good article
 

Which one? Link takes me to the main page of the WSJ...

woops
 

Hopefully this works.

yup this one works... readin it now

Good article.

Very good - thanks.

Yet anoter answer to eejit's question of "What is the PPA doing?" The total bill for this was probably < $1000. But someone had to organize the whole thing...

As much as I'm not a fan of Annie Duke, this is a great point she makes that I had never considered until right now:

Here is a related link:

Great article, says it better than anything I've read.

I do quarrel with the hint that "Gambling" = Game of chance.

If two people playing chess bet on the outcome, it doesn't change the fact that chess is 100% skill, but they are, by definition, gambling.

I've heard "gambling ON a game of chance." But where have you heard "gambling = game of chance?" That makes no sense to me. What if two kids gamble on who will have a higher SAT score? Or if two MLB players bet on who will have the higher batting average at the end of the season? Or two golfers betting on who will have the lowest round of the day?

If you can affect the outcome of the event in question, I don't see how anyone could say it's chance, and not skill.

That is the best way to put it.Great stuff !! Thanks for the article

I may have misread it. :confused: I agree with you 100%. Maybe I'm just obsessed with ranting against the "poker isn't gambling" crowd. :p :donkey

watching from Canada
 

Haven't some individual states determined poker to be a game of skill? That would have to be some kind of useful precedent when arguing the case in Washington.

California has ruled poker to be a game of skill. Other states have ruled it to be a game of chance. (according to the article)

What we need is a solid ruling from a Circuit Court that the Wire Act does not apply to internet poker. After that, how its handled will be up to the individual States, which is as it should be if anyone takes the 9th and 10th amendments seriously.