Will it ever be possible to prove skill?

[jlkrusty]

Thanks Skallagrim. I have always appreciated your posts and always felt you were one of the more knowleadgeable posters on the subject.

I don't know if poker will find its salvation through the courts or not. I did read about Howard Fierman's case and wondered if people like David Sklansky gave expert testimony at the trial level. I think David has contemplated being an expert witness at court.

If we are going to win this through the courts, then shouldn't all the expert poker witnesses get lined up and testify at the trial level? I mean, isn't it too late to have Sklansky (or some other expert) testify in the Fierman case? That has to be done at the trial level, doesn't it? Maybe a new case is in order--one where we can line up all the experts at the trial level. Have you ever taken any poker related cases to court yourself?

Mr. Fierman's chances on appeal are IMO low. To me, the determination of whether poker is more skill or more chance is primarily an issue of fact decided by the trial court--and not by the appellate court. Do you know if has gone to the appellate court under a "clearly erroneous" standard, or has he gone there based upon some interpretation of the law?

[donkman]

Take all bracelet winners from prior to 2006 as a group and compare their 2006 WSOP championship results against all others.

Take money made divided by entry fee for each group.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
The blackjack player will never convince me; no matter how skilled she is in basic strategy and counting, the distribution of the cards will determine the outcome. The best counters know they must play huge amounts of hands to come out ahead, and even then there is no way to counteract a bad streak of cards other than to keep playing and hope the probabilities even out. In poker you can fold more, tighten up and bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are any number of sources that will quickly convince you that you are wrong about blackjack. For a particularly entertaining read, I recommend the book "Bringing Down the House". That will turn your opinion around fast, and it's a great read, too!

[Skallagrim]

To Jlkrusty - A well reasoned discussion/argument is one of my favorite things (after poker). Thanks for the compliments. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

There was a well-known expert who testified for Mr. Fierman, but it wasnt Sklansky, it was Roy Cooke (Cardplayer columnist). I've spoken to Mr. Fierman, actually, and unfortunately he did not have a lot of money, nor a national organization to help him. But he did put forward a pretty good case, and has a fair chance to win this appeal, IMHO, if not outright, at least to get a new hearing. Although you are right the standard on appeal of a factual issue is a high one to meet (cant recall the exact words NC uses) the trial judge in Fierman's case really refused to do any factual analysis at all, his decision was on the law, erroneously reading prior cases as having already decided the issue. It does not take much for an Appeals Court to send it back and require a re-examination of the facts after clarifying that the law does not dictate a result here; there is no presumption favoring a trial court's legal findings. I am guardedly hopeful for Mr. Fierman - its already taken over 1 and 1/2 years and they still havent issued a decision - that makes a simple "we find no error" result less likely.

And even if he loses he can continue his appeal to the NC Supreme Court.

I also expect this issue to eventually get raised eleswhere in some context because it can make a big difference in an area where a lot of money is at stake: if Poker is mostly skill, then an e-wallet that worked with poker sites only, and only in the 30+ states where this matters, would be PERFECTLY LEGAL EVEN UNDER THE UIGEA. It could even operate out of the US. Someone will do something like this, I predict, because there is a lot of money to be made even off this limited portion of the US poker market. And hopefully this person would have the money to finance a really thorough trial of the matter. They may even use the argument I've put forward here, backed with TruepokerCEO's numbers, as a starting point [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

If poker becomes recognized as pefectly legal in most states, it wont be long till its legal in every state by virtue of the political process. 2 state Courts already recognize poker as a game of mostly skill: California and Missouri.

And while this isnt the only way to help preserve our ability to play poker, it is one part of the fight.

And finally, for fromaggio, my last post about blackjack: I have read that book (and enjoyed it) and am fully aware that with counting the player has an edge over the house. Each "hand" still is at the mercy of the cards though. Being a beatable game when certain skill is used is not the same as being a mostly skill game. Look at it this way, if a blackjack no longer paid 3 to 2, the game becomes unbeatable no matter how well you count. Can you name a rule in poker you could similarly change that would make it unbeatable?

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

As a Missouri resident, I must say that I am proud that my state is (for one of the few times) ahead of the curve on the issue of skill in poker.