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

[Artsemis]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/workl....ap/index.html

It's based on tells, but it highlights the fact that he is successful in poker based on his reading ability... nothing real major, but something nice for the media to focus on for a change.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
"While you can't control the cards you are dealt," Navarro says, "you can make them win."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice summary of skill vs chance.

[OB-Wan222]

I really think that arguing the skill factor is a complete waste of time. After all, what skill is involved in a lottery?

Skill is a ruse that politicians hide behind. The real determining factor is raw political power. When online gaming gets to the point where politicians see more benefit in supporting it than banning it they will sudden have a revelation (like they did with lotteries) and see a reason to vote for gaming.

We just waste our energy even arguing about skill until that point - its just a deception that politicians invented.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think that arguing the skill factor is a complete waste of time. After all, what skill is involved in a lottery?

Skill is a ruse that politicians hide behind. The real determining factor is raw political power. When online gaming gets to the point where politicians see more benefit in supporting it than banning it they will sudden have a revelation (like they did with lotteries) and see a reason to vote for gaming.

We just waste our energy even arguing about skill until that point - its just a deception that politicians invented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many states outlaw only games of chance. If we prove our game is a game of skill in a court of law, we'll significantly improve our standing. You may want to read some prior threads about this topic, as we've discussed it once or twice before. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think that arguing the skill factor is a complete waste of time. After all, what skill is involved in a lottery?

Skill is a ruse that politicians hide behind. The real determining factor is raw political power. When online gaming gets to the point where politicians see more benefit in supporting it than banning it they will sudden have a revelation (like they did with lotteries) and see a reason to vote for gaming.

We just waste our energy even arguing about skill until that point - its just a deception that politicians invented.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There is established caselaw regarding the skill v luck debate in several states. Not only that, but most people with an open mind who seriously examine poker will ultimately determine that skill predominates. Thus this is established precedent that favors the legality of poker.

I agree that raw political power can get a law passed one way or the other, but in many instances you have to work with what you have. I don't think many Judges are predisposed to hate poker. I think we would do very well with such a rule.

[oldbookguy]

the 'skil' / 'luck' difference is important.

Simply look at MSN / YAHOO! / AOL games.

Skill games can be played there for money, card, board, puzzle and other games.

To paraphrase Sen. Kyl, if you want poker legalized, go to court and have a judge say it is skill.

obg

[OB-Wan222]

"If we prove our game is a game of skill in a court of law, we'll significantly improve our standing."

"There is established caselaw regarding the skill v luck debate in several states."


And politicians can change that law overnight. Sorry, no matter what's been said before its obvious to me that this is not a matter for the courts.

If you win in the courts politicians will just attack the "activist judiciary" and pass another law to the cheers of the "legislate morality' crowd. Court decisions can only delay prohibition.

I mentioned lotteries before because that typifies the approach we need. Lotteries are a great evil until more people are for them in a state then are against them. Then they become friends of education, tax reduction or whatever fig leaf the pols choose to hide their flip-flop behind.

Debates about skill are just a sham. Today a rep from the DOJ is going to Congress to talk about how online gaming is a hazard to children and the addicted, how its a haven for money-launderers and a criminal element. Funny, there's no talk about skill vs. luck on the part of those attacking online gaming.

Know the old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight? That's what I fear we do when we argue about skill. We don't need finesse in our legal arguments. Because that won't settle anything while we still have pols that think they can get votes by sponsoring anti-gaming bills to replace the ones that the courts find flawed.

Politicians come and politicians go. We need to elect pols that see the benefit of supporting us. They don't need to agree with our fine logic. We don't need their hearts and minds just their fear.

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
"If we prove our game is a game of skill in a court of law, we'll significantly improve our standing."

"There is established caselaw regarding the skill v luck debate in several states."


And politicians can change that law overnight. Sorry, no matter what's been said before its obvious to me that this is not a matter for the courts.

If you win in the courts politicians will just attack the "activist judiciary" and pass another law to the cheers of the "legislate morality' crowd. Court decisions can only delay prohibition.

I mentioned lotteries before because that typifies the approach we need. Lotteries are a great evil until more people are for them in a state then are against them. Then they become friends of education, tax reduction or whatever fig leaf the pols choose to hide their flip-flop behind.

Debates about skill are just a sham. Today a rep from the DOJ is going to Congress to talk about how online gaming is a hazard to children and the addicted, how its a haven for money-launderers and a criminal element. Funny, there's no talk about skill vs. luck on the part of those attacking online gaming.

Know the old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight? That's what I fear we do when we argue about skill. We don't need finesse in our legal arguments. Because that won't settle anything while we still have pols that think they can get votes by sponsoring anti-gaming bills to replace the ones that the courts find flawed.

Politicians come and politicians go. We need to elect pols that see the benefit of supporting us. They don't need to agree with our fine logic. We don't need their hearts and minds just their fear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% with this. It's all about politicians seeking money and power and has nothing to do with the intricacies of the game.

[Skallagrim]

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

[oldbookguy]

Though true, the court quote was from and is on Sen. Kyl's Senate Website, just a suggestion he proposed.

http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=273370
Next to last paragraph.

There is case law on this other than state law and the Master Card case, a few months ago a Federal Court in N.J., ruling on Fantasy Gaming defined contests as not covered and the description of contests covers most poker games.

See Chuck Humphries case filed prior to the UIGEA before Fantasy Wagering was exempted, though the ruling came afterwards.

http://www.wvgeneralstore.com/gaming/njruling.htm

obg