Results Of Any Skill vs Luck Court Cases?

[oldbookguy]

A most intersting case there by an unknown person who actually lost more than he won.

More interesting is the 'skill' mention, this could be a plus that has been overlooked, any lawyers out there have a comment after reading the case?

obg

[Skallagrim]

Virtually all Courts would concede that there is SOME skill in poker and most forms of gambling (slots and Roulette type games, maybe not), and this explains the tax rulings in the cases above. They allow you to file as a professional gambler. They do not examine or conclude whether or not poker is a game of chance.

Colorado's law is an interesting one, and IMHO attackable in Court. Be prepared for a battle, however. There are two key points: The law defines gambling as wagering on an outcome "contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device, or the happening or outcome of an event, including a sporting event, over which the person taking a risk has no control...." A poker game's outcome is certainly contingent IN PART on chance: when there is a showdown its who has the best cards who wins, and who has the best cards is determined by chance. But what about when there is no showdown? How can that hand be said to be contingent on the cards: when everyone has folded to the winner, the actual cards are irrelevant to the outcome. Note also that the statute includes the language "over which the the person taking the risk has no control." Well you certainly have no control over what the next card will be, but you do have some control over who will be in the hand to see the next card: YOU CAN FOLD. You also have an ability to influence, if not control, whether others will see that next card: YOU CAN RAISE. Because poker in all its modern forms is determined more by the decisions players make than by the actual cards dealt, I believe there is a possibility of a Court ruling poker is not gambling under CO law. A possibility....Before you do anything that will lead to possible criminal prosecution you had better consult with a CO lawyer just like MF said.

You may also wish to consider how you construct this card room given the law's "social play" exemption. Clearly a casino style rake is making a profit that is dependent on the amount bet, and therefore you are making a profit from the game (illegal). But if you create a social club that has dues independent of the gaming, that may be quite legal. Again, only a CO lawyer will have enough information to answer these questions specifically.

AS to actual cases: USE THE INTERNET THING. You will find that a mix of court opinions on this subject. The most recent was a poorly argued NC Court of Appeals case that went against us and was discussed heavily in this forum. Older cases in Calif. and Missouri ruled poker was not a lottery where a lottery was defined as any game more chance than skill. Neb. has a case ruling the other way.

If you want to send me money, I will do the research for you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. But you are still better off hiring a CO attorney if you are serious about such a venture.

Skallagrim

[The Big Sleazy]

[ QUOTE ]
Virtually all Courts would concede that there is SOME skill in poker and most forms of gambling (slots and Roulette type games, maybe not), and this explains the tax rulings in the cases above. They allow you to file as a professional gambler. They do not examine or conclude whether or not poker is a game of chance.

Colorado's law is an interesting one, and IMHO attackable in Court. Be prepared for a battle, however. There are two key points: The law defines gambling as wagering on an outcome "contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device, or the happening or outcome of an event, including a sporting event, over which the person taking a risk has no control...." A poker game's outcome is certainly contingent IN PART on chance: when there is a showdown its who has the best cards who wins, and who has the best cards is determined by chance. But what about when there is no showdown? How can that hand be said to be contingent on the cards: when everyone has folded to the winner, the actual cards are irrelevant to the outcome. Note also that the statute includes the language "over which the the person taking the risk has no control." Well you certainly have no control over what the next card will be, but you do have some control over who will be in the hand to see the next card: YOU CAN FOLD. You also have an ability to influence, if not control, whether others will see that next card: YOU CAN RAISE. Because poker in all its modern forms is determined more by the decisions players make than by the actual cards dealt, I believe there is a possibility of a Court ruling poker is not gambling under CO law. A possibility....Before you do anything that will lead to possible criminal prosecution you had better consult with a CO lawyer just like MF said.

You may also wish to consider how you construct this card room given the law's "social play" exemption. Clearly a casino style rake is making a profit that is dependent on the amount bet, and therefore you are making a profit from the game (illegal). But if you create a social club that has dues independent of the gaming, that may be quite legal. Again, only a CO lawyer will have enough information to answer these questions specifically.

AS to actual cases: USE THE INTERNET THING. You will find that a mix of court opinions on this subject. The most recent was a poorly argued NC Court of Appeals case that went against us and was discussed heavily in this forum. Older cases in Calif. and Missouri ruled poker was not a lottery where a lottery was defined as any game more chance than skill. Neb. has a case ruling the other way.

If you want to send me money, I will do the research for you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. But you are still better off hiring a CO attorney if you are serious about such a venture.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]i pretty much agree with you on everything but if i did a time charge instead of a rake then it may work, because i would have zero intrest in the outcome and they would just be paying to be inside my place of buisness. i am also considering making it a members only club with low fee's. also to avoid posible charges could i file sute against colorado first?

[Grasshopp3r]

There should be some active research on gambling topics as almost all of the major illegal poker rooms in Denver have been raided in the past year, including a few that were operating as "social clubs". It is a good time for litigation, so please post some updates as you learn more.

More importantly, most players know that raking a game is illegal and you will run into some resistance in getting players. You may want to start a game without rake as a social game and then raking it in the future.

[Skallagrim]

Look this really is something you need to HIRE a lawyer for if you are serious. Any further comment by me would be inappropriate because I am not familiar with all the nuances of the law in Colorado.

If you do hire a lawyer and that lawyer would like some help in structuring the argument that poker is not a "game of chance" under CO law you may PM at that time and I will be glad to help. I have developed a formal proof and argument that will be of use, but it will still have to be tailored to the specifics of Colorado.

Skallagrim

[Grasshopp3r]

Holme, Roberts & Owen in Denver is a law firm that is a member of the Colorado Gaming Association. They would be a good place to start. Isaacson, Rosenbaum, Woods & Levy, P.C. is another Denver law firm that has gaming experience.

This is Chuck Humprey's site: http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...oker-skill.htm

[iron81]

I recall reading here that a Virginia or North Carolina court ruled that poker was a game of luck.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
I recall reading here that a Virginia or North Carolina court ruled that poker was a game of luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a Mod? Then you know how to do the search that will result in a long thread in this forum about the NC court decision and its flawed reasoning.

As to Virginia, you are probably referring to a recent dispute in Virginia where various District Attorneys cannot agree whether poker is more skill or chance. I am not a Moderator and so I think its ok for me to be lazy and say you can find a link to the Virginia dispute at the PPA website.


Sorry to seem sarcastic, something about green names that brings up the rebellious, "question authority" little boy in me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] .

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

The Virginia dispute (unlike the N.C. case) is a good argument for our side.

There are three good news stories in the local Portsmouth, Va newspaper about Virginia. one thing about the games running though, they are charity games formerly ran by the FOP for a Catholic school group now ran for the March of Dimes.

stories in the order they appeared in the newspaper:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/stor...amp;ran=211875

http://content.hamptonroads.com/stor...9&ran=8980

http://content.hamptonroads.com/stor...&ran=47803

obg

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
AS to actual cases: USE THE INTERNET THING. You will find that a mix of court opinions on this subject. The most recent was a poorly argued NC Court of Appeals case that went against us and was discussed heavily in this forum. Older cases in Calif. and Missouri ruled poker was not a lottery where a lottery was defined as any game more chance than skill. Neb. has a case ruling the other way.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure whether it was poorly argued or not. Certainly the Court seemed to understand the core issue:

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

From this of, course, they reach an illogical conclusion that seems to be based on the outcome of one hand or one turn of the card. I've never played a one hand session of poker myself, and even if I had wouldn't concede that a session is necessarily the proper measuring stick of skill versus luck, but there ya go. Way to go Court.