another NEW Online U S Gamoing CARD SITE

[oldbookguy]

Ok, here we go again, this card game, Rummy Royal is open to U S players AND funded by, thats right, PAYPAL.

Marketed as a skill game, it is cards, no different than poker.


Thoughts?

Site:
http://www.rummyroyal.com/

From FAQ'S:
There is an 8 state ban.
http://www.rummyroyal.com/how_to_pla...html#stateList

obg

[Uglyowl]

Interesting, I think it is a good thing more avenues of gaming are starting up and also previously "shy" Paypal is jumping in.

Get another segment of America into online gaming, I think it will make harder and harder to keep down.

I have never played rummy, how is the skill vs. chance in relation to poker?

[oldbookguy]

Rummy is a draw type card game, you make straights, 3 / 4 kinds.

Yes, nice that payPal is funding this. However, their FAQ's state legal 'SKILL' gaming is allowed, but NO poker, even if legal, in U.S. In the E. U. I understand they fund all gaming.

Now, Rummy.

You start with 7 cards and the idea is to play all your cards but one (the final discard).

You get points for cards played and lose points for cards you are holding when the other player goes rummy.

Generally played to a set point amount, first to 1K points and so one or played by the point, say .10 per point.

Similar to gin.

Pure chance and strategy.

obg

[Legislurker]

Bots people write are pretty good at gin and rummy

[TheMathProf]

So as a WA state resident, I'm really confused. I know that online gambling isn't legal, but couldn't find this so called skills exemption in the WA state statutes that this site claims...

If said statute exists, wouldn't that provide another avenue of attacking that state's online ban?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
So as a WA state resident, I'm really confused. I know that online gambling isn't legal, but couldn't find this so called skills exemption in the WA state statutes that this site claims...

If said statute exists, wouldn't that provide another avenue of attacking that state's online ban?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the subscription sites hope to charge a fee for the time conntected and offer games under RCW 9.46.0201 the Amuesment section, games of skill not dependent on the operators with limited prizes.
RCW 9.46.0225 is the killer for real money games in WA, IMO

RCW 9.46.0282 "Social card game." holds some hope for site operators given that you could limit your players in WA to use of your network to only non-rake games and hope for a change in the law, but this is not a viable marketing strategy as the rest of the players on your net would want the same deal.


Hope this helps,


D$D

[oldbookguy]

From you WS Gaming laws:

[ QUOTE ]
RCW 9.46.0225
"Contest of chance."

as used in this chapter, means any contest, game, gaming scheme, or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree<emphasis added> upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, for those who CAN and hopefully WILL look this case up, it may be VERY important to Poker, a Federal Court in Nevade back in 1965 declared Gin Rummy a Game of Skill.

From http://www.gamecolony.com/gin_rummy_game_skill.shtml

[ QUOTE ]
Gin Rummy: Skill or Chance? District Court Decides!

In mid-1960s a Las Vegas-based Gin Rummy tournament was promoted by mailing flyers to players. The post office objected on the grounds that it was illegal to promote a "game of chance" (a lottery) through postal services. This case ended up in court. After listening to the testimony of experts that included statisticians and several prominent players, the US District Court of Las Vegas on February 23, 1965, ruled that Gin Rummy is indeed a game of skill.

(from "How to Win at Gin Rummy". Pramod Shankar, Ph.D. First Carol Publishing Edition, 1997. page 76.)

Now that you have heard it from the judge, you better believer it! Skill plays an important role in the majority of hands and over the long run the more skilled player is destined to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

obg

[repulse]

This is interesting. The above site also offers backgammon as a "game of skill" and provides a court ruling:
http://www.gamecolony.com/backgammon_game_skill.shtml

This is the first I've seen of any court ruling classifying backgammon as a "game of skill" (i.e. not "gambling"), and the first skill games site I've seen citing this ruling to justify offering the game.

The biggest point of contention in considerations (both informal discussions and court cases) of whether or not poker is a game of skill is the explicit randomness in the shuffle of the cards. Many people/judges see this aspect as inexorably putting poker in the "gambling" category (skill matters but if you get bad luck in the cards dealt it won't matter "enough"), while the same party might not appreciate the less explicit randomness in, say, a golf tournament. But backgammon has just as explicit of a random component as poker does in the rolls of the dice!

Shouldn't the ruling (actionable ruling, as far as this skill games site is concerned, meaning that people are using Paypal to play backgammon online in the US as we speak) of backgammon being a "game of skill" despite explicit random factors be a tremendous precedent for poker's case?

[Skallagrim]

Yes, Backgammon, Gin Rummey, and Bridge (and a few others - including poker to one degree or another) have all been held by Courts at one time or another to be games of mostly skill. Only three state supreme Courts have ruled on the issue: CA and MO courts both have cases ruling poker is not a "lottery" in the context of lottery being any game that is mostly chance. NE has a case, without reasoning, putting poker in the mostly chance category. Other than that NC case (which is still, I believe, under appeal to the state supreme court) there hasnt been a case on poker in about 40 years. That will change soon, no question.

If poker is a game of mostly skill it is exempt from most state gambling laws, and perfectly legal to play for money (note I said MOST).

There is the undeniable chance element in poker (and all card games): the random distribution of the cards. The usual legal question is, therefore: is the random distribution of the cards the MOST important factor in who wins or loses at poker?

My short answer to that question is NO. The actions of the players (betting, calling, raising and folding) is the most important factor. It is the only other factor. I believe I can prove that most hands are decided by what the players do, not what the cards are. The simplest way to show this is to watch any game being played for real stakes - most hands are decided by all players but one folding. Since no one in that situation ever sees their opponents cards, and rarely even sees the last card(s) to be dealt, it is logically impossible to say that the "cards" decided who won that hand.

Of hands that do go to showdown, the analysis is much more complex - but in those hands as long as the amount of the win is allowed to be factored in, then skill is still the predominant factor - skill being defined as the actions of the players.

This is why most of us get frustrated playing at micro stakes or for play money with no prize - when you have nothing to lose, or when the loss is so minimal as to be meaningless, there is no incentive to fold.

Without the folding factor, the cards do become the predominant factor. But as long as folding is a real part of the game (and thus so is bluffing and value betting and trapping, and making good laydowns, etc...), skill will trump chance over any statistically meaningful series of hands.

One of these days someone (I hope its me) will make that presentation to a modern court. If the court agrees, poker becomes a skill game (at least in that court's jurisdiction) and becomes just as legal to play as the ones listed in the site noted by OBG.

Skallagrim

[repulse]

Right, Skall; in fact I think the backgammon precedent strengthens your argument a lot. The case this gaming site cites implies that the following quote from Magriel was the crucial point of the decision: "The decision where to move your men after the dice have been cast - that is the essence of the game. Chance is not a material factor."

So backgammon is skillful because it is about the moves you make, and your argument for poker as skill is similar... but in poker, you can make any move REGARDLESS of the random component (your hand) while in backgammon your move choices are CONSTRAINED BY the random component (your roll). Poker is even more skillful, in that sense. This ties pretty neatly into the other skill-based factors... no bluffing in backgammon, surely a perfect information game involves less skill than an imperfect information game, etc... a pretty compelling case, IMHO.

(and you've got my vote for being the one to make the presentation of poker to a modern court)