Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,446
    Thanks
    246
    Thanked 1,400 Times in 850 Posts

    Default American judge rules poker is sort of a game of skill

    A federal judge ruled poker is a game skill under a narrow reading of the federal Illegal Gambling Business Act, but it is definitely gambling under New York state law.

    Buzzy suspects vinism will have more on this once he's read the 120-page ruling. In case you want to read it yourself, here it is.

    http://www.apcw.org/legal-documents/U-SvCristina.pdf

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Buzz For This Useful Post:

    pdjoe (21 August 2012), Smoking (21 August 2012)

  3. #2
    boczom1's Avatar
    boczom1 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    December 2001
    Posts
    844
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 19 Times in 15 Posts

    Default

    all the problems in the world, yet our politicians still have time to play around with a 120 page document to justify whether or not Poker is a skill.

    Now we know where our tax money goes..

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to boczom1 For This Useful Post:

    lots0 (22 August 2012), Smoking (21 August 2012)

  5. #3
    TheGooner's Avatar
    TheGooner is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,153
    Thanks
    1,884
    Thanked 4,072 Times in 1,935 Posts

    Default

    The judge is correct. It has skills - but it's definitely gambling.

    Anyone wanting to argue that point is welcome to play all the online poker games for matchsticks that they want.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to TheGooner For This Useful Post:

    Smoking (21 August 2012)

  7. #4
    Smoking's Avatar
    Smoking is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    720
    Thanks
    355
    Thanked 157 Times in 136 Posts

    Default

    oh so I should not play online poker from my NY residence
    opps been doing it over and over for many years


    Bet Source for Casino Affiliates
    Visit BubbleProtection.com Now
    Post a quality gambling related article in http://www.gamblingshares.com the up and coming Premier Gambling Article Site

  8. #5
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Editor Emeritus
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 336 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    I'm still reading through the ruling, and I'll post my full thoughts on this tomorrow (I need to sleep on a couple of things). But just to give you a basic framework in which to think about this ruling, here are some bullet points:


    • This ruling is about a lot more than whether poker is a skill game.
    • The judge views the federal Illegal Gambling Business Act as unclear, which is a significant factor in which why this indictment was dismissed.
    • The fact that IGBA was originally designed as a tool to prosecute organized crime (read mafia) -- and there was no organized crime element in this played a large part in this as well.
    • Because the IGBA didn't do a good job of defining gambling, the judge was able to construct an argument to dismiss the indictment. Part of that argument is poker is not gambling as defined (or not defined) by IGBA.
    • The judge really didn't like how the government handled and presented its "expert" witness on poker.
    • And finally, poker is very much NOT a skill game under New York law, and under state law in much of the U.S.

    I'm still working out what all of this means. I'll post more tomorrow on it.

  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to vinism For This Useful Post:

    Anthony (21 August 2012), cass (22 August 2012), lots0 (22 August 2012), oc+ (22 August 2012), Smoking (21 August 2012)

  10. #6
    Smoking's Avatar
    Smoking is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    720
    Thanks
    355
    Thanked 157 Times in 136 Posts

    Default

    Thanks vinism very much looking forward to hear/read your thoughts


    Bet Source for Casino Affiliates
    Visit BubbleProtection.com Now
    Post a quality gambling related article in http://www.gamblingshares.com the up and coming Premier Gambling Article Site

  11. #7
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Editor Emeritus
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 336 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    Here's the story I just posted on this.

    Does it matter that a judge thinks there's skill in poker?

    22 August 2012
    By Vin Narayanan

    A federal judge ruled yesterday that poker is more a game of skill than a game of chance. That ruling led to the dismissal of federal charges against Lawrence DiCristina for violating the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA). DiCristina had been running a raked poker game and kept profits the game generated after paying waitresses and dealers.

    "The fundamental question is not whether some chance or skill is involved in poker, but what element predominates," wrote Judge Jack Weinstein. "To predominate, skill must account for a greater percentage of the outcome than chance -- i.e. more than 50 percent.

    "Because the poker played on the defendant's premises is not predominately a game of chance, it is not gambling as defined by IGBA.

    "(The) federal court ruling is a major victory for the game of poker and the millions of Americans who enjoy playing it," said John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA). "Judge Weinstein's thoughtful decision recognizes what we have consistently argued for years: poker is not a crime, it is a game of skill. As the judge's opinion aptly notes, poker is an American pastime that is deeply embedded in the history and fabric of our nation and his decision sets aside the notion that the vague laws render the game criminal."

    While the ruling is certainly a big win for DiCristina, what it means for poker is less clear.

    Here's a look at the ruling, and my answers to some key questions.

    So this is it, right? A judge said poker is a skill game. That means we're going get online poker back.
    Not so fast. A judge said poker was more skill than chance, and that it didn't meet IGBA's definition of gambling. He didn't say poker wasn't gambling. Weinstein made it very clear in his ruling that DiCristina's game was clearly illegal under New York state law, where a "material" element of chance, instead of IGBA's preponderance test, makes running a raked game an illegal gambling act. He also noted it would be illegal in other states as well. For online poker to happen, it can't violate state or federal laws.

    So at least the federal part is clear now. Poker is definitely a game of skill as far as the government is concerned.
    That remains to be seen. This judge certainly thinks that skill outweighs chance. But the reason that matters is because the judge believed IGBA was really unclear/non-specific when it came to a game like poker. And in the law, there's thing called the rule of lenity. It's basically like a tie going to the runner in baseball. In court, when a law is ambiguous, it should be interpreted/applied in favor of the defendant.

    In this case, the judge found it hard to tell what construed illegal gambling under the IGBA. So he accepted and applied an explanation that favored DiCristina.

    Wait a minute, I thought the whole point of IGBA is you have to violate a state law in order to trigger federal prosecution and punishment. So if DiCristina violated state law like the judge said, why is the federal charge being dismissed?
    That's a really good question. Weinstein notes in his rulings that many, if not most courts, rely on this interpretation of IGBA. Weinstein chose not to. Weinstein also ruled that in addition to a criminal act meeting the state's definition of gambling, it also had to meet IGBA's definition. Weinstein says poker does not meet IGBA's definition of illegal gambling.

    This ruling has turned conventional wisdom regarding IGBA on its head. It presumes poker violates New York state law -- which many attorneys would argue is not the case -- and it adds an additional test of making sure the activity falls within IGBA's parameters for gambling. Because it is at odds with other rulings, it's hard to say just how important this is.

    The good news is a judge found skill trumped chance in poker. The bad news is this is only one judge saying this, and his interpretation of IGBA may not hold up in the long run. We'll have to wait and see if this ruling is appealed and watch how other courts rule on this.

    Was there anything else that impacted the judge's decision?
    Yes. Another big element in the case was the purpose of IGBA, which was essentially to after organized crime. So it was plausible that the only forms of gambling that Congress was trying to outlaw were the ones organized crime was heavily into, which is why pool selling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette, dice games, lotteries and numbers games were included in the text of the IGBA. It was also plausible that the law meant to accept any violation of state gambling law. But because the tie goes to the defendant, the judge took a narrower view.

    Also, it looks like the prosecution did a lousy job with its expert witness. The government's "expert" didn't play poker, didn't know much about poker and had not studied the expert testimony provided by the defense that poker was a game a skill. The judge was not impressed.

    OK. My head hurts now. Thanks a lot. What does this all mean?
    It's too soon to tell. It's good that a federal judge ruled that the predominate element of poker is skill. This is something that politicians can point when writing laws that ensure poker players can pursue their pastime or profession. But whether this has a lasting impact is largely dependant on other people and other events. Will this ruling be appealed? Will other courts agree with this ruling? Are there other laws that can be used instead of IGBA to go after poker?

    Combine that with the fact the judge believes DiCristina's game was clearly illegal under New York state law and it becomes clear poker players didn't hit the jackpot this week. But it was progress. And that's a good thing.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vinism For This Useful Post:

    Anthony (23 August 2012), Smoking (22 August 2012)

  13. #8
    AngryRant is offline New Member
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoking View Post
    oh so I should not play online poker from my NY residence
    opps been doing it over and over for many years Pius Heinz
    Like many other US Poker fans... The sooner they legalize it the sooner they can take the tax money.

  14. #9
    grem's Avatar
    grem is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2010
    Location
    CBN
    Posts
    1,451
    Blog Entries
    19
    Thanks
    254
    Thanked 418 Times in 205 Posts

    Default

    Just like investing and playing with the stock markets

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGooner View Post
    The judge is correct. It has skills - but it's definitely gambling.

    Anyone wanting to argue that point is welcome to play all the online poker games for matchsticks that they want.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •