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

[Talking Poker]

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.

[PShabi]

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.

[2Tone]

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

[Talking Poker]

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.

[bunny]

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.

[Aequitas58]

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

"Print it."

LOL.

[2Tone]

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.

[Talking Poker]

The annoying part about this is, if the freaking U.S. would just LEGALIZE and REGULATE online gambling, everyone would be happy - including the poker sites!!!

[Aequitas58]

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.

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.

[Talking Poker]

See bold.

[Aequitas58]

This is great... TP accuses me of being in a "little holier than thou mood today" yet I think he forgets how our little exchange had started:

As to whether poker was a game of chance, I believe I said this:
Poker is a game of chance, IMO.

TP replied with this gem:
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.

Essentially, you called me a losing player, and then brought in the whole "legal" thing. Not that I take it personally, but you don't expect me to reply with SOMETHING? LOL. Put down the John Grisham novel.

As far as the superior intellect comment, you really are a smart guy.

[Aequitas58]

*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.