More legal issues -- looks like I'm about to be a felon
 

There has been surprisingly little coverage of this in the local media, but Washington State has passed a bill making playing poker online a felony.





It won't be be enough for me to do something as radical as, say, stop playing poker online, but I'm certainly not happy about it.

Lou and/or Reel, I hope I don't need to come asking for a defense attorney refferal.

My other option is to contact the various poker sites’ marketing departments. I’ll offer to get arrested so they can sponsor my defense and generate publicity as I become a cause celeb, all in exchange for a WSOP seat. :p

How could this possibly be enforced?????????

dude, that is genious.

I dont know , lately our goverments are taking us for mugs. Some washed up politician doesnt like something and backs a stupid bill there treating us like communists. Its all right for them to fuck-up and get away with it ,but then they try to fuck us up and make it Law.
Our local elections on the 5th and I really cant vote there all crap..

Low risk
 

Certainly the chance of this being enforced on a kind of widespread basis is very unlikely. I’m not attorney, but I’d imagine it potentially could be used by prosecutors looking to add an additional felony to someone they already have on other charges.

Then again, there was a time that the RIAA suing music fans en mass would have been farfetched as well.

To know that I’m committing a felony a few times a week in my living room is disconcerting, even if the chance of ever being charged is slim.

A general service to the forum...
 

It's "genius."

"I'm a teacher, I'll correct typos all day long"

This is ridiculous, but it appears to be genuine. I can't belive it passed damn near unanimously. That firightens me.

IMO, I don't think it WILL be enforced, but it certainly COULD be inforced. Quite easily, in fact.

If online gambling is ever made illegal where I live, I'm telling you right now that I won't stop playing. If and when I get caught though, my defense is going to be that poker is not a game of chance, and therefore should not be included in said law (depending on the wording of the law, of course).

I think that would actually hold up in court too, honestly. I'm also willing to bet (online, even) that I won't be the first person to get busted and use this defense, which will effectively make poker an exception to the law. But if I was... so be it. I guarantee there are a number of poker sites with deep pockets who would love to help me out with my case.

Poker is a game of chance, IMO.

Yes, I realize that losing players believe this. And this is exactly why you won't be my lawyer for this case.

There is chance involved, obviously (like most games), but it's a clearly game of skill. Some people are better at it than others. And it's not because they are luckier.

my current estimate is 60/40 in favour of skill.

Well, it's settled then! I'll just print out that post and take it to court with me, hand it to the judge and brush my hands together not once, not twice, but thrice... and then we will be able to put this silliness behind us forever. Wooohooo! Online poker is legal!

wtf? :(

No, you missed my point. To a court, poker is a game of chance. Here's how I win, and you lose (smart ass):

On the witness stand, you'll say things like, "calculate the odds"... +EV ... value bets ... long term ..." While great things, and important to achieving poker success, you realize that this argument doesn't "pass muster" in court, right?

In a poker hand, Mark, what's the next card to come? Is it the flush card? Will I hit my set? Wait wait - I don't care that you can tell me the odds... I want to know, what is the NEXT card to come? You don't know? So wait, could this be a game of chance? Basically, you're statistically guessing what the next card is based on mathematical calculations?

Even though you can calculate odds and probabilities of a situation (or a future situation) it's still CHANCE whether that card comes. To Congress, poker occurs right now, not in the long term.

nicely nicely done

-Rep for this, eh eejit? Here I thought it was quite funny. Must be an American thing.

Well then I guess everything (and I do mean everything) is based on "chance," right? Let's take.... oh, I don't know.... NASCAR. That'll do. Clearly that doesn't require any skill, right, because each driver's engine COULD blow up or he could be caught up in an accident that wasn't his fault at any given moment, right? I'd like to think that the best drivers would win the most races in the long run, but if the court is insisting on looking at RIGHT NOW and not the long term, and we have no idea who is going to win TODAY'S race (let alone lead the next lap - to compare with your "next card" logic), then clearly there is no skill involved, right? Sure, you could argue that Jimmie Johnson's EV to lead the first lap of today's race is higher than, say, Derrick Cope's, but anything COULD happen, so we just don't know. So I guess it's all luck.

Just like baseball. Sure, the Yankees win more games than the Brewers every single year, but in any given game, the Brewers could beat them, so I guess that's all luck too. Who's going to win TODAY? You don't know. So it must be all luck, right?

Now, you could argue that in order to compare apples to apples here, we'd need to be talking about BETTING on said sports as opposed to participating in them, but that's fine too. Throw Vegas odds out the window for a moment. If betting on these sports is all luck, then I'll take the Yankees and Jimmie Johnson week in and week out, and you take the Brewers and Derrick Cope, and we'll see who ends up with the most money in the end. If it's all luck, in the long run, we should break even. But you and I and anyone with half a brain in this world knows that's not going to be the case.

I said to throw the Vegas odds out the window, but really, they are proof in themselves that these events (and betting on them) are skill based. The lines are to offset the lopsidedness of each event. So yes, betting against perfect lines may be CLOSE to a game of chance, but it's still not exactly. And without lines, CLEARLY this would be a game of skill.

You want me to prove that poker is a game of skill and not chance? Fine. How's this? In court, I'll pick 5 professional players and 5 people from the jury who have little or ideally NO poker experience. We'll give them each $1000 (ideally, they will play with their own money) and let them play a 10 handed game for a couple of hours (sitting in alternating seats, of course) right there in the court room. If poker is a game of chance, then the combined stacks of the pros and the non players should be approximately $5000 each at the end of the session. Of course they won't be exact, but the point is, the non players will have just as good a chance of having more than $5k as the pros do, right? And you know what's gong to happen? The amateurs will NEVER have more money than the pros, even after only 2 hours. If they do, it would be maybe 1 time in 10, if that.... which pretty clearly proves that poker is a game of skill, if you ask me.

I rest my case.

Am I the only one that hasn't forgotten the government is completely and utterly retarded? Seriously, there are many things that you can point to and ask why that law has any business in there today, but it still exists. The government lackies are mostly mindless dolts that just try to appeal to the public's morbid fascination with utter stupidity.

Of course, it should be noted, that I'm a libertarian.

I like your NASCAR analogy here TP. You're not far off the mark. If you think about it: Every NASCAR team pays an entry fee to each race. That money, plus some added money, is then given out as prize money at the end. Kinda like a 43-person tourney. Essentially the drivers ARE gambling: paying a sum of money for a chance to win a larger amount of money after competing in an event where chance comes into play.

(As Aeq and RD throw up their hands in despair, mutter something about "damn armchair lawyers" and go off to drink)

The governemnt which governs best governs least? Thomas Paine if I remember right. :thumbsup: libertarians

Edit: I'm an idiot

Sklansky > TP
 

and I'd pay twice Lou's fees over having TP represent me pro boner.

Sklanksy:


"As can be seen, poker is gambling. Anyone who says it's not or states that when he plays he doesn't gamble, does not understand poker as well as he should. Poker is gambling because your outcomes, for the most part, are not certain."

He later says, "But what sets poker apart from many other gambling games is that your expectation can be positive. You achieve this mainly by exploiting the errors that your opponents make because the money comes from them."



** Sorry TP. You have arguments with sound logic, but they wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

Also Nascar and other sports do have variables that affect the outcome of the event. But, they should not be construed as mere chance. If I'm trying to pass Tony Stewart on the outside in the 4th turn, and he makes a nice move to block me, it didn't occur by chance. Same thing if I make a beautiful drive in a basketball game, beat my man, only to have another player take a charge on me. If offensive player X beats defensive player Y off the dribble, what are the odds of defensive player Z being in good helpside defense to take a charge???????? No, not the same.

The fact that you think "not agreeing" with a law would give you any legal footing in court is laughable.

I don't think marijuana should be included in illegal drug laws. But if I'm smoking a joint in my car tonight and get pulled over, well, you get the point.

I don't think it's the participation aspect that these laws are trying to prevent, I see no rational reason why (or how) the government would pass a law that prevents people from playing poker on-line for free (ie, play chips). It's the gambling aspect that these laws are trying to prevent and so your analogy to other sports becomes irrelevant since in the majority of jurisdictions betting on NASCAR or any other sport is illegal. Whether betting is based on skill or chance, it's the betting (gambling) that the government is trying to curtail.

yeah, you guys are so cool:thumbsup: :D

Poker is a game of skill with chance elements involved.

Now consider that horse racing is lumped squarely in the 'gambling' set and regulated thusly.

Which one of these would you say involves less 'chance'?

Wow... comments above. I took this as seriously as you did. :) Let's take a deep breath and realize that I'm not saying that poker is a game of complete luck, but seriously - it is a game of chance. There is skill associated with those chances, and one can excel, but be honest with yourself.

Sklansky's quote is remarkably close to the point I was making last night. Shabi, what does Sklansky go on to say about NASCAR? He has to mention something - as a great comparison and all. :thumbsup:

The question is moot
 

For me and the rest of us here in Washington, it doesn’t really matter whether poker is a game of skill or chance. Because poker is specifically called out in the legislation as being among the activities prohibited online. Game of skill or game of chance – I’m a felon either way.

Anybody remember the Jesse Jackson SNL game show skit? “Who gets the car?” “I get the car!”

Or, as is the case here, I get the shaft.

I follow what you are saying, and I'm certainly not trying to say that there isn't an element of chance in poker. I'm saying it's not "mere chance" though, just like NASCAR and everything else. And I don't agree with you that I can't control the outcome. If you bet on the turn (try to pass in NASCAR/offense), and I make a pot sized raise (my block/defense), that didn't occur by chance either.

If in poker, everyone placed a bet and then all the cards were dealt out - the hole cards and the entire board - then yes, I would agree that poker was a game of chance. But that's not how it's played. The players have the ability to make good and bad decisions along the way - this is clearly an element of skill. Surely you agree with that, right? Assuming you do, we are in agreement that there is both chance and skill involved in poker. You guys are saying that if there is ANY chance involved, then the entire game is a game of chance and therefore gambling. I'm arguing that if there is ANY skill involved, then it is a game of skill and NOT gambling. At least as far as the law is concerned when it defines gambling as a "game of chance."

There is "chance" in everything we do. When you drove to work this morning, there was a chance that you could have been killed in a car accident by some other driver who fell asleep at the wheel and drifted into your lane or by your tire blowing or by a zillion other possible random events. But there is absolutely NO WAY that you could be cited for "gambling" for driving to work this morning. Speeding, reckless driving, DUI - sure. But gambling? No. It wouldn't hold up in court, despite the element of chance.

The part of your post that I highlighted above should be more than enough to make any jury understand that poker is not MERELY a game of chance. In the end, the more skilled players will win the most money and the less skilled players will lose the most. And that's all there is to it. You CAN have a positive expectation in poker, where in every other casino game, and certainly in your state's lottery, for example, you can not.

Go ahead and hire Lou and pay double his rate. I still like my chances against you.

This is a good point. But remember, when you are betting on horses, you are betting with odds - odds that ensure the house turns a profit in the end. Because of this (and any time you are betting against lines), you have -EV and are in fact gambling.

If every single horse paid out on the same odds (fair odds too - no juice for the house), then betting on horses would be a game of skill and absolutely could not be considered gambling, IMO.

I am being honest with myself and everyone else. Meanwhile you are making your little (failed) attempts at humor instead of using sound logic to support your case. So you tell me who' not taking things seriously.

And hopefully by now you realize that I'm not saying the poker is a game of complete skill, but there is certainly skill involved that directly affects the long term outcome of the game, therefor making it NOT merely a game of chance.

So.... I'm curious. Will you be:

1. Cheating on your income taxes?
2. Reporting your income as general gambling income and not mentioning that it was from online play?
3. Reporting income from an illegal activity?

And yes, I realize that the law was written to make online poker illegal. My point is that the law is faulty and should be rewritten, excluding poker, since it is not merely a game of chance.

"Oh, but it's the law!" shouts Aeq. "You can't challenge LAWS!" he states.

Fortunately for me, he's wrong - that's not how it works in this country. Laws are added (see above), modified, and overturned all the time. And this law right here is just waiting to be attacked. Wait and see.

Death ... by Bunga-Bunga!
 

Boy, there’s an appealing set of choices, huh?

I’ll plan on going with door #2, but sure am not happy about it.

You're examples do not hold up, TP. Yeah, I guess there's a "chance" that I could get involved in a car accident on the way to work. However, Lou isn't laying the forum 3:1 odds and then paying out bets according to whether or not I wrecked.

A nascar race, or baseball game do not involve wagering by the particpants. Well, at least they aren't supposed to.

Let me highlight Sklansky one more time:
"...poker is gambling. Anyone who says it's not or states that when he plays he doesn't gamble, does not understand poker as well as he should."

I can't believe you took that quote and tried to use it to defend your stance TP.

I haven't seen anyone say that poker is "MERELY" a game of chance. However, there is a significant amount of chance involved, and you are wagering.

Bottom line:

Chance helps determine unpredictable outcomes and there is WAGERING involved on those outcomes.

This is why poker is, was, and always will be gambling. You're other examples may also involve chance, but NONE OF THEM involve wagering. That's why I think they're bunk.

Please understand, no one supports a ban on online poker in here. However, the law is written and you are NEVER, EVER going to be able to go into a court and prove that poker is not gambling.

Ummmm, are you sure Nascar driver's pay entry fees? I don't think they do. Someone in the know confirm this please.

1. You're the one not taking things seriously. You brought up NASCAR. You don't know the general rule of intellectual debate? The first to bring up NASCAR loses by default.

2. There is no need to continue "debating." I made a point, you disagreed, Sklansky (and Shabi!) agree, and you still fail to see my point. There's nothing left to talk about.

3. The quote about rules never changing: That's dirty debating. Rules and laws change everyday, so don't start with all that. I'm simply pointing out that your argument doesn't work. Geez.

*sigh*

Forgetting the banter about Lou's pay rate / retainer / TP v. Lou in cyber court, you seem really convinced of your position. I don't think there's anything I can say (or Sklansky can confirm) that would make you possibly change your mind.

That's too bad.

Actually you are incorrect here, and as a poker player I would think you'd know better. To sum up:

Horse Racing: House takes X% of the betting pool, then leaves it to the bettors.

Poker: House takes X% of the betting pool, then...you see.

Just as you find poker players who are just 'goofing around' or don't really understand pot odds and other factors, so you find horseplayers who bet on a horse who looks pretty, or a jockey with the same name as a relative, etc. Same thing, you are capitalizing on mistakes made by your competition to derive a long-term profit.

Perhaps a simple way to explain the difference is, in horse racing the cards are all face up, and you can only bet before the community cards are dealt. :D

Oh yeah, and please don't make the mistake of assuming that a court of law would consider this issue the exact same way we're doing now. :p

I believe he rested his case earlier in the thread. So, I guess it's too late for that.

Objection!

And like a good neighbor …
 

While Lou is not … I think this serves an accurate and succinct description of the entire automotive insurance industry.

From this article:

It's about halfway down the page.

To those who still believe poker is "merely" (I think Lou used that word first, but I'm too lazy to go back and look) a game of chance, please forget all the examples I attempted to bring up. Admittedly, they aren't very good ones. Instead, focus on this:

I think the big assumption that I've been making here, which is probably incorrect, is that "Gambling" = "Game of Chance." If the law defines gambling otherwise, well, there's not much left to say (other then to try to get the laws changed).

But tell me..... why is gambling illegal in CA, yet poker is allowed? The answer, for those not in the know, is because CA understands that poker is a game of skill.

====================

I needed to draw that line because this post is about to take a huge turn. I decided to do a bit of research on this, and found a quote that I think may prove your points. Apparently, when a court looks at something and determines if it is a game of skill or a game of chance, they are trying to figure out which it is MORE of. Courts seem to ignore the long run when it is very long, as it is with poker. In poker, chance FAR outweighs skill in the short term (not meaning the turn of a card, as Lou suggested, but even a number of sessions - thousands and thousands of hands).... so I guess it sucks to be us.

Here's the quote I found most useful:

You rest your case.

Hmm.
 

I would probably play too.. I mean we have all spent years doing one of the following illegal activities are one point or another: Downloading games, Downloading Music, Downloading Movies, Stealing Cable Service, etc, etc.. the list goes on and on.. Of course there is always Foxwoods..

Good point..
 

I like your point.. Usually when I get involved in a hand I am at least 60-40, sometimes 80-20, so that is the skill vs luck element, right, I would say for me Poker is 80% skill and 20% luck..

I will probably get boo'ed for this, but here goes nothing....
 

Most online poker games are operated from foreign countries, right? Well, I think the real reason why your government is trying to pass this bill is because it's not profitable for them. The online poker industry has taken off and it's killing the casino's (which are government approved). Your government can state whatever they like about why online gambling should be made illegal...bottom line is that they aren't profitting from it and that's why they want it out.

ps: Sorry, if I went off topic.:o

You rest your case? What does that even mean? Do you think you won?

How long did it take you to compile ONE decent argument? How much time did you spend on Google hoping to find quote that would even begin to refute anything I was saying?

Everything I posted was basically typing and talking. I think you were off the mark many times in this thread, and it's good to see you backpeddle and fix the mistakes. :thumbsup:

As far as the California law, all I can say is AWESOME. I wish state courts would think like along these lines (ala CA) but that's certainly not the case. Cali is an ODD state... they do their bar exam different, and the government is extremely liberal. I would try to explain to you that the Washington State Court can only look at the CA case as persuasive and not binding, but you'd probably argue with me about that too.

This is entirely ON topic, sweetheart. You know what's off topic? NASCAR.

"Print it."

LOL.

Amen sister
 

This is extremely relevant, and no doubt the reason this legislation was passed.

The same week I learned of this, I received a coupon in the mail for a free Washington State lottery ticket. More to the point, our state is full of Native America casinos, who are also very heavy campaign contributors. Just ask Jack Abramoff.

This has nothing to do with curtailing gambling, and everything to do with curtailing competition.

These numbers are completely dependent on time. In a given turn of a card, poker is 100% luck and 0% skill. Over the course of a lifetime, it's maybe 1% luck and 99% skill. So it really depends what amount of time you are referring to.

For a give session though (short term), I'd say it's at least 75% luck. Probably closer to 90%.