|
|
|
|
#1
05-05-07, 11:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
I've heard "gambling ON a game of chance." But where have you heard "gambling = game of chance?" That makes no sense to me. What if two kids gamble on who will have a higher SAT score? Or if two MLB players bet on who will have the higher batting average at the end of the season? Or two golfers betting on who will have the lowest round of the day?
If you can affect the outcome of the event in question, I don't see how anyone could say it's chance, and not skill. |
|
#2
05-05-07, 06:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I may have misread it.
 I agree with you 100%. Maybe I'm just obsessed with ranting against the "poker isn't gambling" crowd.  
__________________
"Animals die, friends die, and I shall die. But the one thing that will never die is the reputation I leave behind." Old Norse adage |
|
#3
05-05-07, 07:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
watching from Canada
Haven't some individual states determined poker to be a game of skill? That would have to be some kind of useful precedent when arguing the case in Washington.
__________________
poopity, poopity pants. |
|
#4
05-06-07, 06:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
California has ruled poker to be a game of skill. Other states have ruled it to be a game of chance. (according to the article)
What we need is a solid ruling from a Circuit Court that the Wire Act does not apply to internet poker. After that, how its handled will be up to the individual States, which is as it should be if anyone takes the 9th and 10th amendments seriously.
__________________
"Animals die, friends die, and I shall die. But the one thing that will never die is the reputation I leave behind." Old Norse adage |
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
