CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting skill

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The skill argument is already the law in about 35 states. So we should just ignore the current law in these states while you go generate that "raw political power?" And just what are you doing to achieve that by the way?

Also, the skill argument separates poker from slots and thus makes getting changes to the law for poker that much easier.

Finally, the single best piece of legislation for poker out there at the moment is the "Skill Games Protection Act" that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers just signed on to. Lets tell him he is full of **** and its all about raw political power and money, that will surely help advance the cause wont it.

You guys can think what you want about the skill argument, but to suggest its time to drop it is just plain stupid. Or maybe 3 post OB-Wan222 is actually an FOF shill trying to get us to drop one of our most useful tactics?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

He sounds more like a disgruntled sports bettor who wants to chain us to his cause.

Hey 3-post Obi: As no one here knows who you are, please post some of the letters you've written to Congress this year so you can establish some credibility. And at least introduce yourself before assuming the right to tell us what to do and how to do it. Thanks.

[Richas]

Skill has become important in some states and in some cases elsewhere such as the UK gutshot case or where the Russians designated it a sport so escaping gambling restrictions but it is a bit hypocritical given the popularity and acceptance of lotteries and horse racing with no and less skill involved.

For me the civil liberties and the adverse consequences of prohibition are more important but in some states and some courts skill is the issue.

[Skallagrim]

A simple point: virtually no one wants to ban playing any and every game for money; a fair number of folks, however, want to ban gambling. In many places the political compromise is to ban playing for money those games that are games of chance but allow playing for money those games that are games of skill.

I see little chance of overcoming that political compromise in most states, and hence the key for poker is, again, to establish it as game of skill.

Do I wish the only issue up for debate was personal freedom? Yes. But it isnt, and it isnt likely to be in the current political climate.

Skallagrim

[grapabo]

There may be distinctions in the state law defining games of skill and games of chance, but in how many states does this make a difference? In Missouri, where I live, there is a statute defining games of skill and a statute defining games of chance. Both of them, however, are called "gambling" if you are wagering money on the outcome, and unless it's a specifically carved out exception (like the state lottery), then it's illegal no matter how it's defined.

[Skallagrim]

Actually, MO changed its law when it passed its "excursion boat casino" legislation. The provisions you refer to apply only to what is or is not allowed on casino excursion boats - it exists to encourage new casino games with a skill element.

Outside of the boats, poker is gambling in MO (and therefore illegal) if it is a game of chance, which is defined as a game where the outcome "depends to a material degree on an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill may also be a factor." I think it is fair to argue that in regular poker skill is the material element, notwithstanding that chance is also a factor.

There is A MO case finding video poker to be game of chance because the random dealing of the cards is the material element, notwithstanding that choosing which cards to hold is a skill factor. There is a MO Supreme Court case from before the law changed finding regular poker more skill than chance. There is no MO Supreme court case on regular poker decided under the new law.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Skill has become important in some states and in some cases elsewhere such as the UK gutshot case or where the Russians designated it a sport so escaping gambling restrictions but it is a bit hypocritical given the popularity and acceptance of lotteries and horse racing with no and less skill involved.

For me the civil liberties and the adverse consequences of prohibition are more important but in some states and some courts skill is the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. We have many tools at our disposal, and we should use them all. For me personally, it's an issue of individual liberty, but I'm not trying to convince me that Internet poker should be legal [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] , so I agree with you totally.

[OB-Wan222]

I joined this forum because I thought it was favored by people that were more thoughtful in their comments. But as Kurt Vonnegut said, "And so it goes..."

First let's deal with what I DIDN'T say.

Skallagrim "So we should just ignore the current law in these states while you go generate that "raw political power?"..."

Skallagrim "Lets tell him he is full of **** and its all about raw political power and money, that will surely help advance the cause wont it."

I didn't say that any current court cases should be abandoned. And I certainly didn't say that we should offend any of our political allies. And I resent your attempts to put foul language in my mouth, whatever **** means. Why would you assume that I would say such a thing? You don't even know me, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to put words in my mouth, especially since I think I have a better way with the English language than you assume.

What I DID say was that the courts can only postpone prohibition if the politicians think they can court votes by supporting it. Postponment is not a bad thing, but I think that it is a losing strategy in the long run - a temporary stop-gap at best. We need to change the political envirnment, not re-arrange the furniture.

Continue the court cases, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we are winning the REAL battle. As I DID say, our enemies do not talk in terms of skill vs. luck, they seek a total ban - so we must divert the time and energy we spend arguing among ourselves about skill vs. luck and present a united front.

IF lotteries are legal than how can games of luck be illegal? That is what I mean by skill vs. luck being a red herring. Politicians don't care about reality. If they can pass a law saying that bingo can be played for money but only for charities, then they can pass a law saying that bingo can be played for money by anyone licensed by the state. Skill or luck has NOTHING to do with it.

================

Skallagrim "Or maybe 3 post OB-Wan222 is actually an FOF shill trying to get us to drop one of our most useful tactics?"

Oh boy, not this nonsense. Okay, for those of you who never participated in a debate in middle school, let alone high school...

- It is not a valid debating tactic to attack the speaker instead of debating their facts or their conclusions. (It might surprise you to learn that there are a great many intelligent people that have NEVER posted on this forum - honest, look it up.)

- It is not a valid debating tactic to assume the motives of the speaker instead of debating their facts or their conclusions. (Who's the FOF?)

- It is possible for people who agree on some things to disagree on others. (Beleive it or not I'm on your side, we just disagree on tactics. What is it about our culture that makes people attack anyone that disagrees with us in the slightest?)

================

Skallagrim "And just what are you doing to achieve that [raw political power] by the way?..."

Now THAT'S a good question. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or money to become a lobbyist. I do have some ideas, but not surprisingly, I don't have a complete answer - No one does. That is why we find ourselves in this position.

I do have the unmitigated gall, apparently, to suggest that we should forget the skill vs. luck debate. There are already lawyers hashing that out and they will do what they will, but that is not where our primary efforts should be directed.

We do need to be more aware of the message. We need to frame the argument not just in terms of privacy, but capitalism. Risk versus reward is one of the cornerstones of free enterprise. Gambling is the ultimate risk versus reward.

PPA seems to be doing a better job and they have raised more seed money. I do worry about their connection to the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society, the group encouraging teaching gambling as a decision-making tool. I fear that the message might get confused with encouraging underage gambling.

There is a lot to be done and it is certainly an uphill battle, but it can be done.

[JPFisher55]

Ob-Wan222, if we win the legal battle over the WTO, then Congress cannot change the laws because doing so would violate the WTO. If we win the legal battle over the constitutionality of the UIGEA and/or the right to play online poker in our homes, then it would take an amendment to the US constitution to change that victory.
So court and legal victories are very difficult for Congress or state legislatures to change. Heck, right now, Congress cannot pass all the budget bills. And the UIGEA was only passed by attaching it to a very important national security bill concerning our ports.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Skallagrim "Or maybe 3 post OB-Wan222 is actually an FOF shill trying to get us to drop one of our most useful tactics?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The trouble OB, we have had 'shills' from the FoF and opposition appear here and post, and yes, we go there as well.

The difference though is, speaking for myself and observations, we identify ourselves, they, being the good Christians they are, generally do not.

Instead, they post telling us our stance and plans are all wrong while generally offering no better plan, just we are fighting a losing cause.

obg

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Skallagrim "Or maybe 3 post OB-Wan222 is actually an FOF shill trying to get us to drop one of our most useful tactics?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The trouble OB, we have had 'shills' from the FoF and opposition appear here and post, and yes, we go there as well.

The difference though is, speaking for myself and observations, we identify ourselves, they, being the good Christians they are, generally do not.

Instead, they post telling us our stance and plans are all wrong while generally offering no better plan, just we are fighting a losing cause.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how the Fof has "fun"....