SC judge says poker a skill game

[The Buzz]

The judge in the case of five South Carolina poker players busted at a home game said it was clear to him that poker is a game of skill. However, he still has to decide if the defendants broke the law.

From Card Player:

Before the defendants’ attorney even finished his closing argument, the judge spoke up and made his opinion known.

Texas hold’em is a game of skill. There was no doubt in his mind.

While that belief is old news to many poker players, there haven’t been many instances where a judge has explicitly vocalized it in a court of law. But Municipal Judge J. Lawrence Duffy did exactly that on Friday in Charleston, South Carolina in the middle of one of biggest poker-related trials of the new year.

“It really shocked us,” said Bob Chimento, one of the five defendants in the case. “I don’t personally know how he can’t rule in our favor.”

The decision will be announced Thursday.

[AndreS]

But the town attorney prosecuting the case seems to argue that even if an activity doesn't meet the definition of illegal gambling, participants should be guilty anyway cause they're gambling.

If that makes you step back and say , "Huh?", well, you're no more confused than legal experts trying to follow the case against five poker players from Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. The presiding judge has said he has determined that Texas Hold'em is a game of skill, not chance, as is normally considered necessary to qualify as illegal gambling.

But town attorney Ira Grossman says the case isn't about whether poker is skill or chance, the case is about running a house of illegal gambling. Of course, if poker isn't gambling...

lol - how do these people even get jobs

http://www.onlinecasinoadvisory.com/...near-42562.htm

[shar61]

I live in near by North Carolina and seen this on T.V. and will be watching to see what will happen in this case. I'd like to know how they get these jobs myself...lol

[Caruso]

Gambling: the risking of a commodity on an event whose outcome is undetermined at the given moment in time.

Of course poker, like all other games positive EV or otherwise, is gambling.

The skill element is irrelevant to the definition of gambling.

[CityGuard]

But from a legal perspective gambling is more specific than risking something on a future event -- for example, putting $5 on a game of chess would not be considered gambling.

Why? Gambling (from a legal perspective) requires that three conditions are met:
1. Prize
2. Chance
3. Consideration (meaning there is a cost to participate)

The "consideration" requirement is why many sweepstakes offer the chance to get a free entry by submitting a request, since allowing free entry means there is no consideration necessary.

But this three-part test also means that if it is categorized as a game of skill rather than a game of chance it is not gambling even if money is at stake.

[lionslots]

But the town attorney prosecuting the case seems to argue that even if an activity doesn't meet the definition of illegal gambling, participants should be guilty anyway cause they're gambling.

If that makes you step back and say , "Huh?", well, you're no more confused than legal experts trying to follow the case against five poker players from Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. The presiding judge has said he has determined that Texas Hold'em is a game of skill, not chance, as is normally considered necessary to qualify as illegal gambling.

But town attorney Ira Grossman says the case isn't about whether poker is skill or chance, the case is about running a house of illegal gambling. Of course, if poker isn't gambling...

lol - how do these people even get jobs

http://www.onlinecasinoadvisory.com/...near-42562.htm

Exactly what AndreS said. How do these people even get jobs

[Caruso]

Of course, if entry is free and nothing is risked, it cannot be gambling for the player. The company, on the other hand, in risking THEIR money, is gambling, assuming that the player can win money from his free shot.

If the £5 is put on the game of chess by the player, ie. the money is risked by that player, he is gambling.

But this three-part test also means that if it is categorized as a game of skill rather than a game of chance it is not gambling even if money is at stake.

This is nonsensical. The "skill" element remains, as always, independent of both the definition of gambling and the "three way test" (whose criteria I agree with).

The only way poker could be considered NOT gambling would be in the form of free entry tournaments, somewhat akin to playing at home for matchsticks. That isn't gambling.

However, once you put up an entry fee, once you have a "consideration", you're gambling, as there is risk.

In essence:

Of course poker is a game of skill. Any game in which the players can make decisions, and those decisions affect the return, is a skill-based game.

Of course poker is gambling, with stake, risk and payout option.

You can say poker is a skill game. You cannot say poker is a skill game and therefore not gambling. This is out and out ridiculous. Poker is a gambling game of skill, like blackjack and video poker etc.

[Amateur]

Caruso, dictionary definitions and "legal" definitions are two entirely different things. Just as the "psych" definition for insanity and the "legal" definiion for insanity are two different things.

That's why the reasoning for the prosecutor calls into question his fitness for his position. He is supposed to know the difference, and know the state law before he brought the case.

Of course, if entry is free and nothing is risked, it cannot be gambling for the player. The company, on the other hand, in risking THEIR money, is gambling, assuming that the player can win money from his free shot.

If the £5 is put on the game of chess by the player, ie. the money is risked by that player, he is gambling.



This is nonsensical. The "skill" element remains, as always, independent of both the definition of gambling and the "three way test" (whose criteria I agree with).

The only way poker could be considered NOT gambling would be in the form of free entry tournaments, somewhat akin to playing at home for matchsticks. That isn't gambling.

However, once you put up an entry fee, once you have a "consideration", you're gambling, as there is risk.

In essence:

Of course poker is a game of skill. Any game in which the players can make decisions, and those decisions affect the return, is a skill-based game.

Of course poker is gambling, with stake, risk and payout option.

You can say poker is a skill game. You cannot say poker is a skill game and therefore not gambling. This is out and out ridiculous. Poker is a gambling game of skill, like blackjack and video poker etc.

[Caruso]

Caruso, dictionary definitions and "legal" definitions are two entirely different things.

They most certianly will be. Laws rarely read like dictionaries. So:

1) What is Californian (or anywhere, really) law's definition of "gambling"?

2) Does Caifornian (or wherever) law's definition of gambling include a clause to the effect of "...any skill element excludes any possibility of gambling occuring - the two are mutually exclusive"?

That would be absurd.

Looking for a US carve-out for poker is one thing. Looking for a carve-out at any cost, on the basis of these bogus arguments, really is coming it some. If poker isn't gambling because of the "skill" element, then neither is blackjack, video poker and sports betting.

Is anyone going to tell me that they are also "non-gambling" games?

[Amateur]

Caruso, I'm not arguing that what you're saying makes sense, however, we are talking about lawyers here. If things make sense, we wouldn't have to pay them the big bucks, would we? That's how they make their living, obfuscation and legalese.

Laws are written by lawyers, after all. Who believes that Charles Manson is sane, but California decided he was when they sentenced him to death (later commuted to life sentence).

The issue here is what SC defines as "gambling", since SC clearly outlaws "gambling", however that is defined by state law. If it is even defined, or left to the judge to decide, based on his/her criteria. If that judge decided that "gambling" does not include "games of skill", then it's up to SC to pass a law that says otherwise.

[The Buzz]

A ruling has been made in this case.

According to the AP, Mount Pleasant Municipal Judge Larry Duffy on Thursday wrote that there is "overwhelming" evidence that the card game is one of skill, not chance.

However, the five men were found guilty of operating a gambling house and must now pay fines.

Casino City has also published a statement from the PPA about the ruling.

[Caruso]

They're all addled.

1) Poker isn't gambling.

2) Irrespective of poker not being gambling, they were guilty of running a gambling house, which is impossible, because we know poker isn't gambling.

They've got absolutely everything backwards.

[AndreS]

lol, normally I wouldn't post an lol, but this is just too funny, lol.

[Caruso]

I believe this is the relevant statute:

http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/ga...outh-carolina/

Code Section:

16-19-40 et seq.

Gambling:

Playing card or dice games; roley-poley; rouge et noir; faro; or at any gaming tables or gaming devices.

Horse Racing/Off-Track Betting:

Horse racing at Springdale Course Track; used for Carolina Cup and Colonial Cup International Steeplechase only.

Dog Racing/Off-Track Betting:

-----

Casinos Allowed?

Gambling devices prohibited.

Other Kinds of Gambling-Related Activities Allowed or Banned:

Card and dice games; lettered gaming tables; roley-poley tables; rouge et noir; faro banks; playing games in one's home on Sunday; betting on elections; pool selling; bookmaking; punchboards; gray machines are illegal.

[Caruso]

This is from the S. Carolina Legislature site:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c019.htm

SECTION 16-19-40. Unlawful games and betting.

If any person shall play at any tavern, inn, store for the retailing of spirituous liquors or in any house used as a place of gaming, barn, kitchen, stable or other outhouse, street, highway, open wood, race field or open place at (a) any game with cards or dice, (b) any gaming table, commonly called A, B, C, or E, O, or any gaming table known or distinguished by any other letters or by any figures, (c) any roley-poley table, (d) rouge et noir, (e) any faro bank (f) any other table or bank of the same or the like kind under any denomination whatsoever or (g) any machine or device licensed pursuant to Section 12-21-2720 and used for gambling purposes, except the games of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist when there is no betting on any such game of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist or shall bet on the sides or hands of such as do game, upon being convicted thereof, before any magistrate, shall be imprisoned for a period of not over thirty days or fined not over one hundred dollars, and every person so keeping such tavern, inn, retail store, public place, or house used as a place for gaming or such other house shall, upon being convicted thereof, upon indictment, be imprisoned for a period not exceeding twelve months and forfeit a sum not exceeding two thousand dollars, for each and every offense.

They basically seem to have the "money exchanges hands" bit nailed correctly. As such, the OUTCOME was correct.

The only thing that wasn't correct was Hair Brianed Harry's definition of poker as "not a game of chance". He got the rest right.

A little OT, I love this:

Whoever shall keep or suffer to be kept any gaming table or permit any game or games to be played in his house on the Sabbath day, on conviction thereof before any court having jurisdiction...

I mean, I know there are some God-fearing folk on the west side of the Atlantic, but having state laws that read like the Bible is coming it some.

[lionslots]

Gamble on the stock exchange.. this time round.. everyone lost!

[Caruso]

It's a good point to note that many other forms of "investment", if not all, are effectively gambling. Certainly the stock market is. However, the reason casino "gambling" is regarded with general contempt by the US authorities is that it represents exclusive LOSS. The reason for the exclusive loss aspect is that almost all casino gambling is NEGATIVE EXPECTATION.

The authorities don't understand this, they believe that casino play is damaging because it's "gambling"; but the gambling aspect isn't the reason it's damaging.

So in effect, they draw reasonable conclusions on the basis of bogus reasoning. The problem is that because they don't understand the nature of gambling, ie. that negative EV gambling is bad but positive EV is good and the "gambling" aspect is irrelevant, they end up making these bogus decisions along the way.

[lots0]

Gamble on the stock exchange.. this time round.. everyone lost!

Not everyone lost... I went long on gold...

The Stock Market is tame compared to FOREX...

[Caruso]

The judge in the case of five South Carolina poker players busted at a home game said it was clear to him that poker is a game of skill.

Texas hold’em is a game of skill. There was no doubt in his mind.

I wish you people would report the FACTS PROPERLY, not selectively report what suits you.

I watched the APCW video, and apparently the judge DID, correctly, note that although poker has a skill element, the SKILL element does not exclude the GAMBLING aspect.

Just because skill is dominant, that doesn't mean they weren't gambling

So the judge got it exactly right.

You reported the SKILL comment, but ignored the GAMBLING one. Which I then wasted time arguing about and insulting the judiciary, based on a bogus report.

So my apologies to the SC judiciary, and forgive me if I take with a pinch of salt any "reports" I read here from now on.

Thanks to J. Todd for fully covering the matter.

[chaosicq]

Well i just got to say although the law sucks when it comes to poker and we all know it.

1. POKER IS 100% A GAME OF SKILL, ANY ONE THAT PLAYS KNOWS THAT DON'T THEY, IF THEY DON'T THEN THEY SHOULD NOT PLAY!!.

2. WHEN SOME ONE PLACES A BET IT'S GAMBLING PERIOD.

But i look at the American issue on poker like i do our British government, they always have a long term plan to make money out of you when they do crazy stuff like this.

UK Government - LETS BAN SMOKING IN PUBLIC AREAS
ITS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH RIGHT GOOD ONE.

BIT LATER OH LETS CHARGE PUBS, CLUBS A LICEANCE FEE TO LET PEOPLE SMOKE.

No doubt that taxation on online poker will be introduced, it's just a matter of time.

The Gov Long Term Plan they always have one you can BET on it