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

[melioris]

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

[Talking Poker]

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.

[Aequitas58]

Poker is a game of chance, IMO.

[Talking Poker]

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.

[eejit101]

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

[Talking Poker]

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!

[eejit101]

wtf?

[Talking Poker]

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

[SirFWALGMan]

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..

[Talking Poker]

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%.

[Aequitas58]

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.

[eejit101]

nicely nicely done

[Talking Poker]

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.

[Boobie Lover]

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.

[Reel Deal]

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.

[Aequitas58]

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.

[SirFWALGMan]

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..