Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

Let me preface this by saying 2 things:

1) I am not an expert in random number generation, and
2) I think that the Online Gaming Act was intended to include poker.

That said, as I understand it the key phrase which bolsters the opinion that this act applies to Poker is the definition of a bet or wager which paraphrased is "risking something of value on the outcome of a game subject to chance"

I know most people here will agree that in the long term, poker results are determined by skill and not chance.

My question is are the outcomes of online poker REALLY determined by chance?

In otherwords, is the manner in which the cards are dealt REALLY a matter of chance, necessarily? Isn't the answer to this question determined by the mechanism the site uses to generate the suffle? I will grant that the sites strive to create the illusion of chance to the participants, and hopefully they succeed, but the illusion of chance to the participants does not necessarily mean that the cards dealt were "subject to chance" it simply means that they were not known by the participants.

Regardless of the current state of random number generation in online poker (whether they truly incorporate elements of chance) it would seem possible to generate a shuffle which did not incorporate "chance" but still was sufficiently unpredictable to the participants.

Perhaps this is all hair splitting, but then again, sometimes the law splits hairs.

Any comments?

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

Where do you draw the line? You could in theory create a precise computer simulation of a bingo cage that could predict the results from that cage. If the simulation is accurate enough, this would work, because the physics of the balls tumbling around inside is a solvable math problem. Therefore, you could say that the outcome of the Bingo game is not subject to chance but is rather a function of the starting positions and orientations of all the balls in it, the amount of rotation given to the cage before drawing the ball, and whatever other variables you can quantify.

In the computer world, you can do two things to generate chance: you can use pseudorandom number generation, or you can use a hardware random number generator. Pseudorandom numbers use large other numbers as seeds to produce output that is the result of a fixed function. For example, a hand number might be used as a seed to generate a random sequence for a deck of cards. Good pseudorandom number generators can produce all possible card sequences with equal probability of each out of any arbitrary selection of seed values, and can also be so tough to reverse-engineer that it would take a supercomputer hundreds of years to discover the cipher that translates seed to output.

At least some online sites use hardware random number generators, which sample quantum noise in order to create true randomness. Basically, they measure something that fluctuates in an impossible-to-predict way, like temperature or vibrations, using lots and lots of precistion. Then, you discard the most significant digits and keep the least significant ones -- the ones that vary the most wildly and unpredictably. The output from that then becomes a perfectly arbitrary seed for a pseudorandom number generator, and nobody has any way to know the seed used for any event unless they have a direct tap into the hardware random number generator.

A hardware random number generator is in fact more truly random than a bingo cage, because the hardware device is influenced strongly by quantum fluctuations. Even if quantum effects are not truly random, it is generally believed that we'd never be able to gain enough knowledge about a quantum system to model it accurately -- so it's as random as the universe-as-we-know-it can be!

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

On the quantum level, everything is subject to chance!

It would seem possible to generate a shuffle which did not incorporate "chance" but still was sufficiently unpredictable to the participants.

Seriously though, the bolded phrase is what makes poker and other games "subject to chance". After all the game is played by people, not sub-atomic particles.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

[ QUOTE ]
My question is are the outcomes of online poker REALLY determined by chance?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

1. Statutes are written and understood in English, not in particle-physics-speak. Games of chance include B&M blackjack, so they'd also include online blackjack with a pseudo-random number generator.

2. Sites (at least the main ones) do not use mere pseudo-random number generators. They use true random number generators that are hooked up to Geiger counters and stuff.

I think there's a reason the statute says "games subject to chance" rather than "games of chance," and the reason is to include poker. Skill may predominate over luck in poker (in the long run), but there will always be an element of luck.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

"No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"

http://home.earthlink.net/~mountfutu...rofessor-1.jpg

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

The statute does not reference what the participants think.

Clearly the determining factor can't be the subjective beliefs of the participants.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

Yes, it is. Any attempt to argue that it isn't is specious.
thread over.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you draw the line? You could in theory create a precise computer simulation of a bingo cage that could predict the results from that cage

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between predictability and causation.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

While it's true that the results approach some average as the number of games increases, this doesn't prove anything. Blackjack, for example, will tend to a value of 0.4955 over a long period. However, it is still a game of chance.

The point is that when each individual wager is made, the results of that wager are subject to chance. This means that each wager is included under the bill*, and that's enough. Also note that the bill says subject to, not "determined by", as you correctly noted at the start. I have even read discussion of whether the bill would apply to online skill games like checkers, and no one could say for sure.

As for the rest, that's been covered. The language "chance" is not some arcane definition from physics, it's a common language usage that the courts will have no problem interpreting correctly. You could argue, for example, that no casino games are subject to chance as each event (i.e. card shuffle for blackjack) is purely deterministic. I don't think that would get you anywhere.

*provided it's an illegal wager, as determined by other laws such as state laws

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

I suppose that the online stock market isn't going to be regulated by this bill, seeing that 99.9999% of card carrying republicans will suffer if it was...

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"

http://home.earthlink.net/~mountfutu...rofessor-1.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
This is probably my favorite Futurama joke ever. NH sir.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that when each individual wager is made, the results of that wager are subject to chance

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the part that I am having trouble with. This is begging a lot of questions.

A few hypotheticals--

1) Two people online place a wager on the fair toss of a coin by a third party (who has yet to toss the coin). I would assume that this is covered by the act.

2) Two people online place a wager on whether a coin previously tossed was heads or tails (but the results unknown to both of them). I am not sure if an event that occured in the past is truly subject to chance..

3) Two people online bet on a series of 10 coin tosses alternating who picks each turn, where the coin has already been tossed 10 times and both parties know there were an equal number of heads and tails thrown? I am suspicious whether this is covered. Now not only is the event in the past, but a fair distribution is assured

4) Two people online bet on a series of coin tosses, alternating picks where the coin was previously tossed and there were an equal number of heads or tail, and one of the participants (unbeknownst to the other) knows the order of the heads and tails. Here we have an event in the past, an even distribution, and one of the participants has no element of chance involved at all?

5) Two online particpants are given 13 cards, from 2-A each of which they HAVE to play. They will match them up against each other (in the order they choose) in a series of 13 no-limit bets where the hi card wins.

6) Two people play chess online against each other for a wager. (this seems unquestionably legal).

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

I think you could also argue that any game ANYWHERE is subject to SOME element of chance.


The language seems to leave not much room for 'carve-outs' for a game that has a significant amount of skill involved such as poker.

They can outlaw any game they want with a broad interpretation of what a game that 'involves chance' entails.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"

http://home.earthlink.net/~mountfutu...rofessor-1.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
This is probably my favorite Futurama joke ever. NH sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes...this is great stuff!

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

Getting back to the OP, of course seemingly random deals could be rigged. It would be hard to tell. But I think everyone here who has one would bet their left nut that these deals are "sufficiently random."

Poker is, of course, a game of skill, but here again, you can argue that long term results of who gets what cards can never be exactly equal, so chance does factor in. Obviously the disparity between individual's fortune is infinitesimal the more hands are played.

Ultimately this is a logic issue, not a philosophy issue. You can philosophize about it all you want, but that is grounded solely in what you believe, not in what "is." What "is" = long-term, chance is a non-issue in poker. How many of you would agree to one game for $1,000 with Daniel Negreanu heads-up? I bet a lot more than would play a series of 10,000 matches for $1,000... why is that so?

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

Mendacious,

they're very interesting questions. I'd have to think about them some more. Off the top of my head:

1. Chance
2. Chance - outcome of wager is unknown
3. Chance [per wager] - outcome of each wager is unknown
4. Chance. - the structure of game is enough to establish chance, unless it's in the rules that one party already knows.
5. Chance - outcome of each wager is unknown. No different to a slot machine.


As I said, these are interesting questions, but as applies to this law, I'll quote you blueodum from the other thread:

It's clear what they mean by "game subject to chance": a a game in which at least some elements [besides an opponents' actions] are unknown to the participants ahead of time [and designed to be unknowable]

I honestly can't see the courts taking anything other than a common sense approach.

P.S. I apologize for calling you a [censored] lawyer a while back [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Chance
2. Chance - outcome of wager is unknown
3. Chance [per wager] - outcome of each wager is unknown
4. Chance. - the structure of game is enough to establish chance, unless it's in the rules that one party already knows.
5. Chance - outcome of each wager is unknown. No different to a slot machine.


[/ QUOTE ]

The examples where you site the fact that the outcome of the wager is unknown...does not make it subject to chance imo. That is simply the definition of a wager. The act plainly does not prohibit all online wagering.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

Then how do you define chance? Do you have an alternative definition that would fit with the legislation?

From the court's perspective, what did the legislators reasonably intend when using the word "chance"?

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

dictionary definition:

1. the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency
2. luck or fortune

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

By this definition, only quantum phenomena and radioactive decay are subject to chance, and they only apply to gaming if the wager is made before the event and settled on the outcome. So you're saying gaming sites are safe as long they're not using thorium-based random card generators? Party must be patting themselves on the back that they didn't pony up for that extra Geiger counter.

Anyway, interesting take. I have to say, stranger things have happened in US law.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

I'm not taking a position here, I am trying to flesh out what this all means. "Subject to chance" seems very vague to me. Even chess for instance...which I think most would agree is a game of skill, can be subject to chance...if that definition is stretched to include blunders, or even whether one GM happened to prepare for a particular openning. But I am fairly convinced that I could play someone else online chess for money and that was not intended to be covered by the act. And I think that any site sponsering this should not be subject to penalty.

I guess what I am looking for what it is that makes a game subject to chance as meant by this act.

I think if this cannot be defined then the law is too vague to be applicable.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

Of course its subject to chance. Otherwise Phil Helmuth would win every tournament.

This was on page 3 at the moment. I couldn't resist.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course its subject to chance. Otherwise Phil Helmuth would win every tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an excellent point.

Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
 

Clearly Helmuth was referring to LIVE poker not online.
But thx. Phil for screwing it up for everyone!