[Skallagrim]

JP's is a good summary. There are a couple of other points to be made: both the CA and MO supreme courts ruled poker was not a "Lottery," lotteries being barred by their state constitutions. Each of them also held, to one degree or another, that a lottery was any wagering scheme in which chance was predominant over skill. So it is correct, though not exact, to say they ruled poker more skill than chance. CA's statute covering cardrooms is where the distinction is made between controlled and uncontrolled games. Only poker where a rake is taken (hence making it a "percentage" game) is a "controlled" game in CA.

The Lower Court in the Baxter case explicitly ruled poker a game of skill, but by the time it got to the SCOTUS, the issue was much narrower, and it really only held that since Baxter was exercising at least some amount of skill when he played poker, he could file as a business (a pro) and treat his poker income as "earned" income.

All these cases help us, but they dont completely decide the issue due to slight variations in each state's gambling law.

That poker is not illegal as a matter of Federal law is now pretty well accepted thanks to the Mastercard case inthe 5th Circuit. But technically this case is not binding on the other circuits nor, of course, to the SCOTUS. That DOJ declined to appeal it to the SCOTUS shows they know the SCOTUS, and other circuits, would likely agree.

The DOJ knows full well that they could lose a prosecution of a poker-only site or an e-wallet that limits its funding to just poker, and this scares them. They could also win, which scares some sites.

And skill v luck is only ONE issue for this court case - international law, commerce clause law, and certain UIGEA specific language (is a poker site in the "business" of betting and wagering when it obviosly does not bet or wager itself? e.g.) all make this a very complicated issue.

Which is precisely why the regulations, if they ever formally come, will not mean much. The regulation writers have already taken the clear stand that they will not try and reslove the issues I have listed above - they want the banks to guess at the answers, which may or may not be worse for us, depending on the final regulation specifics.

PS -since there is no formal regulation of online gaming for offshore cites, they are not violating the tax law by not reporting "wins" over a certain amount (the only applicable reporting law). A US poker site would be though.

Skallagrim