Poker, Harvard, and legal effort.

[vyni]

Just read an article that is worth sharing.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/0 ... investing/

Is poker a game of skill? Is investing?
As sports columnist Blackie Sherrod once wrote "If you bet on a horse, that's gambling. If you bet you can make three spades, that's entertainment. If you bet cotton will go up three points, that's business. See the difference?"

Apparently the law sees a principled distinction between these three forms of betting, and poker enthusiasts and Harvard professors are doing research to try to prove that poker is a game of skill, in the hope that such a determination could lead to the legalization of online poker betting. According to the Wall Street Journal, our government categorizes games that are considered to be dominated by chance are gambling, while those that are mainly skill are not. Congressman Barney Frank has introduced a bill that would legalize online gambling, saying that gambling is a personal freedom issue.

But here's what I don't understand: How can you possibly argue that day-trading Pink Sheets stocks is a game of skill, but poker is a game of chance? Does anyone honestly think that?

You could possibly argue that day-trading is legal because it serves an economic purpose -- the liquidity that trading provides encourages investment. Without the ability to sell shares, people would be less likely to invest in American businesses.

But online poker can serve an economic function as well: By legitimizing the games, the government could collect tax revenue. And with record deficits and a soaring national debt, doesn't the government have better things to do than battle the imaginary dragon of online poker? Maybe they could start by getting rid of the The Lottery.

[khaosanroad]

A NC apeals court recently ruled that poker is a game of chance.

But what would you expect from a judge in the bible belt?

[vyni]

yep.
Nothing spectacular about the article, just opted to share it. The legal contest of poker is an ongoing (and likely never ending) story. Just thought this one was worth the share.

The russian government recently declared poker a game of skill, but state side it's labeled chance which is so debatable...

Its safely argued that any single hand of poker is pure chance (luck of the draw). Skill prevails and becomes a factor over the course of many many hands, but where is the line drawn and how is that applied legally? If you play 3 hands you're gambling, but if you play 300,000 you're not?

I hate to be the pessimist, but I don't think we'll ever see this one fall our way in a state/federal court. Not to the degree that we can state poker had been legally declared a skill game. That doesn't mean it should be prohibited though. Active regulation is certainly the correct solution.

[supafrey]

Its safely argued that any single hand of poker is pure chance (luck of the draw).

I really don't think that argument is that "safe". Casinos don't gamble and regularly take muuuuch smaller edges than what a good poker player can get.

[Casey ATB]

Its safely argued that any single hand of poker is pure chance (luck of the draw).

I really don't think that argument is that "safe". Casinos don't gamble and regularly take muuuuch smaller edges than what a good poker player can get.

Nope. Not true. Casinos do gamble, inasmuch as they take a chance, but a much smaller chance than the rest of us.

[snoogins47]

A NC apeals court recently ruled that poker is a game of chance.

But what would you expect from a judge in the bible belt?

As a Midwestern Agnostic/Atheist Heathen who loves poker, without knowing the specifics, I'd have to say I'd probably end up ruling the same.

As much as nobody wants to accept it, poker is a game with a massive element of dumb luck and randomness. The problem doesn't lie there really, the problem lies in strange, arbitrary, archaic definitions and morality that comes with terms like 'gambling' and 'wagering.' If we could somehow stop quibbling over what the words meant we might be able to get somewhere.

One of the stumbling blocks I'm surprised I haven't seen anybody bring up is that quite simply, in poker, the only way you gain an edge is by betting better than your opponents. That, even if it's only noted subconsciously, probably gives poker a much worse chance of being 'tolerated' than most other card games and stuff like backgammon. In that sense poker is actually more similar to a hyper-situational game of roulette or something than it is to your average 'game of skill.'

[lwestatbus]

I hate to be the pessimist, but I don't think we'll ever see this one fall our way in a state/federal court. Not to the degree that we can state poker had been legally declared a skill game. That doesn't mean it should be prohibited though. Active regulation is certainly the correct solution.

I think I remember hearing somewhere that the reason poker rooms are allowed in California is that several decades ago either the California legislature or Attorney General ruled that poker was a game of skill, hence the legality.

Now here's an opportunity. Federal law or regulation (don't know which) for automobile emissions sets certain targets but allows individual states to adopt the California standard instead of the Federal standard. No other options are allowed, either Federal or California--no modification to either, no Florida standard, Texas standard, etc. All we need is one of those midnight earmark legislative ammendments to modify the emission standard legislation to include "and California's definition of poker as a game of skill".

After all, the online gambling prohibition act was actually a midnight ammendment to another bill. Turn about is certainly fair play.