Online Gambling Funding Prohibition LaW

[ChuckHumphrey]

I have now posted my analysis of the full Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. See:

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Feder...mbling-ban.htm

That new article should be read in conjunction with the two previous pieces on the subject, which are available at:

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...mbling-act.htm

and

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/dalla.htm

[SackUp]

who are you?

what qualifications do you have for your opinions?

[Phil153]

Excellent site and analysis. This is what I've been saying all along.

I'm curious about this though:

[ QUOTE ]
Online poker operators should consider mathematical analysis of their vast data bases of poker results to support attempts to overturn the case law that views the "luck of the draw" aspect of poker as resulting in its being a game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the dominant factor test examine the element of chance in a single game, or can it include an aggregate of games? I would like to see an expert address this. To me it would make sense that it would apply to a single game or bet/wager, but I hope I'm wrong.

The point about the average player is interesting. With this included I can't see any court ruling that poker is predominately a game of skill.

[John Rwanda]

[ QUOTE ]
who are you?

what qualifications do you have for your opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Along with Mike Sexton, he was the founder of the Tournament of Champions. It was to the World Poker Tour what the League of Nations was to the United Nations. I believe that he is also a lawyer.

[MiltonFriedman]

Chuck,

Thanks for the analysis. I think you failed to address the strict construction of this criminal statute.

Poker Sites never place, bank or make a bet or wager:

The poker business model does not "bet or wager", it's business is not dependent upon the outcome of any game, "subject to chance" or othwerwise. A poker site is not in "the business of betting or wagering" because it does not b et or wager.

A casual player is not in the "business of betting or wagering":

If a casual player is not in "the business of betting or wagering", and is not engaged in "unlawful Internet gaming", what would criminalize acceptance of a deposit under Section 5363?

I do not think States without an express "Internet" gaming prohibition can be assumed to outlaw Internet gaming for their citizens. The Act, by its terms did not expand the scope of State laws to add "Internet offenses*" and its trigger definition is reliant upon State laws, no bootstrapping of a federal criminal violation.

Further, take for example NY, which apparently does not outlaw residents from merely playing poker in an illegal game ? How does that trigger criminalization under this Act ?

Finally, and I am curious, what about cash ? Could a site accept cash deposits, and to make is simple, do so in the United States in a State where it does NO other business ? (Not that there would be many volunteers to staff the deposit facility.) (What it could do with the cash becomes kind of tricky, but the "Deposit" has been accepted in cash.)

Milton

[MiltonFriedman]

I disagree with Chuck's analysis in that he missed the "business of betting or wagering" point, but his credentials are solid.

Milton

[FearNoEvil]

[ QUOTE ]

The point about the average player is interesting. With this included I can't see any court ruling that poker is predominately a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If taken in aggregate, the results of the average player are entirely the result of his skill level, give or take the appropriate number of standard deviations as a confidence interval. Other than the decreasing material effect of the standard deviation on the player's lon-term results, there is no other element of luck to poker in the long-term.

[Phil153]

Because it won't be taken in aggregate. Think about it. If a game has ANY percentage of skill, over the long term, results in that game will tend towards the player's level of skill. This would render the <u>dominant</u> factor test pointless. The focus of this test is clearly a single wager, game, or possibly a session. Not a large aggregate. That's my take anyway. Again, I'd like to hear an expert opinion on it.

My comment about the average player was in regards to a single hand or session.

[FearNoEvil]

I don't think it is remotely clear that the dominant test refers to a single hand. That is like saying a football game is the result of a single play.

Furthermore, I was not debating the "aggregate" question. You asked the question in your post as to whether an "aggregate" test would apply, and deferred to an expert opinion. My comment was specifically geared to the assumption that the game is taken in aggregate, which it should be, logically.

But, even if it is not, the average player's result on a certain hand is far more a result of his mathematical advantage on that hand than it is luck. AA vs. 44 is about an 80% favorite. Last time I checked, that is greater than 51%. Thus, in the "single hand" case, there are obvious arguments that poker meets the 51% test. Detailing the argument for poker would be an interesting project, and there are obvious counter-arguments to the AA example I gave, but it shows that the argument has potential.

[tautomer]

Can't it be said that luck in poker evens out in the long term? Whereas in typical gambling the odds are always stacked against you and a "lucky" player will still end up losing to the house.