OK so how would you go about showing poker is a game of skill?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
RUNNING A POKER ROOM FOR PROFIT is either illegal or regulated in almost all states (Missouri has an exception).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure it's Missouri? Any other States?

[Skallagrim]

Morphball - you are obviously someone who looks to the superficial and pretends to know the details. You obviously did not look up the laws of the individual states nor read their statutes, but relied on the summary (if you read anything at all) - the summary does not distinguish poker from other gambling - many of the individual statutes, or court interpertation of those statutes, do exempt poker. So you asserted something that was untrue and called me clueless - I think I know what degree of importance to place on your opinions now. Plus please be advised that Mr. Humphrey's legal opinions are only one of many (and he is in the minority). Only Court opinions, of which there are few, count.

Contrast M to JPFisher of Missouri, who actually did some work and knew his state's Highest Court opinion that poker is a game of skill, and thus not "illegal gambling" when played. JP the exception I am talking about allows social "clubs" to conduct poker on premises and charge for it without being licensed or regulated - I dont live in Missouri, but I expect this would require some level of exclusivity in "club" membership, unlike regulated casinos open to all. You can actually find the statute at the site M linked.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
Morphball - you are obviously someone who looks to the superficial and pretends to know the details. You obviously did not look up the laws of the individual states nor read their statutes, but relied on the summary (if you read anything at all) - the summary does not distinguish poker from other gambling - many of the individual statutes, or court interpertation of those statutes, do exempt poker. So you asserted something that was untrue and called me clueless - I think I know what degree of importance to place on your opinions now. Plus please be advised that Mr. Humphrey's legal opinions are only one of many (and he is in the minority). Only Court opinions, of which there are few, count.

Contrast M to JPFisher of Missouri, who actually did some work and knew his state's Highest Court opinion that poker is a game of skill, and thus not "illegal gambling" when played. JP the exception I am talking about allows social "clubs" to conduct poker on premises and charge for it without being licensed or regulated - I dont live in Missouri, but I expect this would require some level of exclusivity in "club" membership, unlike regulated casinos open to all. You can actually find the statute at the site M linked.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I remember reading about that somewhere. I don't think that these clubs are common. But I only play online poker.

[capninsano]

I haven't read any of this thread, but from a legal stand point it would be ideal to see if there are any cases where another court has defined some game of skill whether it be horse betting or whatever. If a court would ever hear a case to some how make poker a game of skill that will be one of the first things it does is to look at previous cases that have relevance. I also haven't looked at the UIGEA either to see if it even mentions anything about games of skill or what the exceptions are. But looking at previous cases and the process they used to arrive at their conclusion and then applying that to poker would be the best way to show poker is a game of skill.

[Nathan_2]

No matter what NFL says, gambling is huge for game

By JIM ALEXANDER
Knoxville News Sentinel
January 31, 2007

The NFL has always been disingenuous when it comes to gambling. The Game is paramount, so the theory goes, and the integrity of The Game cannot be risked by any exposure to wagering, whether legal or illegal.

These are, after all, the people who not only refused to accept Super Bowl ads from the Las Vegas Visitors and Convention Authority but also warned NBC against including promos for the TV show "Las Vegas" during Sunday Night Football telecasts.


After all, one glimpse of Nikki Cox is all it takes to send us streaming to the casinos, right?

"Our policies are designed to ensure the integrity of our game by maintaining a clear separation between our game and the potentially corrosive impact of sports gambling," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello wrote in an e-mail.

Yet the point spread, set in Vegas, has become such common currency that the players themselves talk about it. When Peyton Manning mentioned at Media Day this week about how ridiculous it was that the Colts could be favored by a touchdown over the Bears, I'm sure league officials in the audience winced.

But tell me this: How popular would this game and this sport be if you couldn't bet on it?

The amount wagered on pro and college football in Nevada sports books has gone from $829 million in 2003 to $972 million in '04 and to $1.06 billion in '05, according to figures provided by the Center for Gaming Research at UNLV. The numbers for '06 aren't in yet, but I'd wager they've gone up again.

(Pun intended.)

Sunday's game is expected to pull in more than $80 million in wagers on the Las Vegas Strip alone. Add other Nevada casinos, then factor in the burgeoning offshore wagering industry, not to mention office pools and the friendly neighborhood bookie and people placing mano a mano bets, and you're looking at serious money.

"Placing bets on the NFL, and especially the Super Bowl, is the most popular choice for (gamblers) in Las Vegas," said Robert Walker, director of the Mirage race and sports book, in an interview with the Houston Chronicle two years ago. "Whichever sport is second is a very, very distant second."

If you look at it logically, the legal sports books and the NFL - and all sports leagues, for that matter - could and should work hand in hand.

What, after all, is of more importance to both than the integrity of the games?

"The major sports scandals in recent years, such as the point shaving at Arizona State, have been detected by the authorities first because of irregularities in the sports books in Vegas," said David Schwartz, director of UNLV's Center for Gaming Research, in a phone interview.

"People are going to bet the Super Bowl. It just seems a little strange that a league would draw a cordon around the one city where people do it legally, and where it's regulated and monitored."

Make no mistake: the NFL indirectly profits from the interest engendered in its game by wagering. Consider that one of the league's regular rituals, the daily injury report, makes public the type of information the shrewd investor/bettor needs to make his picks.

"If the TV ratings are higher because people are tuning in longer because of the point spread, and the league and its teams are getting more (TV) contract money because the ratings are higher, doesn't that mean the league is actually benefiting from gambling?" Schwartz said.

The league, of course, is quick to point out that much of that interest comes from fantasy players.

There is, of course, a thin line between out-and-out wagering on football and the money and bragging rights at stake in fantasy football. The NFL has given tacit approval to the latter while decrying the former, in fact, since its lobbyists played a significant role in getting fantasy sports exempted from legislation to ban Internet gambling.

The Unlawful Internet Gaming Act, attached to a port security bill, sailed through the Senate after easily passing the House and was signed into law by President Bush in October.

"Fantasy football is not considered gambling under the law," the NFL's Aiello wrote. "It is a game of skill."

Whatever.

The NFL's public hypersensitivity to wagering goes back to former commissioner Pete Rozelle, who had concerns that any link to sports gambling would leave the league susceptible to the influence of organized crime.

But the landscape has changed in the past 40 years. Instead of the Mob, the people who run Nevada's casinos and sports books now are corporate, regulated and have just as much to lose as the leagues do if the games are perceived to be shady.

I guess I'd just feel better if NFL people would end their heads-in-the-sand approach.

Fans bet on football, and their game is immeasurably popular as a result. Trust me, they'd be delighted if that were the worst thing to happen to their league.

Reach Jim Alexander at 951-368-9543 or [email protected]

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Morphball - you are obviously someone who looks to the superficial and pretends to know the details. You obviously did not look up the laws of the individual states nor read their statutes, but relied on the summary (if you read anything at all) - the summary does not distinguish poker from other gambling - many of the individual statutes, or court interpertation of those statutes, do exempt poker. So you asserted something that was untrue and called me clueless - I think I know what degree of importance to place on your opinions now. Plus please be advised that Mr. Humphrey's legal opinions are only one of many (and he is in the minority). Only Court opinions, of which there are few, count.

Contrast M to JPFisher of Missouri, who actually did some work and knew his state's Highest Court opinion that poker is a game of skill, and thus not "illegal gambling" when played. JP the exception I am talking about allows social "clubs" to conduct poker on premises and charge for it without being licensed or regulated - I dont live in Missouri, but I expect this would require some level of exclusivity in "club" membership, unlike regulated casinos open to all. You can actually find the statute at the site M linked.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skallagram - I read those statutes word for word, dog, and there is no exception for poker. In fact, some of the states specifically include games of skill for money as gambling. If you think I misread these statutes, please cite the specific places exempting poker.

I assume we both understand that there is a difference between a licensed card room/casino allowed by a state's gambling authority and unlicensed poker rooms playing that take a rake.

The only explicit exemptions I am seeing are for those hold'em tournies at bars where the prize is low and you can enter for free, low stakes charity, and some states do not worry about rake free home games.

No state that I have reviewed allows pokerstars, but I haven't reviewed them all, because there are like 50 of them.

[Skallagrim]

Given that your last post did not include name calling, I will respond by putting here part of my post in another thread:

I agree "there is not enough room here to cover every state, and there are a lot of different definitions out there. The most common defintion of a gambling game is one where "the outcome is predominantly subject to chance." Hence, if the outcome is predominantly subject to other factors, a game is not gambling. In poker, the decisions and acts of the players determine far more hand outcomes than does sheer chance. Most poker hands do not go to showdown, and of those that do, the majority are still subject to skill (i.e., getting your money in with the best). The suckouts do happen, but they are not the predominant factor in the game.

The following Courts have agreed with that opinion: Harris v. Missouri Gaming Com’n, 869 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. Sup. Ct. 1994). Bell Gardens Bicycle Club v. Dept. of Justice, 36 Cal.App.4th 717, 741 (2nd Dist. 1995). Col. Op. Att'y Gen., No. 93-5, 1993 WL 380757 (April 21, 1993). Ginsberg v. Centennial Turf Club, 251 P.2d 926, 929 (Colo.1952). State v. Coats, 74 P.2d 1102, 1106 (Or.1938) and State v. Barnett, 488 P.2d 255 (1971). There may be a few more. Not all courts have agreed: Indoor Recreation Enterprises, Inc. v. Douglas, 235 N.W.2d 398, 400-01 (Neb.1975).

I remain convinced that these days, with all the math and psychology and game theory experts out there writing about poker, it will not be that difficult to demonstrate that poker is a game of skill in those states where it matters and the courts have not addressed the issue."

It all depends on the specific state statute that defines gambling. They do not say "hey this does not include poker" but if they say gambling is wagering on ah event the outcome of which is predominantly subject to chance, then they have excluded poker IMHO, and those courts I list above agreed.

Skallagrim