John Kyl "addresses" online gaming

[ekdikeo]

http://www.cappersmall.com/sportscenter/...-poker2196.html

[Skallagrim]

There is only one interesting point to this drival by Kyl: at the end of the statement he writes:

"And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions."

Those of you familiar with my posts know I have spent a lot of time effort and thought DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE CHALLENGES US TO DO! See:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1

which I am bumping.

Skallagrim

[JOHNY CA$H]

And... this is about the time where Sklansky and Co. intellectually tear Sen. Kyl to pieces. Poor sucker, shouldn't have given us an opening.

[ekdikeo]

I don't know about everywhere, but in the states that I've researched, all games involving "cards" are considered gambling.

[Skallagrim]

Look up the legal status of the game of bridge, ekdikeo ...

In California, at least, it was held to be a game of skill by a Court of Appeals. And that was regular bridge, not duplicate. See: In re Allen, 59 Cal.2d 5, 377 P.2d 280 (1961).

Hmm...what if stars and ftp had a few for-money bridge tables too, how could the feds or the banks ever know which of the 2 games you were playing...?

Skallagrim

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
Look up the legal status of the game of bridge, ekdikeo ...

In California, at least, it was held to be a game of skill by a Court of Appeals. And that was regular bridge, not duplicate. See: In re Allen, 59 Cal.2d 5, 377 P.2d 280 (1961).

Hmm...what if stars and ftp had a few for-money bridge tables too, how could the feds or the banks ever know which of the 2 games you were playing...?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

That's like saying you can buy a bag of herbs from a drug dealer if that dealer sells both oregano and weed. The police can't know!

that will never fly... it's a very weak loophole

[Eaglebauer]

[ QUOTE ]
While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but what if I win 20 BBs on the hands that I win as a result of "luck of the draw" and lose only 1 BB on the ones that I don't?

What an ignoramus.

[Coy_Roy]

While yes, "luck of the draw" is a reality, what makes poker a "skill" game is the ability to make decisions AFTER the draw.

Fold, raise, check, etc;.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

what a [censored] retard.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
"And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the relevance of this, especially considering the legality of lotteries and horse betting. Americans should have the right to gamble in their homes, be it on poker, sports, slots, keno, etc. To hell with having to prove that a form of betting is skill-based in order for it to be legal.