Another Idea Regarding Showing Poker Is Mainly "Skill"

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's quite the change in meaning, but whatever you meant, the point is that an unregulated internet poker business is unlawful and UIGEA therefore applies.

And if you are playing at that business, your laws likely apply "against" you even if they don't mention the word internet. That's why we need new state laws and/or show poker to be a skill game.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I have reviewed the gambling laws of all 50 states - my notes are at my office, but my memory is that a little over 30 states use the predominance test to determine what is or is not gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]
But the legislatures in any of those states could make poker legal or illegal at their whim regardless of what any court says about luck v. skill.

As a practical matter, I wouldn't care so much about coming up with arguments, intended for courts, that skill predominates over luck in poker; I would care more about coming up with arguments, intended for politicians, that legalized poker is a commercial activity that can generate revenues for the state . . . and campaign contributions from casinos.

Especially since the modern trend is away from the common law and toward codifying everything . . .

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

That's quite the change in meaning, but whatever you meant, the point is that an unregulated internet poker business is unlawful and UIGEA therefore applies.

And if you are playing at that business, your laws likely apply "against" you even if they don't mention the word internet. That's why we need new state laws and/or show poker to be a skill game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's just that I honestly don't see how showing poker to be a skillful game helps us at all. Can you explain this and lay out the path to legalization based on skill? If that's a path to legalization, I'll be the first one to run with it.

My senators and my congressman have sent me letters on why they support UIGEA. None of the justifications involve skill vs. luck. I've seen nothing in UIGEA on skill or luck. The misapplied (but applied nonetheless...the DOJ doesn't care) Wire Act does not contain a skill exemption. Kyl and Goodlette clearly don't care about skill vs. luck.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't see how showing poker to be a skillful game helps us at all. Can you explain this and lay out the path to legalization based on skill? If that's a path to legalization, I'll be the first one to run with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skallagrim and others have shown upthread that poker would apparently be legal in many States.

[ QUOTE ]
My senators and my congressman have sent me letters on why they support UIGEA. None of the justifications involve skill vs. luck. I've seen nothing in UIGEA on skill or luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are thinking of the problem as coming from the Federal level. Those senators and representatives and UIGEA didn't make the poker is lawful/unlawful/skill game decisions for states, and can't reverse them! Those decisions were made long ago. The majority of them see it is unlawful and want to help stop poker sites from operating in their State. That is the only justification they need to use, but as politicians, they say whatever they want.

[batair]

This might be a little simplistic, but why not just have one person in a NL game go all in every hand and one person play with skill.The person going all in every hand would almost never win. Wouldn't this prove that poker is a game of skill not luck.

I say this because as a low limit player there has been more then one instance that a high limit player has come down and crashed one of my tables to let off steam.They would just go all in every hand and only the tight nity players would no what to do when this happened.It would tilt the callstations and even some ok players.But as a nit this is like having manna fall from the sky.

[ike]

I agree with everyone who thinks this is a pointless argument. Poker will be judged a game of skill by politicians not when they are presented with a clear, accurate demonstration of that fact but when its politically expedient for them to do so. Its abundantly obvious to anyone with any sense who spends any time thinking about poker that its a game of skill, yet thats still not accepted as truth in political circles. If I'm not mistaken, when the question has been brought before courts (as in the cases that established professional poker players right to file taxes as professionals) poker has been judged a game of skill. A better argument on the actual facts won't make any difference. A change in the political climate and a public demand for legalized poker will.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everyone who thinks this is a pointless argument. Poker will be judged a game of skill by politicians not when they are presented with a clear, accurate demonstration of that fact but when its politically expedient for them to do so. Its abundantly obvious to anyone with any sense who spends any time thinking about poker that its a game of skill, yet thats still not accepted as truth in political circles. If I'm not mistaken, when the question has been brought before courts (as in the cases that established professional poker players right to file taxes as professionals) poker has been judged a game of skill. A better argument on the actual facts won't make any difference. A change in the political climate and a public demand for legalized poker will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just about to post the same thing, well said.

[MiltonFriedman]

Universally accepted where ?

What universe do you live in ? Have you even looked at any of the US state laws about gambling ? Do you recall something named Party Poker, which fled a market offering hundreds of millions of dollars in annual profits ?

[Skallagrim]

Another bump because of the recent statement by arch foe of online poker Senator Kyl of Arizona:

"And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions."

http://www.cappersmall.com/sportscen...poker2196.html

To all of you who said this argument doesn't matter, what do you think now?

Skallagrim

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
Another bump because of the recent statement by arch foe of online poker Senator Kyl of Arizona:

"And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions."

http://www.cappersmall.com/sportscen...poker2196.html

To all of you who said this argument doesn't matter, what do you think now?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

(in court) "But I was misquoted your Honor, I would never allow poker to be exempted."