Are Poker Contests going to be popular in the US ? Recent Court ruling

[1p0kerboy]

Actually I will consider selling my patent to TPCEO.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
RIIT, MTTs miss the mark because the prizes vary depending on the number of participants. Some of the points you made in your original post go to this. To make a MTT a "contest" the amount of the prize(s) has to be fixed before the entry fees are paid. There are some pretty obvious ways to change MTTs to make them fit (guaranteed prize pool for example), but the way they are right now just doesnt quite do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if this is why Stars has recently (2 or 3 months ago I think) added some MTTs w/ maximum number of entrants (I know they have at least a 360 max entrants $5 tourney each night).

[apefish]

The obvious bridge between sngs and the types of mtts that would fit the language are the 180s at stars. Just imagine them with a starting interval wide enough that Stars would know they would always fill and could tell you the precise prizes prior to signup. Then just regularly schedule them. Then keep expanding field sizes for events you would know to fill.

"Spontaneous Poker Contest of Skill" vs "Scheduled Poker Contest of Skill" anyone?

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
RIIT, MTTs miss the mark because the prizes vary depending on the number of participants. Some of the points you made in your original post go to this. To make a MTT a "contest" the amount of the prize(s) has to be fixed before the entry fees are paid. There are some pretty obvious ways to change MTTs to make them fit (guaranteed prize pool for example), but the way they are right now just doesnt quite do it.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok thanks for the clarification.

Actually my point about the "guaranteed" prize was that it was a "minimum" but not necessarily a "maximum" (I never explicity stated this seeing as I thought I was implying it but I guess not).

Your comment implies that the judge is demanding that prize be fixed exactly at $X (no more no less). Is this correct?

If yes then my understanding is way off on why and how a judge could come to this view - especially when there is no downside for a final prize that happened to be more than what the operator guaranteed as a minimum.

I do admit that a typical SNG has fewer unknowns up front than an MTT does. So am I correct in saying that the judges central idea is to reduce or eliminate the "unknowns"?

RIIT

[KotOD]

A multi-table SNG satisfies that, as does a MTT with a prize guarantee and payout guarantee and a cap on entrants.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
A multi-table SNG satisfies that, as does a MTT with a prize guarantee and payout guarantee and a cap on entrants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so the key idea is a cap on the total number of players then?

RIIT

[Skallagrim]

The key is that ALL the numbers (fee and prize) are known before the contest starts. You would not have to cap the number of players, but an excess number of players could not increase the prize (thus a windfall for the contest sponsor).

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
The key is that ALL the numbers (fee and prize) are known before the contest starts. You would not have to cap the number of players, but an excess number of players could not increase the prize (thus a windfall for the contest sponsor).

[/ QUOTE ]

Skallagrim,

Again, thanks for the clarification. Pardon me if I say that I simply do not understand the reasoning that supports this pivotal characteristic:

"an excess number of players cannot increase the prize"

Boiling it all down here you're saying that the ruling holds that:

It is legal if the operator has a potentially unlimited upside (good for operator, bad for players).

It is illegal if the prize increases with the number of entrants (neutral for operator, good for players).

I'm not questioning your ability to report the facts of the ruling here. I'm questioning the wisdom of the ruling itself.

What am I missing here?

RIIT.

[snappo]

[ QUOTE ]
claim a "first use" for legal reasons .... in case some later company tried to claim a patent.

[/ QUOTE ]
+
[ QUOTE ]
2. Is TruePoker likely to claim a patent?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Our software company is looking at developing the Poker Contests market for US play...We certainly want to be able to defend our right to offer Poker Contests against anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

= FYP:

[ QUOTE ]
claim a "first use" for legal reasons .... so we can try to claim a patent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
I think TruePoker should jump on this angle as soon as they can; I'm sure if they don't then someone else will. I mean heck, we're already seeing duplicate poker sites and other variations of 'different' poker that is likely to fit more within the legal scope of online poker.
.
.



[/ QUOTE ]

Would there be an advantage, for precedent purposes, to doing the signups, payouts, announcements, advertising, etc in the location where this ruling was given?

Tuff