Another Idea Regarding Showing Poker Is Mainly "Skill"

[Skallagrim]

I am bumping this thread because this is an issue that stil deserves more discussion. AND BECAUSE I THINK TRUPOKERCEO'S NUMBERS PROVE THE POINT!

And now that tax season is over, perhaps the legislation forum can get back to discussing legislation and legality.

[TheEngineer]

From talking to non-gamblers, it seems they all believe poker to be a game of skill. I've not even heard the opponents of gambling claim it's not.

Perhaps we shouldn't try to argue something that's already universally accepted (we can't improve upon 100%, but we could reduce it). Rather, maybe the next question is, "where do we go from here"?

[Skallagrim]

All it takes, TheEngineer, is one highly publicized Court decision (preferably Federal) which clearly holds Poker to be predominantly skill, and the house of cards regarding poker being illegal gambling comes crashing down.

If poker is predominantly skill it is not gambling in over 35 states, and thus perfectly legal to play online in those states, perfectly legal to fund online play in those states, totally unaffected by the UIGEA in those states and people running private card rooms would no longer face arrest in most of those states (some states still make taking a rake illegal unless licensed).

While everyone has to concede that poker has some skill, the Courts demand a finding of "predominantly" skill. As noted above, Cal and Miss Courts have impliedly accepted this. But a nice, fat, clear "yes its predominantly skill" decision and Poker is in the free and clear in most of the US. The rest of the states would most likely follow, especially as poker becomes even more mainstream as a result.

I want poker treated like a sport as far as the law is concerned. As far as current law is concerned, doing that requires proving it is predominantly skill.

I applaud the efforts you have undertaken to repeal the UIGEA, but in fact, if it were universally accepted that poker is a game of skill, the UIGEA would not apply to poker at all in most states.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
All it takes, TheEngineer, is one highly publicized Court decision (preferably Federal) which clearly holds Poker to be predominantly skill, and the house of cards regarding poker being illegal gambling comes crashing down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it is that simple. UIGEA purports to enforce gambling that's already illegal under FEDERAL law. The enemies of gambling, including the DOJ, claim the Wire Act makes online poker (either across state lines or overseas) illegal and UIGEA provides an enforcement mechanism. Neither act claims to enforce state law (at least I don't think so...I don't claim to be an expert), and neither act discusses skill or luck.

I've read the web sites of the anti-gambling forces. They don't dispute that poker is a game of skill. Rather, they focus on compulsive gambling and the effects on families and societies. After all, there are plenty of losing poker players (by definition...without losing players there are no winning ones). They also claim winning gamblers should focus their lives on "productive efforts". Wacky arguments, but none are predicated on poker being a skillful game.

I do think we should make the argument that poker is a game of skill in our communications with politicians, as it's an effective selling point.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
UIGEA purports to enforce gambling that's already illegal under FEDERAL or State law.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Skallagrim]

You are absolutely right about the anti-gambling forces Engineer, and about skill being an effective selling point.

As to the UIGEA tho, it does appear I am a bit more informed. The Wire Act argument has already lost in court. In re Mastercard, 313 F.3d 257, 262–3 (5th Cir. 2002) ruled the Wire act only applies to sportsbetting. There are no other federal laws outlawing any specific type of betting.

Thus, for poker to be "illegal gambling" under the UIGEA, it must be illegal by STATE law. State law of course varies, and I have posted elsewhere the lengthy analysis that concludes that poker is "illegal gambling" in about 35 states only if poker outcomes are predominanlty determined by chance (the random distribution of the cards).

[EGO]

Wouldn't it be simple to construct a "simple" poker-like game, involving cards and wagering, that could prove that a card game can be a game of skill. Something much less complex than poker, but still using some of the main areas that skilled players use.

It should be a game that uses a minimal amount of cards. There should be only one betting round. There should be some sort of draw. It should involve concepts central to skillful play in all poker games - position, pot odds, hand reading, etc.

I'm not a game creator, but I'm sure DS can (if he hasn't already) come up with a game of this sort, where the expert has a marked advantage, but not due to superior cards, but due to superior skill - and something much less complex than any form of standard poker.

Not that politicians will care, one way or another. Politics and Reality often don't seem to see eye-to-eye. Curse the lobbyists. The founding fathers had the right of it.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the UIGEA tho, it does appear I am a bit more informed. The Wire Act argument has already lost in court. In re Mastercard, 313 F.3d 257, 262–3 (5th Cir. 2002) ruled the Wire act only applies to sportsbetting. There are no other federal laws outlawing any specific type of betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

The DOJ says it's enforcing the Wire Act. They decided to ignore the case you cited (I was familiar with it when I wrote my reply). In fact, they claim that interstate horseracing deal violates the Wire Act as well.

Online poker is perfectly legal in my state without question. UIGEA is in effect, though. How's that?

Maybe I'm just missing how Kyl and the gang will simply say, "oh...it's skill-based; well go ahead and play".

I'll be glad to help with this if there's really some way proving the same is skill-based makes it legal. I just honestly don't see how that happens.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Online poker is perfectly legal in my state without question. UIGEA is in effect, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your State's "perfectly legal" online poker bets expressly authorized by and placed in accordance with the laws of your State? Do your State regulations or laws for "perfectly legal" online poker include age and location verification to block minors and out of State players?

If no to the above, then it is not "perfectly legal", UIGEA applies and you should complain to the people that told you otherwise.

If yes to those questions, and all is "perfectly legal", then UIGEA does not apply despite what you believe or were told.

This State where there is "perfectly legal, without question" online poker betting does not exist yet. I would have heard by now. Other States would be lining up to pass laws. Sites would have opened there by now; there would be big ads, don't you agree?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Online poker is perfectly legal in my state without question. UIGEA is in effect, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your State's "perfectly legal" online poker bets expressly authorized by and placed in accordance with the laws of your State? Do your State regulations or laws for "perfectly legal" online poker include age and location verification to block minors and out of State players?

If no to the above, then it is not "perfectly legal", UIGEA applies and you should complain to the people that told you otherwise.

If yes to those questions, and all is "perfectly legal", then UIGEA does not apply despite what you believe or were told.

This State where there is "perfectly legal, without question" online poker betting does not exist yet. I would have heard by now. Other States would be lining up to pass laws. Sites would have opened there by now; there would be big ads, don't you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply meant there's no state law against playing Internet poker.