NC, USA determines poker = chance

[SNGplayer24]

I think the main argument is that short run variance. Obviously deviation from the mean will decrease as time goes on, but to the average guy playing poker maybe once a week, there is still a lot of luck involved. If poker is mostly skill, why do MTT players need 50-100 buy ins? Wouldn't 5-10 make more sense by that argument?

I consider poker investing just like real estate, the stock market, etc. Both real estate and the stock market are based are economic circumstances or "luck". If interest rates rise and houses are not selling, builders are going to have a tough time making money, and it relates directly to downswings in poker. The correlation between is two is amazing.

[xorpheous]

If poker were just a game of dealing out the cards and seeing who gets the best hand, then yes, poker would be a game of chance. Since, however, the most important aspect of poker is the betting action, or inaction, by the players, it is a game of skill. As OutRaced and Skallagrim have mentioned, a player's success is directly related to their skill at reading their opponents and making skillful actions, whether that be betting, checking, or folding. Its the ability of the players to make WILLFUL actions that make poker a game of skill.

[soulvamp]

Those of us who are serious poker players and are students of the game understand this argument and agree with it.

But people who are not poker players and even most people who are casual or recreational players don't. And therein lies the problem. Assuming you're not going to find a judge who understands what poker is really all about or a majority of legislators who do, how are you going to separate poker from any other forms of gambling/games of chance in their perception?

I don't think it's possible, which is why I think this whole effort to get a poker carveout for the UIGEA is akin to pissing in the wind.

You can make this argument until you're blue in the face, but until the day comes that our government figures out a way to make money off online poker, the environment isn't going to get any better.

[gurgeh]

Good call by the judge. Some people just seem to be luckier than others in poker as in school. You ever notice that some people consistently got good grades? Very lucky. I think they may have increased their luck in this regard by studying a lot, consulting with their peers, and practicing. Now if I could just do that with poker, I might get lucky enough every year to live off my winnings like all the other lucky people I know.

[Dunkman]

As a resident of NC, let me say that I'm disappointed in this decision, but not at all surprised. NC is a conservative state that has always been very much against gambling, to the point that we just got a state lottery last year, and that only passed by one vote after being defeated just about every session for the past 15 years. The only reason is did pass was that our education system is in shambles and no one could come up with another way to raise funds.

Another couple aspects of this decision...I question the quality of the crack legal team that Howard Fierman had on his side, although to be fair I have no idea who his attorneys are. If he's lacking in that area, sure would be nice to see the PPA throw some crack lawyers his way as a NC Supreme Court reversal would be huge for us, although it seems unlikely.

All in all, I wouldn't read too much into this decision, as like I said before, NC is much less open to gambling than the majority of other states. It's obviously not good news, but I don't think losing this decision in NC means we can't win it elsewhere.

[Benjamin]

Here's a better story on the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
Calabria, with fellow appellate judges Martha Geer and Barbara Jackson in agreement, harkened back to a 1953 state Supreme Court ruling on whether a certain variety of pool was a game of chance where the high court wrote: "The test of character of any kind of game ... 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."
...
Because the appellate court ruling was unanimous, Fierman does not have an automatic right of appeal to the state Supreme Court but can ask for one.

Fierman said he would meet with his attorneys and advisers next week but declined to say whether they would discuss an appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bluesbassman]

Check out the comments posted in response to the article. This one is gold, Jerry, pure gold:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't understand. What skill is there in Poker? You sit there with cards in hand and pray the right cards you need are dealt to you. The only skills in Poker are to know what beats what and how to hold a Poker Face when you Bluffing. Don't get me wrong - I do like to gamble. I'm not a heavy duty gambler but we do like to go to the Casino's once a year to have some fund. There is no more skill in Poker as there is in Slot Machines.


[/ QUOTE ]

[SwimStrong]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out the comments posted in response to the article. This one is gold, Jerry, pure gold:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't understand. What skill is there in Poker? You sit there with cards in hand and pray the right cards you need are dealt to you. The only skills in Poker are to know what beats what and how to hold a Poker Face when you Bluffing. Don't get me wrong - I do like to gamble. I'm not a heavy duty gambler but we do like to go to the Casino's once a year to have some fund. There is no more skill in Poker as there is in Slot Machines.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good news and bad news. Hopefully no one that matters in determining law thinks like this, but hopefully everyone else does [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[niss]

One of the problems seems to be the courts focusing on poker as a single hand. If I was the attorney, I would be arguing that to properly consider the issue of skill/luck you need to consider sessions, not hands. While luck may play more of a role than skill in a single hand, nobody sits down at a table, plays one hand, and leaves.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the problems seems to be the courts focusing on poker as a single hand. If I was the attorney, I would be arguing that to properly consider the issue of skill/luck you need to consider sessions, not hands. While luck may play more of a role than skill in a single hand, nobody sits down at a table, plays one hand, and leaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is really not a good idea to go down this path, like I mentioned earlier. Let's say somebody sits down and plays for 5 hours each weekend. Let's also say they're getting 30 hands per hour. That's 150 hands per weekend. We'll say they do this every single weekend for a year. That's 52*150 = 7800 hands in a year of playing every single weekend. That's not even a remotely relevant sample size and luck will still be the overriding factor in that sample size. They'd have to play 5 hours a weekend, every single weekend for YEARS to start approaching their actual expectation. That's rediculous. Chance is the overriding factor for the vast majority of poker players.

I wouldn't assume these judges are just idiots who think poker is no different than slots. They do understand that poker can be beaten with skill in the long run - but which has a larger influence on results FOR THE AVERAGE PLAYER (somebody who is not going to be playing thousands of hands per week): luck or skill? It is obviously luck.

Cliff Notes: The judges are not saying poker is 100% luck. They are saying that luck just has more influence on an average player's results than skill does. This does not preclude the possibility of beating the game in the long run. It just makes such a possibility irrelevant.