is tournament poker a "game of chance"?

[scarfire]

How about fishing tournaments. 70% skill, 30% luck.

[OrianasDaad]

Edit: There is some element of luck involved with nearly everything - but there are degrees of luck. My post, hopefully, points this out.

I posted yesterday on this, but with chess as the comparative game.

Take four pro golfers, name people and put them up against a large field of amateurs. While it's not guaranteed that these four will take the top spots, it is extremely likely that they will.

Now, take four pro poker tournament players and put them up against a large field of amateurs. While it's not guaranteed that these four will not take the top four spots, it's extremely likely that they won't. In fact, in a large field, it would be long odds for any of them to make it into the top four.

Not the case for our golf pros, of course.

I suppose that it would be hard to quantify the amount of luck involved in a sport like golf, while it can be calculated fairly accurately with poker. Whatever the calculations, it is a fair assumption that the element of luck in golf is much less volitaile than in poker.

Poker is a game whose function is derived from chance. Chance is the foundation of what makes it a fun, and profitable, game.

[Foucault]

There is skill in golf external to the wagering. In cash game poker, the skill lies in the wagering itself, there is no way to use skill to get dealt better cards. Tournament poker is potentially different because its wagers are made with game pieces, not with real money.

Still, I don't think it is likely that a legal distinction would be drawn between tournament and non-tournament poker.

[uclabruinz]

Here is where I am going with this.

The right plaintiff might go to the right court in the right district in the right circuit and seek declaratory relief that tournament poker is not a "game of chance." I only state tournament poker because that is the easiest argument to make due to analogies to things like golf tournaments and fishing tournaments, I leave it to the smarter lawyers whether seeking broader relief would be appropriate. It may be a long shot, but what is there to lose?

There is a very strong argument that "game subject to chance" means games that do not involve skill. It is quite easy to argue that poker involves skill. All you need is the right judge ready to buy this argument (hopefully a judge that enjoys a game of poker here and there).

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is where I am going with this.

The right plaintiff might go to the right court in the right district in the right circuit and seek declaratory relief that tournament poker is not a "game of chance." I only state tournament poker because that is the easiest argument to make due to analogies to things like golf tournaments and fishing tournaments, I leave it to the smarter lawyers whether seeking broader relief would be appropriate. It may be a long shot, but what is there to lose?

There is a very strong argument that "game subject to chance" means games that do not involve skill. It is quite easy to argue that poker involves skill. All you need is the right judge ready to buy this argument (hopefully a judge that enjoys a game of poker here and there).

[/ QUOTE ]

Judges are losing players, haven't you seen Rounders? They won't buy the "game of skill" argument.

[uclabruinz]

I appreciate that we are talking about varying degrees of luck and skill in just about all games. But either a game is "subject to chance" or it is not. Courts may be more inclined to make the bright line rule that it means no skill involved.

[heater]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a very strong argument that "game subject to chance" means games that do not involve skill. It is quite easy to argue that poker involves skill. All you need is the right judge ready to buy this argument (hopefully a judge that enjoys a game of poker here and there).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly the central point. One side will argue this and the government will argue that "game subject to chance" means games that involve a certain degree of luck and that the degree of luck involved in poker is high enough that it should be illegal.

It's an interesting argument. Of course there is some degree of luck in golf or any other form of competition. The question may be how do you quantify the degree of luck in different forms of competition and can you find a sport or game that is legal that involves more luck than poker?

[uclabruinz]

This is where finding the "right" judge fits. The "right" judge is not going to be at all interested in setting some arbitrary amount of "luck" that has to be involved for a game to be considered "subject to chance." The "right" judge is going to say that Congress meaant any game that does not involve skill. It's a much easier line to draw for the judiciary and won't lead to endless litigation over whether a particular game has the requisite amount of luck to be consider "subject to chance."

[Copernicus]

There would be no difference between cash games and tourneys, since a tournament is just the sum of a bunch of hands that involve the same element of chance.

The out the OP is going here for has one hope, as I posted elsewhere. That is to not payout in the form of cash prizes, but in the form of "sweepstakes tickets", where the winner (or winners if its a multi-stage tournament) of the poker tournament gets more tickets than second place etc.

Then the actual cash prize is distributed based on the sweepstakes drawing.

the downsides to this are:

1. the entry fee would have to be a nominal amount that could pass muster as an administrative fee (akin to shipping and handling)

2. if the entry fee is larger than that nuiscance amount, free entries might have to be offered (in exchange for advertising clicks most likly)

3. No matter how heavily you stack the sweepstakes tickets toward the tourney winners, longshots are going to steal the prize now and then..less than satisfactory result and wait for the "its rigged" cries

[uclabruinz]

Further thoughts:

The best way to present this is that Congress meant things like online slot machines. Poker tournaments are MUCH more like a golf tournament then pulling on a slot machine lever. I honestly believe this argument is quite powerful, particularly before the right judge.