal proof and argument that will be of use, but it will still have to be tailored to the specifics of Colorado.

Skallagrim

[Grasshopp3r]

Holme, Roberts & Owen in Denver is a law firm that is a member of the Colorado Gaming Association. They would be a good place to start. Isaacson, Rosenbaum, Woods & Levy, P.C. is another Denver law firm that has gaming experience.

This is Chuck Humprey's site: http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/online-poker-skill.htm

[iron81]

I recall reading here that a Virginia or North Carolina court ruled that poker was a game of luck.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
I recall reading here that a Virginia or North Carolina court ruled that poker was a game of luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a Mod? Then you know how to do the search that will result in a long thread in this forum about the NC court decision and its flawed reasoning.

As to Virginia, you are probably referring to a recent dispute in Virginia where various District Attorneys cannot agree whether poker is more skill or chance. I am not a Moderator and so I think its ok for me to be lazy and say you can find a link to the Virginia dispute at the PPA website.


Sorry to seem sarcastic, something about green names that brings up the rebellious, "question authority" little boy in me /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

The Virginia dispute (unlike the N.C. case) is a good argument for our side.

There are three good news stories in the local Portsmouth, Va newspaper about Virginia. one thing about the games running though, they are charity games formerly ran by the FOP for a Catholic school group now ran for the March of Dimes.

stories in the order they appeared in the newspaper:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=122748&ran=211875

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=122639&ran=8980

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=126807&ran=47803

obg

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
AS to actual cases: USE THE INTERNET THING. You will find that a mix of court opinions on this subject. The most recent was a poorly argued NC Court of Appeals case that went against us and was discussed heavily in this forum. Older cases in Calif. and Missouri ruled poker was not a lottery where a lottery was defined as any game more chance than skill. Neb. has a case ruling the other way.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure whether it was poorly argued or not. Certainly the Court seemed to understand the core issue:

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence, as presented by these witnesses, establishes that poker is both a game of skill and chance. All witnesses appeared to agree that in a single hand, chance may predominate over skill, but that over a long game, the most skilled players would likely amass the most chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

From this of, course, they reach an illogical conclusion that seems to be based on the outcome of one hand or one turn of the card. I've never played a one hand session of poker myself, and even if I had wouldn't concede that a session is necessarily the proper measuring stick of skill versus luck, but there ya go. Way to go Court.