[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. The proposed regulations should be modified to clarify that they don’t cover games predominantly determined by skill, such as poker, bridge, mahjong and backgammon. Section 5362(1)(a) of UIGEA defines a bet or wager as “the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance,…” “Subject to chance” can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but in a gambling context it should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance. Poker players compete, not against the house, but against each other, and the success of a player over any significant time interval is determined by that players’ skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is wrong because under no reasonable reading of the phrase "game subject to chance" could poker not qualify. It is a game. It is subject to chance. Regulations are promulgated by the executive branch to implement legislation passed by Congress. It would be improper for a regulation to take a position at odds with the clear language of a statute. If this silly argument advocating a bizarre reading of statutory language is to be made anywhere, it needs to be made to a court in a lawsuit challenging the UIGEA, not to a regulatory agency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respectfully disagree. Almost all games are subject to chance, at least to some degree. Tiger Woods and I might both hit our tee shot into the trees, and one of us might bounce into the middle of the fairway, and the other bounce out of bounds. Of course, in a non-handicapped match, Tiger will beat me every time over 18 holes. In fact, he'll beat me almost every time over just 1 hole. But since I'm skilled enough to make the occasional birdie, I will beat him on 1 hole, though not very often.

Similarly, if Tiger and I played poker against one another, he could beat me in the short run, but he would have no chance if the game were set to last long enough. Thus, the only way to differentiate the skill factor in golf vs. poker is to consider it over an amount of time. Once you play either game long enough, the more skilled player is guaranteed to win, it is simply that the amount of time necessary to insure this result is much longer for poker.

So, in my opinion, poker is NOT a "game subject to chance", because if you play long enough, the better player will always win, just like golf. However, if we start to talk about roulette, or slots, or the like, those are "games subject to chance", because no matter how long you play them, you cannot determine who is the more skilled player.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)