Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill.

True, but, this "games subject to chance" wording makes things more
difficult.

Claiming that poker is more skill than luck might not be so hard to do, but
claiming that it isn't "subject to chance" is outright denial as far as I
can tell.

tvp

"lysdexic" <43069532.DeleteThis@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1159860992$880632@recpoker.com...
>
> These online sites could easily sue on the basis that Poker is a game of
skill -
> not gambling. There is already some legal presidence. Poker is approaching
a
> national level of acceptance and being recognized as a game of skill; the
legal
> argument would be much easier to make then it has been in the past.
>
> Once it is established as a game of skill at the federal level it is
exempt from
> the ban.
>
> It may be that only tournament poker and not ring games would be exempted
but we
> would be back at the tables.
>
> In fact if the major sites just banned US players from the rings games and
> allowed them to continue playing the tournaments they would probably win
if they
> were ever prosecuted. The first dismissed case would set the precidence.
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

On Oct 3 2006 3:36 AM, lysdexic wrote:

>
> These online sites could easily sue

In what court?

> on the basis that Poker is a game of skill
> -
> not gambling. There is already some legal presidence.

They'll need a lot more presidence though.

> Poker is approaching a
> national level of acceptance and being recognized as a game of skill; the
> legal
> argument would be much easier to make then it has been in the past.

And again, this argument made by foreign businesses will be made in what court?

> Once it is established as a game of skill at the federal level it is exempt
> from
> the ban.

So the foreign companies are going to get hearing at the federal level of the US
court system.


> It may be that only tournament poker and not ring games would be exempted

That makes about as much sense as everything you've written above.

> In fact if the major sites just banned US players from the rings games and
> allowed them to continue playing the tournaments they would probably win if
> they
> were ever prosecuted. The first dismissed case would set the precidence.

Sure it would, lysdexic... you got it.



_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

District Court of DC most likely.
Then the DC Circuit Court on appeal
Then the Supreme Court
O-PGManager wrote:
> On Oct 3 2006 3:36 AM, lysdexic wrote:
>
> >
> > These online sites could easily sue
>
> In what court?
>
> > on the basis that Poker is a game of skill
> > -
> > not gambling. There is already some legal presidence.
>
> They'll need a lot more presidence though.
>
> > Poker is approaching a
> > national level of acceptance and being recognized as a game of skill; the
> > legal
> > argument would be much easier to make then it has been in the past.
>
> And again, this argument made by foreign businesses will be made in what court?
>
> > Once it is established as a game of skill at the federal level it is exempt
> > from
> > the ban.
>
> So the foreign companies are going to get hearing at the federal level of the US
> court system.
>
>
> > It may be that only tournament poker and not ring games would be exempted
>
> That makes about as much sense as everything you've written above.
>
> > In fact if the major sites just banned US players from the rings games and
> > allowed them to continue playing the tournaments they would probably win if
> > they
> > were ever prosecuted. The first dismissed case would set the precidence.
>
> Sure it would, lysdexic... you got it.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

....But let's hope the defense doesn't use the 2006 WSOP Main Event as
"Exhibit A" - heh.

John B.

"lysdexic" <43069532.DeleteThis@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1159860992$880632@recpoker.com...
>
> These online sites could easily sue on the basis that Poker is a game of
skill -
> not gambling. There is already some legal presidence. Poker is approaching
a
> national level of acceptance and being recognized as a game of skill; the
legal
> argument would be much easier to make then it has been in the past.
>
> Once it is established as a game of skill at the federal level it is
exempt from
> the ban.
>
> It may be that only tournament poker and not ring games would be exempted
but we
> would be back at the tables.
>
> In fact if the major sites just banned US players from the rings games and
> allowed them to continue playing the tournaments they would probably win
if they
> were ever prosecuted. The first dismissed case would set the precidence.
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

lysdexic Wrote:
> These online sites could easily sue on the basis that Poker is a game of
> skill -
> not gambling. There is already some legal presidence. Poker is
> approaching a
> national level of acceptance and being recognized as a game of skill;
> the legal
> argument would be much easier to make then it has been in the past.
>
> Once it is established as a game of skill at the federal level it is
> exempt from
> the ban.
>
> It may be that only tournament poker and not ring games would be
> exempted but we
> would be back at the tables.
>
> In fact if the major sites just banned US players from the rings games
> and
> allowed them to continue playing the tournaments they would probably
> win if they
> were ever prosecuted. The first dismissed case would set the
> precidence.
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - 'Rec.Gambling.Poker Newsgroup –
> RecPoker.com v2.2' (http://www.recpoker.com)


You misspelled precedence twice, in two different ways, and your legal
theory is even worse.

Also, are you seriously trying to assert that tournament poker is a
skill game, while rings games are strictly chance?

Or does this have to do with the fact that, a couple of years ago, you
went to Vegas you got your head handed to you in ring games?


--
Travel
- http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums - Report Spam to abuse DeleteThis @pokerhelper.com
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

Tad Perry wrote:
\
> Claiming that poker is more skill than luck might not be so hard to do, but
> claiming that it isn't "subject to chance" is outright denial as far as I
> can tell.
>

The precedent is backgammon.

Backgammon was found to be a game of skill. Managing luck to win, not
always, not necessarily *this* time, but overall. "Betting" is almost
directly analogous to the doubling cube. The opponent can fold if it is
too risky to continue. The only difference is that there is more
implied information. But that is just a game condition.

Most house gambling can be played skillfully, but not enough to overcome
house edge. But enough to create winners and losers everyday. And
there are actually some that are lifetime up against casino's and will
never be down. But... The game is overall house advantaged and no
amount of skill will overcome that.

The only true question of poker is: The Rake.

It is going to be fairly easy to argue that there is a skillful aspect
to managing "luck". That there is an additional skill factor in
overcoming "luck" which is managing fear. That there is an additional
factor of managing your opponents "errors". In tournaments there is
the clear management of time and resources.

Whether or not this overcomes the rake is difficult to say. Changing
this from rake to some other methodology may very well pass muster. The
problem with rake is that it open-ended, and based exactly on the amount
played. I think there are various methodologies that can be used, that
still allow income for the site. Some sort of reasonable maximum.
Memberships. Seat Rental. No-Rake. Rake-Back. Sponsorship. May all
be more reasonable. It may be argued that rake has nothing to do with
the question and is moot.

Once you determine that poker is a game of skill. Then tournament poker
is in no-fashion gambling. It is a loser-pay prize pool as there is in
all sorts of competitions in the world. And there are starting now to
be "viewer-pay" or "sponsorship" prize pools to be formed. No different
than anything else.
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

>
> The only true question of poker is: The Rake.
>

well, if we are talking tournament poker, the rake should just be called
an entry fee administrative cost. The rake in online cash games if
variable and in tournaments it is fixed.

Long live the mother of all tournaments, the SnG!

----- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

lysdexic wrote:
> Backgammon, Bridge, and Scrabble are also subject to chance but playing these
> tournaments online and for money is not being threatened by this bill.

It seems to me that they are threatened now that they are illegal to
fund by definition.

> The rreason this bill threatens poker tournaments is because og the single
> clause about games of chance if tournament poker was not scene as a game of
> chance but a game of skill with even a large element of chance it would be
> exempted.
>
> The shear number of consistent winners and final table participants is a
> persuasive argument that it ultimately is more skill tan chance.

That doesn't win the fight for you, though, because the wording is
"games subject
to chance."

tvp
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

Johnny T wrote:
> Tad Perry wrote:
> \
> > Claiming that poker is more skill than luck might not be so hard to do, but
> > claiming that it isn't "subject to chance" is outright denial as far as I
> > can tell.
> >
>
> The precedent is backgammon.
>
> Backgammon was found to be a game of skill.

Poker has also been shown to be a game of skill (in California.)

However, there isn't a lot of clarity of thought going on here because
the words are "games subject to chance" and showing that poker is a
game of skill is not enough to show that it is not subject to chance.
So why you all think that's all you need to do leaves me scratching my
head.

tvp
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

> These online sites could easily sue on the basis that Poker is a game of
skill -
> not gambling. There is already some legal presidence. Poker is approaching a
> national level of acceptance and being recognized as a game of skill; the
legal
> argument would be much easier to make then it has been in the past.

Go to http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/columns/2006_act.htm to read a good
analysis by I. Nelson Rose. Here is the relevant portion from his analysis:

Bet or wager includes risking something of value on the outcome of a
contest, sports event “or a game subject to chance.” The Act otherwise
allows contestants to risk money on themselves. The “game subject to
chance” restriction is designed to eliminate Internet poker.

Dean

=============== My Affiliate Links ===============
Party Poker - $25 Extra: http://www.partypoker.com/index.htm?wm=2190583

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

You people act like this is a new issue and that legislators have never
before considered the skill element of poker. To me it is self-evident
that poker is a game of skill? Why? Because people have been making a
living playing poker for a long long time. To show it is a game of skill,
all you need is for a bunch of professional poker players to volunteer
their tax records. With the number of posters who brag on RGP and 2+2, it
shouldn't be hard to come up with at least ten thousand or so.

The truth is that in the history of gambling legislation in the US, there
has always been changing attitudes and tolerance towards gambling.
However, one theme that has been consistent is a general detest for the
professional gambler. So, we need to remember that the current
legislation is built upon four hundred years of negative sentiment towards
professional gamblers.

And maybe for good reason. Professional gamblers have historically been
involved in some shady things. From small time con games to big time
involvement in public policy. But in my mind, the shadiness of some of
this behavior has merely masked a general distaste for even honest
professional gamblers who prey on the unsuspecting.

Even after poker is proven to be a game of skill, you are going to have to
convince lawmakers that it isn't a predatory activity. That's going to be
difficult to do.

So, I think we need to take a different approach legally to make any
progress.

________________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

On Oct 3 2006 5:17 AM, chiggachang2002.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:

> District Court of DC most likely.
> Then the DC Circuit Court on appeal
> Then the Supreme Court

Really? Foreign online poker sites are going to file suit in US court about a
bill regulating financial institutions?

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill. 

Backgammon, Bridge, and Scrabble are also subject to chance but playing these
tournaments online and for money is not being threatened by this bill.

The rreason this bill threatens poker tournaments is because og the single
clause about games of chance if tournament poker was not scene as a game of
chance but a game of skill with even a large element of chance it would be
exempted.

The shear number of consistent winners and final table participants is a
persuasive argument that it ultimately is more skill tan chance.

Ring games may not be able to win an exception but there is sufficient
precidence to get poker tournaments back online.

On Oct 3 2006 9:44 AM, Tad Perry wrote:

> True, but, this "games subject to chance" wording makes things more
> difficult.
>
> Claiming that poker is more skill than luck might not be so hard to do, but
> claiming that it isn't "subject to chance" is outright denial as far as I
> can tell.
>
> tvp
>
> "lysdexic" <43069532 RemoveThis @recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1159860992$880632@recpoker.com...
> >
> > These online sites could easily sue on the basis that Poker is a game of
> skill -
> > not gambling. There is already some legal presidence. Poker is approaching
> a
> > national level of acceptance and being recognized as a game of skill; the
> legal
> > argument would be much easier to make then it has been in the past.
> >
> > Once it is established as a game of skill at the federal level it is
> exempt from
> > the ban.
> >
> > It may be that only tournament poker and not ring games would be exempted
> but we
> > would be back at the tables.
> >
> > In fact if the major sites just banned US players from the rings games and
> > allowed them to continue playing the tournaments they would probably win
> if they
> > were ever prosecuted. The first dismissed case would set the precidence.
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - /



_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
 >> Stay informed about: Overcome the ban - poker is a game of skill.