another NEW Online U S Gamoing CARD SITE

[oldbookguy]

Ok, here we go again, this card game, Rummy Royal is open to U S players AND funded by, thats right, PAYPAL.

Marketed as a skill game, it is cards, no different than poker.


Thoughts?

Site:
http://www.rummyroyal.com/

From FAQ'S:
There is an 8 state ban.
http://www.rummyroyal.com/how_to_play/real_money.html#stateList

obg

[Uglyowl]

Interesting, I think it is a good thing more avenues of gaming are starting up and also previously "shy" Paypal is jumping in.

Get another segment of America into online gaming, I think it will make harder and harder to keep down.

I have never played rummy, how is the skill vs. chance in relation to poker?

[oldbookguy]

Rummy is a draw type card game, you make straights, 3 / 4 kinds.

Yes, nice that payPal is funding this. However, their FAQ's state legal 'SKILL' gaming is allowed, but NO poker, even if legal, in U.S. In the E. U. I understand they fund all gaming.

Now, Rummy.

You start with 7 cards and the idea is to play all your cards but one (the final discard).

You get points for cards played and lose points for cards you are holding when the other player goes rummy.

Generally played to a set point amount, first to 1K points and so one or played by the point, say .10 per point.

Similar to gin.

Pure chance and strategy.

obg

[Legislurker]

Bots people write are pretty good at gin and rummy

[TheMathProf]

So as a WA state resident, I'm really confused. I know that online gambling isn't legal, but couldn't find this so called skills exemption in the WA state statutes that this site claims...

If said statute exists, wouldn't that provide another avenue of attacking that state's online ban?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
So as a WA state resident, I'm really confused. I know that online gambling isn't legal, but couldn't find this so called skills exemption in the WA state statutes that this site claims...

If said statute exists, wouldn't that provide another avenue of attacking that state's online ban?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the subscription sites hope to charge a fee for the time conntected and offer games under RCW 9.46.0201 the Amuesment section, games of skill not dependent on the operators with limited prizes.
RCW 9.46.0225 is the killer for real money games in WA, IMO

RCW 9.46.0282 "Social card game." holds some hope for site operators given that you could limit your players in WA to use of your network to only non-rake games and hope for a change in the law, but this is not a viable marketing strategy as the rest of the players on your net would want the same deal.


Hope this helps,


D$D

[oldbookguy]

From you WS Gaming laws:

[ QUOTE ]
RCW 9.46.0225
"Contest of chance."

as used in this chapter, means any contest, game, gaming scheme, or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree<emphasis added> upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, for those who CAN and hopefully WILL look this case up, it may be VERY important to Poker, a Federal Court in Nevade back in 1965 declared Gin Rummy a Game of Skill.

From http://www.gamecolony.com/gin_rummy_game_skill.shtml

[ QUOTE ]
Gin Rummy: Skill or Chance? District Court Decides!

In mid-1960s a Las Vegas-based Gin Rummy tournament was promoted by mailing flyers to players. The post office objected on the grounds that it was illegal to promote a "game of chance" (a lottery) through postal services. This case ended up in court. After listening to the testimony of experts that included statisticians and several prominent players, the US District Court of Las Vegas on February 23, 1965, ruled that Gin Rummy is indeed a game of skill.

(from "How to Win at Gin Rummy". Pramod Shankar, Ph.D. First Carol Publishing Edition, 1997. page 76.)

Now that you have heard it from the judge, you better believer it! Skill plays an important role in the majority of hands and over the long run the more skilled player is destined to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

obg

[repulse]

This is interesting. The above site also offers backgammon as a "game of skill" and provides a court ruling:
http://www.gamecolony.com/backgammon_game_skill.shtml

This is the first I've seen of any court ruling classifying backgammon as a "game of skill" (i.e. not "gambling"), and the first skill games site I've seen citing this ruling to justify offering the game.

The biggest point of contention in considerations (both informal discussions and court cases) of whether or not poker is a game of skill is the explicit randomness in the shuffle of the cards. Many people/judges see this aspect as inexorably putting poker in the "gambling" category (skill matters but if you get bad luck in the cards dealt it won't matter "enough"), while the same party might not appreciate the less explicit randomness in, say, a golf tournament. But backgammon has just as explicit of a random component as poker does in the rolls of the dice!

Shouldn't the ruling (actionable ruling, as far as this skill games site is concerned, meaning that people are using Paypal to play backgammon online in the US as we speak) of backgammon being a "game of skill" despite explicit random factors be a tremendous precedent for poker's case?

[Skallagrim]

Yes, Backgammon, Gin Rummey, and Bridge (and a few others - including poker to one degree or another) have all been held by Courts at one time or another to be games of mostly skill. Only three state supreme Courts have ruled on the issue: CA and MO courts both have cases ruling poker is not a "lottery" in the context of lottery being any game that is mostly chance. NE has a case, without reasoning, putting poker in the mostly chance category. Other than that NC case (which is still, I believe, under appeal to the state supreme court) there hasnt been a case on poker in about 40 years. That will change soon, no question.

If poker is a game of mostly skill it is exempt from most state gambling laws, and perfectly legal to play for money (note I said MOST).

There is the undeniable chance element in poker (and all card games): the random distribution of the cards. The usual legal question is, therefore: is the random distribution of the cards the MOST important factor in who wins or loses at poker?

My short answer to that question is NO. The actions of the players (betting, calling, raising and folding) is the most important factor. It is the only other factor. I believe I can prove that most hands are decided by what the players do, not what the cards are. The simplest way to show this is to watch any game being played for real stakes - most hands are decided by all players but one folding. Since no one in that situation ever sees their opponents cards, and rarely even sees the last card(s) to be dealt, it is logically impossible to say that the "cards" decided who won that hand.

Of hands that do go to showdown, the analysis is much more complex - but in those hands as long as the amount of the win is allowed to be factored in, then skill is still the predominant factor - skill being defined as the actions of the players.

This is why most of us get frustrated playing at micro stakes or for play money with no prize - when you have nothing to lose, or when the loss is so minimal as to be meaningless, there is no incentive to fold.

Without the folding factor, the cards do become the predominant factor. But as long as folding is a real part of the game (and thus so is bluffing and value betting and trapping, and making good laydowns, etc...), skill will trump chance over any statistically meaningful series of hands.

One of these days someone (I hope its me) will make that presentation to a modern court. If the court agrees, poker becomes a skill game (at least in that court's jurisdiction) and becomes just as legal to play as the ones listed in the site noted by OBG.

Skallagrim

[repulse]

Right, Skall; in fact I think the backgammon precedent strengthens your argument a lot. The case this gaming site cites implies that the following quote from Magriel was the crucial point of the decision: "The decision where to move your men after the dice have been cast - that is the essence of the game. Chance is not a material factor."

So backgammon is skillful because it is about the moves you make, and your argument for poker as skill is similar... but in poker, you can make any move REGARDLESS of the random component (your hand) while in backgammon your move choices are CONSTRAINED BY the random component (your roll). Poker is even more skillful, in that sense. This ties pretty neatly into the other skill-based factors... no bluffing in backgammon, surely a perfect information game involves less skill than an imperfect information game, etc... a pretty compelling case, IMHO.

(and you've got my vote for being the one to make the presentation of poker to a modern court)

[JPFisher55]

Even in micro limits, your hand selection gives you an edge over the play all, fold never crowd. I started with a $50 deposit and played $.02/.04 NLHE. I have never been a loser in all the time that I have been playing online poker, since April 2005. Skill plays a large role in any poker game. Even in play money games which I started playing early 2005, I accumulated millions of play dollars by learning good hand selection and when to fold.
I wish that judges could grasp this concept.

[cjk73]

I would think another factor that proves poker is a skill game is the example of consistent winners. An example could be something like repeat final table appearances at World Poker Tour events. Certainly the small population of folks that have made two or three final tables (or even won two or three times) cannot be dismissed as just having been "lucky". It would be interesting to see what someone who is better then math then I could come up with regarding the odds of repeat winning or repeat final tabling vs. what a few of the top players have actually accomplished. In other words, in a game of pure chance with a sizable number of participants it is very unlikely to have repeat winners, let alone multiple repeat winners. I would think something like this would help to prove the skill element using real world experience rather then just hypothetical argument.

[Skallagrim]

Ahem, virtually nobody claims poker is a game of PURE chance, nor is that what the law requires. The test in most places is whether the game is MOSTLY chance or MOSTLY skill, whichever prevails decides whether its gambling or "skill gaming."

So while there are at least a few dozen ways to prove poker isnt only chance, including your observation that a chance game cant have consistent winners, what is needed is for ways to prove that chance is the lesser element as opposed to not the only element.

If you can come up with a way to do that better than what I have constructed, please post it, we need all the ideas we can get. Absent a change in the law, this may be the only way to save playing the game legally anywhere outside a casino.

Skallagrim

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
So while there are at least a few dozen ways to prove poker isnt only chance, including your observation that a chance game cant have consistent winners, what is needed is for ways to prove that chance is the lesser element as opposed to not the only element.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't consistent winners prove that chance is the lesser element?

[cjk73]

Skal - Please understand that I am not advocating one method over another. In fact I think it would be wise to use many different methods in proving/arguing that poker is more skill then luck. I am just suggesting one of many. I do think if the numbers were run by someone (again, someone better at the maths then me) they would bear out that skill must be a significant factor to have not only repeat winners, but multiple repeat winners.

[Skallagrim]

Guys, its not that I dont like hearing ideas. And this isnt a competition. This will really matter if poker is ever targeted for prosecution. So I just want to read ideas that get to the point: How do we show skill is predominant?

Think logically and mathematically, if poker were 80% chance and 20% skill, then a player who is good and gets 3 out of 4 of the skill hands, is a consistant winner (40% by chance plus 15% by skill - wins more than loses).

So if someone can figure out how to otherwise quantify this PLEASE DO IT.

The test is coming.

Skallagrim

[twoblacknines]

wouldn't poker tracker records work? If you can show someone wins 3bb/100 hands over hundreds of thousands of hands wouldn't that be sufficient to show skill predominates?

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't poker tracker records work? If you can show someone wins 3bb/100 hands over hundreds of thousands of hands wouldn't that be sufficient to show skill predominates?

[/ QUOTE ]

there'd have to be a fancier statistical analysis. obviously 50k or 100k is not enough hands, but is 500k? 10m? i think that 10m clearly would be but that's just my intuition.

the best way to do it would be to do some kind of analysis where you could say "at a 99.99% significance level, the player's true ptbb/100 is greater than 0." i don't know what kind of analysis you'd do to figure that out, but i'm sure it'd be possible. and i'm sure that if you did the analysis right with a winning player over a big sample then you'd find that it's nearly impossible for the results to be a lucky 0EV player.

[TheEngineer]

Me: Poker is a game of skill.
Nanny-stater congressman: How so? It's luck of the draw. You don't control the cards. The only skill is in getting someone to fold to a bluff once in a while (Bachus was actually quoted as saying this).
Me: The best poker players get their bets in when they have an advantage.
Nanny-stater congressman: So? They don't control the cards.
Me: Are casinos profitable?
Nanny-stater congressman: Of course. The house ALWAYS wins!! Everyone knows that.
Me: Why? Isn't it all chance? Casinos don't control the cards. The cards are random. Why is blackjack ALWAYS profitable for the house? I'll tell you why. The house has a mathematical advantage that manifests itself over time, same as a skilled poker player has over his/her opponents.
Nanny-stater congressman: Uh, uh, uh......

[schwza]

here's how i would put it:

[ QUOTE ]
Me: Poker is a game of skill.
Nanny-stater congressman: How so? It's luck of the draw. You don't control the cards. The only skill is in getting someone to fold to a bluff once in a while (Bachus was actually quoted as saying this).

[/ QUOTE ]
Me: sometimes a good player has better cards than a bad player and sometimes a bad player has better cards. when the good player has the best cards, the good player wins a lot. when the bad player has the best cards, the good player loses only a little. and also the good player is better at using bluffs to win without the best cards.

that's what makes a good player good. that's also what makes you unwilling to play me in a $100 match even if i give you $20. (might not say the last sentence depending on context)