Another "Skill" Game Site

TankerLTC · #1 07-07-2007, 09:50 AM

Saw an ad for this site on TV.

http://www.king.com/

Oh, no! Cash games!

http://www.king.com/account/register.jsp?navbar=true

Any credit card and you only have to check you are over 18.

https://www.king.com/account/register1.jsp?productId=4

I wonder if FoF would comnsider these people "troubled."

Coy_Roy · #2 07-07-2007, 10:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if FoF would comnsider these people "troubled."

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they would, it's not even a question.

oldbookguy · #3 07-07-2007, 12:05 PM

It is all these 'skill' sites that may / could be the savior of online poker.

These sites are legal in all but 11 - 14 states (depending on view) and at the minimum poker could be allowed along with these by regulation not legislation.

This would then move the fight to state legislatures.

From the Federal Reserve Report to Congress (page 83 in my Adobe, report page 147):

The act generally
defines “unlawful Internet gambling” as
transmitting a bet by any means that
involves the use, at least in part, of the
Internet and where such bet or wager is
unlawful under any applicable federal or
state law in the state or tribal lands in
which the bet or wager is initiated, received,
or otherwise made.

Entire report:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...06/pdf/fro.pdf

obg

permafrost · #4 07-07-2007, 03:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]

It is all these 'skill' sites that may / could be the savior of online poker.

These sites are legal in all but 11 - 14 states (depending on view) and at the minimum poker could be allowed along with these by regulation not legislation.

This would then move the fight to state legislatures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me more about poker being allowed "with these by regulation not legislation"? How would that work, what regulations, and who does it?

If that regulation could happen, why does the fight then move to state legislatures, wouldn't the fight be over?

oldbookguy · #5 07-07-2007, 03:45 PM

Well, the 'skill' sites are allowed under regulations. These are card games. Simply allowing poker (based on the premise it is no LESS skill than say, solitaire) allows it to be played online, legally funded as the 'skill' games are (even PayPal funds these sites).

Why state legislature? Simple, state laws regulate internet 'skill' gaming and to not be allowed, states have passed specific legislation so stating.
Remember, Federal courts have already ruled the Wire Act does NOT cover casino / poker games (notice the 'skill' wagering). Since the federal law does not prohibit it, then it is only state laws.

See the quote from the Report To Congress in my original post, it makes direct reference to laws making it unlawful.

For the specific states, go to any one of the 'skill' sites, they are listed.

BTW, I place the term 'skill' in '' because I really do not in anyway believe solitaire is a game of 'skill', lol.

Poker could then lobby those individual states to allow poker / skill games that currently ban them.

This would be much easier than getting congress to pass a law allowing poker AND this way all in congrsss have an 'out', we tried to prohibit it, but.......

obg

TheEngineer · #6 07-07-2007, 04:13 PM

There are some caveats. Skill gaming is only in tournament format, so ring games appear to be out. Also, the DOJ has, in the past, issued warnings on ads for real money poker sites (which led to the .net sites and commercials). And, I don't think (but don't know) big money is "legal" (as is recognized as legal by the DOJ) interstate in the U.S. Something about entertainment vs. gambling.

Again, I have no corroboration on the last point. I joined King.com with the intention of finding out (I won't make any -EV wagers, of course). Do you know if someone could take six figures a year off one of these sites, or is it just mediocre prizes?

Anyway, I do think it's good for us to use this as a point in our communications to Congress, as we've both been doing. However, as we've both agreed in the past, we'll need some federal legislation (or a successful court case) to crank up interstate poker play, complete with U.S.-based sites and ads for the .com sites.

TheEngineer · #7 07-07-2007, 04:22 PM

King doesn't really publicize their prize structure. Here's what I found.

At King, it looks like the big "jackpots" are around $45. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Also, the maximum deposit appears to be $30. And,

[ QUOTE ]
...for real Money tournaments King.com charges a management fee which comprises of approximately 25% of the entry costs. We do this to be able to guarantee you the best possible quality and game experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite the vig. It appears to be "entertainment only".

permafrost · #8 07-07-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the 'skill' sites are allowed under regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying there are skill game regulations at the state level? Who makes the list that tells sites which of their games are specifically allowed in that state?

Or are you saying the state laws, not regulations, give specific skill games allowed?

oldbookguy · #9 07-07-2007, 04:31 PM

Let me digress for a moment.
I first started looking into this after the WTO ruling and the statement to the USTR, no additional legislation is needed, it can be done administratively. My first thoughts were, huh?
So, figuring they knew much more than I, I decided to look into it myself.

Now, to the 'skill' games.

Yes, tourney only although the games at AOL I believe can be played heads up (solitaire for sure).

The most expensive buy in I have seen is 10.00 for a tourney, actually a pretty good size pot with 500 or so players.

Since each hand in poker is agame in itself, regulations should not prohit RG's though (my thoughts).

Additionally, looking the the reports to congress I referenced (I just came across that), it seems they may? be thinking somewhere along similar lines, or at the least making a carve out for 'skill' based games.

Also, if you google Backgammon Court Cases, you will find that some state courts have ruled 'skill' games are not covered by state anti-gaming laws, thus some states passed updated laws to include these and most just kinda left the matter alone (as they rightly should!).

A simple UIGEA regulation that poker will be treated the same as 'solitaire' will go along ways towards our fight.

obg

oldbookguy · #10 07-07-2007, 04:41 PM

BTW, the UIGEA regulations are due to be published for public comment Tuesday, July 10, 2007 (even the report referenced notes they must be done by this date).

There should be a 30-90 dy comment period (usually 60 for this).

We will need to get real active IF they are published and poker is NOT allowed but solitaire is.

At that point the IMEGA lawsuit may have some merit in an equal protection sense.

I have a good friend who has actually argued before the Supreme Court (one case I helped cause to get there, but that is another story!) who at that point may offer a piece or two of advice.

obg