Is Online Poker Subject A Game Subject to Chance? (Philosophy)

[Claunchy]

[ QUOTE ]
"No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"



[/ QUOTE ]
This is probably my favorite Futurama joke ever. NH sir.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that when each individual wager is made, the results of that wager are subject to chance

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the part that I am having trouble with. This is begging a lot of questions.

A few hypotheticals--

1) Two people online place a wager on the fair toss of a coin by a third party (who has yet to toss the coin). I would assume that this is covered by the act.

2) Two people online place a wager on whether a coin previously tossed was heads or tails (but the results unknown to both of them). I am not sure if an event that occured in the past is truly subject to chance..

3) Two people online bet on a series of 10 coin tosses alternating who picks each turn, where the coin has already been tossed 10 times and both parties know there were an equal number of heads and tails thrown? I am suspicious whether this is covered. Now not only is the event in the past, but a fair distribution is assured

4) Two people online bet on a series of coin tosses, alternating picks where the coin was previously tossed and there were an equal number of heads or tail, and one of the participants (unbeknownst to the other) knows the order of the heads and tails. Here we have an event in the past, an even distribution, and one of the participants has no element of chance involved at all?

5) Two online particpants are given 13 cards, from 2-A each of which they HAVE to play. They will match them up against each other (in the order they choose) in a series of 13 no-limit bets where the hi card wins.

6) Two people play chess online against each other for a wager. (this seems unquestionably legal).

[MicroBob]

I think you could also argue that any game ANYWHERE is subject to SOME element of chance.


The language seems to leave not much room for 'carve-outs' for a game that has a significant amount of skill involved such as poker.

They can outlaw any game they want with a broad interpretation of what a game that 'involves chance' entails.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"



[/ QUOTE ]
This is probably my favorite Futurama joke ever. NH sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes...this is great stuff!

[rando]

Getting back to the OP, of course seemingly random deals could be rigged. It would be hard to tell. But I think everyone here who has one would bet their left nut that these deals are "sufficiently random."

Poker is, of course, a game of skill, but here again, you can argue that long term results of who gets what cards can never be exactly equal, so chance does factor in. Obviously the disparity between individual's fortune is infinitesimal the more hands are played.

Ultimately this is a logic issue, not a philosophy issue. You can philosophize about it all you want, but that is grounded solely in what you believe, not in what "is." What "is" = long-term, chance is a non-issue in poker. How many of you would agree to one game for $1,000 with Daniel Negreanu heads-up? I bet a lot more than would play a series of 10,000 matches for $1,000... why is that so?

[Phil153]

Mendacious,

they're very interesting questions. I'd have to think about them some more. Off the top of my head:

1. Chance
2. Chance - outcome of wager is unknown
3. Chance [per wager] - outcome of each wager is unknown
4. Chance. - the structure of game is enough to establish chance, unless it's in the rules that one party already knows.
5. Chance - outcome of each wager is unknown. No different to a slot machine.


As I said, these are interesting questions, but as applies to this law, I'll quote you blueodum from the other thread:

It's clear what they mean by "game subject to chance": a a game in which at least some elements [besides an opponents' actions] are unknown to the participants ahead of time [and designed to be unknowable]

I honestly can't see the courts taking anything other than a common sense approach.

P.S. I apologize for calling you a [censored] lawyer a while back [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Chance
2. Chance - outcome of wager is unknown
3. Chance [per wager] - outcome of each wager is unknown
4. Chance. - the structure of game is enough to establish chance, unless it's in the rules that one party already knows.
5. Chance - outcome of each wager is unknown. No different to a slot machine.


[/ QUOTE ]

The examples where you site the fact that the outcome of the wager is unknown...does not make it subject to chance imo. That is simply the definition of a wager. The act plainly does not prohibit all online wagering.

[Phil153]

Then how do you define chance? Do you have an alternative definition that would fit with the legislation?

From the court's perspective, what did the legislators reasonably intend when using the word "chance"?

[Mendacious]

dictionary definition:

1. the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency
2. luck or fortune

[Phil153]

By this definition, only quantum phenomena and radioactive decay are subject to chance, and they only apply to gaming if the wager is made before the event and settled on the outcome. So you're saying gaming sites are safe as long they're not using thorium-based random card generators? Party must be patting themselves on the back that they didn't pony up for that extra Geiger counter.

Anyway, interesting take. I have to say, stranger things have happened in US law.