NJ Law Journal 8/27/07 -- Front Page Article on IMEGA Suit

[oldbookguy]

Another "Free / Membership for the BIG Games" US Site:

https://www.pureplay.com/www/index.cfm?fuseaction=terms

NO, there is no code in there for me!

P.O. Box 50191
Minneapolis, MN, 55405

there are many that simply charge a monthly fee and you play with points.

No RG's, just MTT's and they are mostly small for now.

obg

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
excluded from the definition of gambling...are organized contests of skill, endurance, speed, dexterity..." So to the extent a poker tournament is a contest of skill, thats ok, but no cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about a "tournament" where the "entry fee" is 25 BBs, and each player's "prize" is equal to the amount of chips in their possession when they decide to stop playing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This wouldn't work, because the prize pool is not guaranteed.

[Skallagrim]

This deserves a bump here in the legislation forum.

The Court opinion the TPCEO was talking about is available here: http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...ts-lawsuit.htm (click on "ruling" in the top paragraph).

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." He makes this ruling "As a matter of law" so it is NOT limited to fantasy sports leagues.

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....

If this ruling is generally accepted THEN POKER CONTESTS ARE LEGAL ALMOST EVERYWHERE RIGHT NOW (some states have specific laws about contests). It is only a slight adjustment that is needed, the prize pool must be guaranteed and cant change. But that is a small adjustment really, SnGs, as TPCEO realizes, already meet that criteria, MTTs can be easily made to meet that criteria (Guarantee the money and have a minimum and maximum # of players, a "contest organizer" can cancel the contest and return the money if not enough players show up).

Really, I just cant believe this one. Legal tournament poker by only a slight change in the rules. All sites should follow the example, hell, this would even apply to "home" tournaments, I mean contests, again with just a small amount of creativity.

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

Looks like we finally got a ruling we needed.

Now, something needs to be done for the RG players.

onb

[MiltonFriedman]

Thanks for the link.

"If this ruling is generally accepted ..."

This raises an ever-present point in the years-long struggle with those people who seek to kill off online gaming. The market of Business to business services is the current battleground, moreso since UIGEA. The secondary battleground is Business to consumer services. If the B2B market accepts the decision as the barometer of "legal" risk, then this decision has signficance.

As a strategic matter, it seems clear that so long as there can be a genuine case and controversy for a court to decide, favorable law can be formed in matters between private litigants. As with the Mastercard Litigation, there was no DOJ presence here.

Certainly, the "winners" won't appeal. Whether or not DOJ gives a rat's ass about this, similar to their reaction to In Re Mastercard Litigation, the decision is on the books nd can be cited.

[oldbookguy]

My only concern in this ruling and the masterCard case, they were / are both Civil Court cases, no criminal charges were ever filed.

Although, the DoJ could have filed charges in the MC case, they never did but maintain the ruling was incorrect and Casino gaming is still covered by the Wire Act.

overall, a good ruling though as the judge does distinguish between games and contests. A MTT or SNG can be a contest, not a game.

obg

[Legislurker]

The DoJ is doing everything it can right now to keep from falling apart at the seams. Its a good time for lawsuits because so many posts are unfilled and a lot of cases might be handled by boxtop degree people. Civil and criminal litigators both are or have left in droves. We just need a perfect case. Maybe TruepokerCEO would volunteer to come to the US and stand trial?

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
The DoJ is doing everything it can right now to keep from falling apart at the seams. Its a good time for lawsuits because so many posts are unfilled and a lot of cases might be handled by boxtop degree people. Civil and criminal litigators both are or have left in droves. We just need a perfect case. Maybe TruepokerCEO would volunteer to come to the US and stand trial?

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I have heard, TruePokerCEO has no qualms about traveling in the US. But to ask ANYONE to willingly stand trial in a criminal case with the potential of real jail time (remember Jay Cohen) is way too much to ask, IMHO.

An easier way is this: find anyone in your local jurisdiction and get them to plan to open a venue for regular poker contests. Have them rent a place and seek permits (for a kitchen or bar or whatever) and explicitly state in the permit requests that the business will run "poker contests." When the permits are denied because "poker is illegal" THEN you sue to get the permit. Same issues, same parties, no risk of criminal prosecution.

Skallagrim

[MiltonFriedman]

Wait, this gets even better than just "No bet or wager" ....
The Court continued on discussing that if a "Contest" entry is not something invloving a bet or wager, then whether the Contest outcome depends on skill is irrelevant:

"Indeed, courts have made it clear that the question of whether the money awarded is a bona fide prize (as opposed to a bet or wager) can be determined without deciding whether the outcome of the game is determined by skill or chance".

Gentelemen, I think we need The Honorable Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh as the replacement for Alberto Gonzales.

[Skallagrim]

Beginning to see why I used so many exclamation points Milton?

Follow this judge's logic and so long as the 3 criteria are met ANY and EVERY "contest" is not gambling, no matter what the contest involves.