"N.C. Court Rules Poker Is a Game of Chance"

[cokehead]

The Cardplayer article wasn't really fair here. This is what the court actually said:

The evidence, as presented by these witnesses, establishes that poker is both a game of skill and chance. All witnesses appeared to agree that in a single hand, chance may predominate over skill, but that over a long game, the most skilled players would likely amass the most chips. From the evidence, Judge Hudson was unable to determine whether skill or chance predominated in poker, but concluded that poker is a game of chance. After a careful examination of the case law interpreting North Carolina's prohibition against wagering on games of chance, we agree.

We have held that an inquiry regarding whether a game is a game of chance or skill turns on whether chance or skill predominates. State v. Eisen, 16 N.C.App. 532, 535-36, 192 S.E.2d 613, 615-16 (1972). In State v. Stroupe, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered whether a certain type of pool was a game of skill or chance. 238 N.C. 34, 38, 76 S.E.2d 313, 317 (1953). The Stroupe Court stated the applicable test as such:

[T]he test of the character of any kind of a game of pool as to whether it is a game of chance or a game of skill is not whether it contains an element of chance or an element of skill, but which of these is the dominating element that determines the result of the game, to be found from the facts of each particular kind of game. Or to speak alternatively, whether or not the element of chance is present in such a manner as to thwart the exercise of skill or judgment.

Id. at 38, 76 S.E.2d at 317.

The Stroupe Court, in articulating its test, relied on Chief Justice Ruffin's classic summary of the law with respect to games of chance. In State v. Gupton, Chief Justice Ruffin wrote:

[W]e believe, that, in the popular mind, the universal acceptation of “a game of chance” is such a game, as is determined entirely or in part by lot or mere luck, and in which judgment, practice, skill, or adroitness have honestly no office at all, or are [thwarted] by chance. As intelligible examples, the games with dice which are determined by throwing only, and those, in which the throw of the dice regulates the play, or the hand at cards depends upon a dealing with the face down, exhibit the two classes of games of chance. A game of skill, on the other hand, is one, in which nothing is left to chance; but superior knowledge and attention, or superior strength, agility, and practice, gain the victory. Of this kind of games chess, draughts or chequers, billiards, fives, bowles, and quoits may be cited as examples. It is true, that in these latter instances superiority of skill is not always successful-the race is not necessarily to the swift. Sometimes an oversight, to which the most [skillful] is subject, gives an adversary the advantage; or an unexpected puff of wind, or an unseen gravel in the way, may turn aside a quoit or a ball and make it come short of the aim. But if those incidents were sufficient to make the games, in which they may occur, games of chance, there would be none other but games of that character. But that is not the meaning of the statute; for, as before remarked, by the very use of those terms, the existence of other kinds of games, not of chance, is [recognized]. The incidents mentioned, whereby the more [skillful] may yet be the loser, are not inherent in the nature of the games. Inattention is the party's fault, and not his luck; and the other obstacles, though not perceived nor anticipated, are occurrences in the course of nature and not chances.

*5 State v. Gupton, 30 N.C. 271, 273-74 (1848).

Chief Justice Ruffin's analysis clarifies the logic underpinning North Carolina's interpretation of the predominate-factor test. It makes clear that while all games have elements of chance, games which can be determined by superior skill are not games of chance. For example, bowling, chess, and billiards are games of skill because skill determines the outcome. The game itself is static and the only factor separating the players is their relative skill levels. In short, the instrumentality for victory is in each player's hands and his fortunes will be determined by how skillfully he use that instrumentality.

Poker, however, presents players with different hands, making the players unequal in the same game and subject to defeat at the turn of a card. Although skills such as knowledge of human psychology, bluffing, and the ability to calculate and analyze odds make it more likely for skilled players to defeat novices, novices may yet prevail with a simple run of luck. No amount of skill can change a deuce into an ace. Thus, the instrumentality for victory is not entirely in the player's hand. In State v. Taylor, our Supreme Court noted this distinction. 111 N.C. 680, 16 S.E. 168 (1892).

It is a matter of universal knowledge that no game played with the ordinary playing cards is unattended with risk, whatever may be the skill, experience or intelligence of the gamesters engaged in it. From the very nature of such games, where cards must be drawn by and dealt out to players, who cannot anticipate what ones may be received by each, the order in which they will be placed or the effect of a given play or mode of playing, there must be unavoidable uncertainty as to the results.

Id. at 681-82, 16 S.E. at 169.

This is not so with bowling, where the player's skill determines whether he picks up the spare; or with billiards, where the shot will find the pocket or not according to its author's skill. During oral arguments, counsel for plaintiff analogized poker to golf, arguing that while a weekend golfer might, by luck, beat a professional golfer such as Tiger Woods on one hole, over the span of 18 holes, Woods' superior skill would prevail. The same would be true for a poker game, plaintiff contended, making poker, like golf, a game of skill. This analogy, while creative, is false. In golf, as in bowling or billiards, the players are presented with an equal challenge, with each determining his fortune by his own skill. Although chance inevitably intervenes, it is not inherent in the game and does not overcome skill, and the player maintains the opportunity to defeat chance with superior skill. Whereas in poker, a skilled player may give himself a statistical advantage but is always subject to defeat at the turn of a card, an instrumentality beyond his control. We think that is the critical difference.

For the reasons stated above, we determine that chance predominates over skill in the game of poker, making that game a game of chance under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-292 (2005). Accordingly, the decision of the trial court should remain undisturbed.

Full court opinion at http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/publi...7/060123-1.htm

[ReptileHouse]

As previously commented, the court is regarding "the game of poker" as a single hand or a small sampling of hands. From that perspective, the ruling is quite correct.

We disagree with the ruling not because it is factually in error, but because we believe the perspective chosen is not the most appropriate one for analyzing the problem.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
CardPlayer Article

Are the people of North Carolina THAT illogical/gullible?

"The court chose to believe Thornell, who testified that he’s played poker for nearly 40 years. He told the court that although he feels there’s skill in poker, luck ultimately prevails. He specifically noted a hand that he watched on television that had a 91 percent chance to win lose to a hand than only had a 9 percent chance to win."

LOL. Man, America is in trouble.

This reminds me of those "Jay Walking" or whatever segments on Jay Leno.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a North Carolinian, are you that gullible that you took Cardplayer for fact when the underlying legal decision was actually very well analysed and thought out, even though we might disagree with their conclusion (one which almost all other courts of law have agreed with?). You might try painting with a little narrower brush next time.

NCAces in Mayberry

[rippyshoes]

Considering that poker is being banned because it is a game of "chance", why don't a group of well off poker players hire a couple high quality lawyers and sue the government over state lotteries? Undoubtedly they could garner media coverage and bring this absurd double standard into the eye of the general public. I can't possibly see how judges could rule that lotteries, which are based entirely on absurd levels of chance, can be legal but poker can't be. Does anyone know why this avenue hasn't been explored, or if it has, why it isn't being attempted?

[prophet73]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, guess what folks, the average person who plays poker and still has a balanced life should probably play about 10,000 hands over his/her entire life. Yeah, that's about 300 hours in a card room. And yeah, their success in the game over that time will depend almost entirely on luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

300 hours in a cardroom for entire life. Hmm...the average lifespan of an American is approximately 75 years (Google'd). That's 50 years or so of being able to play poker in a brick and mortar.

You're telling me the "average person who plays poker" plays for about SIX hours a year?

Somehow I doubt that estimate.

Furthermore, what is there in life that doesn't take luck? I mean, in reality, LUCK is just a human created concept is it not? 91% to win a hand is a STATISTICAL PROBABILITY. It's not luck that the 9% won the hand. It's just part of probability.

Let's say I told you only ONE out of FIVE new businesses succeed (totally made up statistic, but I'm sure its way less than 50%). So the majority of the time it results in failure, yet people STILL try to start them. Almost like throwing money into a bad investment by those numbers isn't it? Doesn't it take luck--AKA timing, planning, or just the right people--to make a business successful? Hell, there isn't even a pure statistic in such a DYNAMIC environment such as business.

Why doesn't the government make THAT illegal?

[iron81]

The reasons no one is suing state lotteries:

It won't work. The media doesn't care enough about poker to cover the story.

It is a colossal waste of money. State lotteries are specifically authorized by law and therefore legal.

It would be unethical for a lawyer to file a case that retarded and the judge might find him in contempt.

[prophet73]

[ QUOTE ]
As a North Carolinian, are you that gullible that you took Cardplayer for fact when the underlying legal decision was actually very well analysed and thought out, even though we might disagree with their conclusion (one which almost all other courts of law have agreed with?).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I apologize for offending any North Carolinians--I was attempting to aim at the judges who presided on this.

However, the so-called "well analyzed and thought out" decision seems full of holes to me.

Their main point is that "the instrumentality for victory is not entirely in the player's hand".

This is ridiculous. What games or competition or anything in LIFE is under the entire control of any human being? Well-trained athletes suddenly have muscle pulls out of nowhere, tennis rackets suddenly break, they trip on slippery surfaces, etc.

People may not always realize it, but a lot of things are ALWAYS out of our control in EVERYTHING we do. It's about things you can control that matter and in poker there is a LOT you can control.

[Skallagrim]

MetroBoston wrote:

"In this way, poker is both a game of skill and luck. But the reason many people on this site make money is because they have made a commitment to the game - both to 1) learn to play well and to 2) play a lot of hands. So poker is a game of skill to "good" players and "luck" to bad players.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong."

First, I agree poker is a game of skill and luck. So did the Court. What the Court should have done but really didnt was determine whether luck of skill is the bigger factor. Instead it ruled, factually incorrectly, that luck COULD determine every hand, so therefore it was mostly luck. Thats factually incorrect because I frequently play and get people to fold better hands than mine (I have 3,6, they have AQ, the flop hits neither of us but I raise big, they fold). LUCK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OUTCOME OF THAT HAND.

Second, I take your challenge, I believe I can prove luck is the lesser factor.

Go here:

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

and read my post.

Then read the post by TruePokerCEO in which he states that his site checked 600,000 hands of real money Hold-em and Omaha and only 35% of hands went to the showdown. IF YOU NEVER SEE THE FINAL CARD(S) AND NEVER SEE YOUR OPPONENT(S) CARDS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE CARDS DETERMINED THOSE HANDS?

ITS PLAYER DECISIONS THAT DETERMINE MOST HANDS, AND PLAYER DECISIONS ARE BY DEFINITION SKILL.

Finally, any game of skill played by non-skilled players is a game of luck/chance. Get 10 people who have only played golf 2 or 3 times and put them on the St. Andrews, who will win? The luckiest.

Skallagrim

[prophet73]

[ QUOTE ]
IF YOU NEVER SEE THE FINAL CARD(S) AND NEVER SEE YOUR OPPONENT(S) CARDS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE CARDS DETERMINED THOSE HANDS?

ITS PLAYER DECISIONS THAT DETERMINE MOST HANDS, AND PLAYER DECISIONS ARE BY DEFINITION SKILL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. In poker there are decisions to FOLD and BET. Therefore, those two players may be dealt two "different" hands and that is based on "luck" (actually probability in the long-run), but winning is not determined simply by which hand is going to get luckier, but how the person SKILLFULLY plays them by bet amounts and getting the other person to fold.

Jeez, I swear sometimes people try to judge things based on preconceived notions that poker is mostly about luck.

[ACG2x]

How f'ing hard is to understand that if you make a $100 bet with a 91% of winning 100 times, you will on average-

- Win 91 times +$9,100
- Lose 9 times -$900
----
+$8,200

But, according to this court, ZOMG THA BESTEST HAND WUZ CRAKED, P0KER IZ ALL LUCKORZZ DOOD!!!

Makes my head hurt [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]