Judge Says Poker Is A Game Of Skill, Not Chance -- Could Impact Legality Of Online Poker
from the skill-vs.-chance dept
While there's an effort underway to repeal the federal government's ban on online gambling, a recent legal ruling could help out a bit as well. A judge in South Carolina found that poker should be considered a game of skill, rather than a game of chance. Of course, in dealing with the state law at issue in that case, the result didn't matter -- as the law didn't distinguish between skill and chance. However, the rather murky set of federal laws that have been used to fight online gambling may not cover "games of skill." The problem is... well... no one's quite sure what it really covers. Basically, there's no real anti-gambling law. There are certain laws, like the Wire Act, that have been used against online gambling -- and the more recent law (oddly included as part of a harbor protection bill) was more focused on stopping financial institutions from accepting money used for gambling. But, with the judge's ruling, some are pointing out that this means online poker shouldn't be considered gambling -- and the other federal laws shouldn't apply (state laws are a different matter, however).Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Definition of gamble
above from webster
I'm not sure that having skill involved makes it any less gambling than pure chance. It's the fact that money is at stake in an uncertain event that makes it gambling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of gamble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of gamble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition of gamble
Horse racing is legal gambling. It's an exception. As is Riverboat gambling and Las vegas. For that Matter so is the lottery. (which techdirt has brought up in the past).
What you are actually asking for is a legalized exception for online poker. You can make the case that it's because skill is involved, but that really what is irrelevant. It's still gambling and it's still illegal under the current law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
"I could go to Vegas and win the World Series of Poker. I could not walk out on a golf course and beat Tiger Woods. Ever.
Nuff said."
Dude, that is just so OFF.
First off, you can't beat Tiger Woods unless you get very good at golf. If you are very good at golf, there's numerous people in the world that can claim to have beaten or outlasted Tiger in a tournament. (He's obviously the best though.)
You can't just walk into the WSOP with no knowledge of No Limit Texas Hold 'Em, and think you'll win.
You have to learn the game. And, if you think you can wade through that minefield with no experience at all, you're clueless.
Every single one of the WSOP winners had some form of experience playing the game. Jamie Gold, even, perhaps one of the douchiest players, had won quite a few casino tournaments before playing the WSOP.
You have to develop SOME form of skill to win this game. And, without question, skill shows over time.
Thinking one game proves whether someone has skill or not is like basing Tiger Wood's game on one game. No, instead, you base it on all of his accomplishments put together. In one game, he can easily not win. But, over his lifetime, it's hard telling how much he will accomplish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get the cards and you could win. Luck. Me, you, anyone. Hard to beat the best hand. Sure, it takes skill, but luck is the overriding factor in poker.
Dan Harrington was interviewed going into the final session and asked his odds of winning. He stated "I have 13 percent of the chips left, you say I am the best player in the world, so I would say I have a 20% chance of winning"
So in a poker players estimate, skill only added 7% to his ability to win. Now, maybe he was just being modest, maybe take that to 40%.
Tiger still kicks my ass every day on the golf course.
Luck is the main factor in poker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if you have the royal flush, during the rounds of betting a well seasoned player will be able to use this to his advantage and bet as if he was playing a modest hand in order make the pot larger. summed up: with 100% chance of winning one hand, the amount of the winnings vary determined by skill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Harrington putting himself at 20% to win at a table of 9-10 people is huge. If he has that kind of edge all the time in that situation, he's going to make a lot of money. And he does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Betting on sports may require skill as well, for example studying the participants' performance in certain conditions (his father was a mudder, his mother was a mudder). These skills however do not help to determine the outcome, they only mitigate the gambler's risk. Therefore betting on sports is not a game of skill.
Betting on sports is like betting on who will win a poker game. And that right there, "poker game" I think helps define it as well. It is game, and the participants are "poker players" and poker could be played without the need for monetary exchange, a point system could easily be substituted (but that would resemble the marketability of non-alcoholic beer).
Anyway, I think it makes sense that poker be considered a game of skill...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like the stock and commodity markets to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gambling, while perhaps equally risky to the stock market, is not productive. The money goes in strictly for the purpose of a possible return, and does nothing else in the mean time. Gambling is, by definition, win-lose.
Yes, there are bad companies out there that do nothing productive with investment money. However, investment in general is crucial to the economy and the operations of businesses. Gambling is simply a transfer of funds between parties with no net gain in the larger picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I suppose the real reason they do it, or so ive heard is because of something to do with money laundering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I think gambling would be less damaging if it were unregulated. The scale of loss is a lot more controlled when you have a bunch of middle-income guys playing poker in the garage with limited skill. Plus, simple reputation pushes cheaters out of the game. Consensual gambling should be perfectly legal. I think you are right that money laundering and tax evasion are the key reasons that it isn't. That makes no sense, however, since no wealth is being produced. The government has already taxed that money no matter whose hands it is in.
Instead, a person who wants to gamble has to fulfill that desire through a government-approved "professional" gambling facility. They are professional, in that they are professionally skilled at taking your money and ALWAYS having a net win. They are so large that the scale of loss can become ruinous to the individual. They also have the money and power to influence politicians to pass laws that favor them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luck
I think the issue here is not the luck or the skill but the money being bet. Now I have no problem with someone betting their money away, it's their money. I would guess there are as many people out there that have shopping addictions as there are gambling addictions. Nobody is making it illegal to blow all your cash on a new radio, so why is it illegal to blow your money on a bet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, in a given tournament luck is going to be a huge factor. But over the long run, years of play, the better players are going to win. Poker is too complex to simply say that luck is an overriding factor. Luck evens out in the end, and it's the skilled players that are ultimately going to profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same 5 guys are at the final table every year? What poker have you been watching? The last 5 winners have been people no one ever heard of. Moneymaker? He turned into the John Daily of poker.
Fact, amateurs have won the last 5 main events. Did 5 amateurs win the last Masters?
Are some better than others? Of course. On any given night, I could take Phil Helmuths money. On any given day, Tiger is keeping his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if someone "can out-play you" that is by definition skill.
a significant number of poker hands never go to showdown. This is because when faced with the multiple decisions to fold/bet/call/raise during the play of any given hand, most players DECIDE to fold at some point before the hand gets to show down. That decision-making process requires SKILL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To all those that think poker is just luck...
Seriously, one hand can be one by someone with luck. The skill factor makes the difference when many hands are involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History repeating itself
This is the exact same thing, it's not a problem with the action or the service (other than the source), but about who is profiting from the activity. If online gambling was being taxed and the US government was getting their appropriate cut (they seem to feel 30-40% is 'appropriate' most of the time), then it would be legal and there would be no problem. However since most of the online gambling sites are outside the US, the US gets no cut of the action, and so their natural reaction is to make the entire action illegal (worked for Drugs and Terrorism, right?).
Working at the speed of Government....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless of course, the pro players really are not all that good and it is all just marketing, then maybe it is a game of skill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
decided a long time ago in Cali
The laws used to "stop" online gaming are weak, mostly using intimidation tactics to get banks to toe the line. Yet you can go online to any of the major poker systems and find that probably 25% of all the players are from the US. With Bush and his bullies out of office, I expect to see a change in this soon enough, perhaps a move to tax it on a federal level instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meaningless argument since no one said it was all skill.
Just because luck is involved doesn't mean skill isn't involved.
not one "pro" player has won the main event in the last 5 years.
Greg Raymer was a known and well-respected poker player in poker community and routinely played in the high-stakes games in his local casino.
Joe Hachem was a pro online player
Peter Eastgate was a pro online player
In poker the amateur/pro distinction is almost meaningless... there is no criteria for being a 'pro' other than one saying they play for a living. plus there is no way to actually confirm that the player is actually earning a living playing poker.
Just because someone is an amateur doesn't mean they don't have skill.
In deed luck does play a significant role in short-term poker results and that combined with the large ratio of 'unknown' players to 'known' players means that a 'unknown' player is more likely to win the WSOP.
However, unknown doesn't necessarily mean unskilled or amateur and known doesn't necessarily mean skilled or professional.
Poker is not all skill or all luck. It is something in between.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there skill? Of course there is, but that is only a part of it.
Is there luck in sports? Of course, but it is a smaller part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take someone who knows nothing about investing. Could he pick something that performs better in a week, month, even a whole quarter than Warren Buffett's investments? It certainly is conceivable, and has happened before. However, that doesn't mean that he's got the same chances as the Oracle of Omaha. Long term, Warren Buffett will crush him or pretty much anyone else in the investment market.
Poker is the same way. A single win or loss of a hand is statistically insignificant. It is a long-term game of skill despite the fact that money changes hands in the short term, based upon chance.
Yes, it requires some luck for a professional to win a poker tournament, it always does. However, their chances are far, far higher than an entirely new person to the game.
Poker IS gambling, but it is important to remember that all gambling has a statistical edge. In chance games like roulette, the edge goes to the house because of the 0 and 00. In poker, it is skill-based gambling where the statistical "edge" goes to the more skilled players, rather than an "edge" that goes to the house, producing long term gains and losses based upon that edge.
So again, poker IS gambling, AND it is a skill-based game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]