|
|
|
|
#2
05-03-06, 04:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
|
#3
05-03-06, 04:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. 
Last edited by bunny; 05-03-06 at 04:42 PM. |
|
#4
05-03-06, 04:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is entirely ON topic, sweetheart. You know what's off topic? NASCAR.
"Print it." LOL.
__________________
|
|
#5
05-03-06, 04:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
|
#6
05-03-06, 05:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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!!!
|
|
#7
05-03-06, 04:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
|
|
#8
05-03-06, 05:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
See bold.
|
|
#9
05-03-06, 05:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
