Are Poker Contests going to be popular in the US ? Recent Court ruling

[whangarei]

Thanks for the explanation TPC. I wish you luck with it. Could be a big win for all of us.

[Self Made]

Can someone post a link to the case? I'd like to read it.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]


To my understanding, the sole defining element of a SitnGo is that it commences when X players are registered. The Poker Contests we posted share that feature, but it is NOT an essential element of a Poker Contest.

There is nothing to gain by labeling Poker Contests as SitNGoes. The current version we offer yields the winners the same prize structure, for the same financial contribution, and the "start" of the tourney is determined by it filling up. The similarity of those charateristics to a traditional S&G do not define a "Poker Contest" however.

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess I must be pretty dumb because I've read this 4 times and still don't understand what it means.

Can someone explain to me a bit more simply what exactly these 'poker contests' are?
I really don't understand what they are trying to do here.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


To my understanding, the sole defining element of a SitnGo is that it commences when X players are registered. The Poker Contests we posted share that feature, but it is NOT an essential element of a Poker Contest.

There is nothing to gain by labeling Poker Contests as SitNGoes. The current version we offer yields the winners the same prize structure, for the same financial contribution, and the "start" of the tourney is determined by it filling up. The similarity of those charateristics to a traditional S&G do not define a "Poker Contest" however.

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess I must be pretty dumb because I've read this 4 times and still don't understand what it means.

Can someone explain to me a bit more simply what exactly these 'poker contests' are?
I really don't understand what they are trying to do here.

[/ QUOTE ]

A SNG is a poker contest. But a poker contest is not necessarily a SNG.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain to me a bit more simply what exactly these 'poker contests' are?
I really don't understand what they are trying to do here.

[/ QUOTE ]

A "legal" way to play a game with cards and an entry fee.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]

Can someone explain to me a bit more simply what exactly these 'poker contests' are?
I really don't understand what they are trying to do here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob- It's the same structure of event under a new name, I guess attempting to take advantage of a ruling that has said that you can have "contests" that aren't necessarily gambling even though money is at stake.
The two cited elements of "contests" appear to be an unconditional fee, and a guaranteed prize payout- both of which sit and gos currently satisfy.
There are other considerations- such as what appears to be an element of reasonableness of the fee, but not having read the opinion yet I really don't know how that comes into play.

What tpc I think is doing- and i applaud the effort, is saying "okay, we will use your language then" and renaming them poker contests of skill.

All of this of course is moot if the determining factor of online poker's fate is whether or not people will accept it is ultimately a game of skill.
I still don't understand how a reasonable person can argue otherwise to be honest, but that has been my complaint against the chimps passing legislation all along- that they simply choose to ignore all evidence/arguments that show that.

I'm pretty sure my "sng by any other name" is a valid statement, but taking the sng label off and using a label that may seem to fit a new ruling handed down by a US court seems logical.

Give us an inch and we'll create the mile maybe.

Note- it seems that mtts that have guaranteed prizes and are actually scheduled events could have this same label under this theory.
Cap entries at X players, guarantee the prize amounts no matter how many enter, and this is no different than a regularly scheduled mtt, but could be called a "Multi Table Poker Contest of Skill"

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Its simple.

Poker has, on a number of occasions, been defined by courts as a game of skill. And in fact, it is a game of skill. We know this because you could deliberately lose. You cannot deliberately lose a a game of chance, like the lotto or flipping coins.

This recent case apparently holds that games of skill can charge entry fees and award unconditional prizes, and not be deemed gambling.

All True is pointing out is that there is a particularly popular format of poker that is very, very easily adaptable to these "contest" requirements --the SNGs, and MTTs for that matter. Everyone pays an "entry fee", and "unconditional" sum certain prizes are paid.

Now the lawyer in me tells me that this is a great argument.
But because poker is the current administrations's witch, I suspect that the witch will get burned. Again.

[Self Made]

It appears that this is what TruePoker CEO is talking about, though it doesn't involve AOL.

[bigslicknuts]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I have seen patents claimed for casino games before.
2. Our software company is looking at developing the Poker Contests market for US play. A game with no betting or wagering has certain attributes that make it easier to offer than a straight up poker game. We certainly want to be able to defend our right to offer Poker Contests against anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]


Doesn't Dutch Boyd claim to have filed for a US patent on online poker tournaments when he ran his poker site in the late 90s? Pretty sure I've read this before..

[Skallagrim]

Thanks for the link Self Made!!!! (well the link to the link).

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING FOLKS!!!!!

If you read this judges opinion, he basically says that he does not have to decide if fantasy sports leagues are skill or chance contests because:

Entry fees to contests are not "bets or wagers" (and I quote from the opinion) "because (1) the entry fees are paid unconditionally; (2) the prizes offered to fantasy sports contestants are for amounts certain and are guaranteed to be awarded; and (3) Defendants [the companies that ran the leagues] do not compete for the prizes.

There is absolutely no doubt that a "Poker Contest" could be organized along these lines. GO for it TruePokerCEO! At least in this Judge's jurisdiction organizing a "poker Contest" is definitely not gambling provided the 3 rules above are met because no bet or wager has occurred!!!!!!!!
(Did I use enough exclamation points?)

In fact, according to this judge, as long as you meet the no bet or wager criteria, you could have blackjack contests, craps contests, slot contests....

Not to be cynical, but I wonder if this judge would have ruled the same had it been a poker or blackjack contest? Judges would never tailor their decisions based on who the defendants were would they?

Skallagrim