#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
I'm not taking a position here, I am trying to flesh out what this all means. "Subject to chance" seems very vague to me. Even chess for instance...which I think most would agree is a game of skill, can be subject to chance...if that definition is stretched to include blunders, or even whether one GM happened to prepare for a particular openning. But I am fairly convinced that I could play someone else online chess for money and that was not intended to be covered by the act. And I think that any site sponsering this should not be subject to penalty.
I guess what I am looking for what it is that makes a game subject to chance as meant by this act. I think if this cannot be defined then the law is too vague to be applicable. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
Of course its subject to chance. Otherwise Phil Helmuth would win every tournament.
This was on page 3 at the moment. I couldn't resist. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
[ QUOTE ]
Of course its subject to chance. Otherwise Phil Helmuth would win every tournament. [/ QUOTE ] This is an excellent point. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)
Clearly Helmuth was referring to LIVE poker not online.
But thx. Phil for screwing it up for everyone! |
|
|