More legal issues -- looks like I'm about to be a felon - Page 2

Aequitas58 · #26 05-03-06, 12:55 PM

Sklansky's quote is remarkably close to the point I was making last night. Shabi, what does Sklansky go on to say about NASCAR? He has to mention something - as a great comparison and all.

2Tone · #27 05-03-06, 01:05 PM

For me and the rest of us here in Washington, it doesn’t really matter whether poker is a game of skill or chance. Because poker is specifically called out in the legislation as being among the activities prohibited online. Game of skill or game of chance – I’m a felon either way.

Anybody remember the Jesse Jackson SNL game show skit? “Who gets the car?” “I get the car!”

Or, as is the case here, I get the shaft.

Talking Poker · #28 05-03-06, 01:08 PM

I follow what you are saying, and I'm certainly not trying to say that there isn't an element of chance in poker. I'm saying it's not "mere chance" though, just like NASCAR and everything else. And I don't agree with you that I can't control the outcome. If you bet on the turn (try to pass in NASCAR/offense), and I make a pot sized raise (my block/defense), that didn't occur by chance either.

If in poker, everyone placed a bet and then all the cards were dealt out - the hole cards and the entire board - then yes, I would agree that poker was a game of chance. But that's not how it's played. The players have the ability to make good and bad decisions along the way - this is clearly an element of skill. Surely you agree with that, right? Assuming you do, we are in agreement that there is both chance and skill involved in poker. You guys are saying that if there is ANY chance involved, then the entire game is a game of chance and therefore gambling. I'm arguing that if there is ANY skill involved, then it is a game of skill and NOT gambling. At least as far as the law is concerned when it defines gambling as a "game of chance."

There is "chance" in everything we do. When you drove to work this morning, there was a chance that you could have been killed in a car accident by some other driver who fell asleep at the wheel and drifted into your lane or by your tire blowing or by a zillion other possible random events. But there is absolutely NO WAY that you could be cited for "gambling" for driving to work this morning. Speeding, reckless driving, DUI - sure. But gambling? No. It wouldn't hold up in court, despite the element of chance.

The part of your post that I highlighted above should be more than enough to make any jury understand that poker is not MERELY a game of chance. In the end, the more skilled players will win the most money and the less skilled players will lose the most. And that's all there is to it. You CAN have a positive expectation in poker, where in every other casino game, and certainly in your state's lottery, for example, you can not.

Go ahead and hire Lou and pay double his rate. I still like my chances against you.

Talking Poker · #29 05-03-06, 01:12 PM

This is a good point. But remember, when you are betting on horses, you are betting with odds - odds that ensure the house turns a profit in the end. Because of this (and any time you are betting against lines), you have -EV and are in fact gambling.

If every single horse paid out on the same odds (fair odds too - no juice for the house), then betting on horses would be a game of skill and absolutely could not be considered gambling, IMO.

Talking Poker · #30 05-03-06, 01:16 PM

I am being honest with myself and everyone else. Meanwhile you are making your little (failed) attempts at humor instead of using sound logic to support your case. So you tell me who' not taking things seriously.

And hopefully by now you realize that I'm not saying the poker is a game of complete skill, but there is certainly skill involved that directly affects the long term outcome of the game, therefor making it NOT merely a game of chance.

Talking Poker · #31 05-03-06, 01:20 PM

So.... I'm curious. Will you be:

1. Cheating on your income taxes?
2. Reporting your income as general gambling income and not mentioning that it was from online play?
3. Reporting income from an illegal activity?

And yes, I realize that the law was written to make online poker illegal. My point is that the law is faulty and should be rewritten, excluding poker, since it is not merely a game of chance.

"Oh, but it's the law!" shouts Aeq. "You can't challenge LAWS!" he states.

Fortunately for me, he's wrong - that's not how it works in this country. Laws are added (see above), modified, and overturned all the time. And this law right here is just waiting to be attacked. Wait and see.

2Tone · #32 05-03-06, 01:33 PM

Boy, there’s an appealing set of choices, huh?

I’ll plan on going with door #2, but sure am not happy about it.

PShabi · #33 05-03-06, 01:58 PM

You're examples do not hold up, TP. Yeah, I guess there's a "chance" that I could get involved in a car accident on the way to work. However, Lou isn't laying the forum 3:1 odds and then paying out bets according to whether or not I wrecked.

A nascar race, or baseball game do not involve wagering by the particpants. Well, at least they aren't supposed to.

Let me highlight Sklansky one more time:
"...poker is gambling. Anyone who says it's not or states that when he plays he doesn't gamble, does not understand poker as well as he should."

I can't believe you took that quote and tried to use it to defend your stance TP.

I haven't seen anyone say that poker is "MERELY" a game of chance. However, there is a significant amount of chance involved, and you are wagering.

Bottom line:

Chance helps determine unpredictable outcomes and there is WAGERING involved on those outcomes.

This is why poker is, was, and always will be gambling. You're other examples may also involve chance, but NONE OF THEM involve wagering. That's why I think they're bunk.

Please understand, no one supports a ban on online poker in here. However, the law is written and you are NEVER, EVER going to be able to go into a court and prove that poker is not gambling.

PShabi · #34 05-03-06, 02:02 PM

Ummmm, are you sure Nascar driver's pay entry fees? I don't think they do. Someone in the know confirm this please.

Aequitas58 · #35 05-03-06, 02:10 PM

1. You're the one not taking things seriously. You brought up NASCAR. You don't know the general rule of intellectual debate? The first to bring up NASCAR loses by default.

2. There is no need to continue "debating." I made a point, you disagreed, Sklansky (and Shabi!) agree, and you still fail to see my point. There's nothing left to talk about.

3. The quote about rules never changing: That's dirty debating. Rules and laws change everyday, so don't start with all that. I'm simply pointing out that your argument doesn't work. Geez.

Aequitas58 · #36 05-03-06, 02:22 PM

*sigh*

Forgetting the banter about Lou's pay rate / retainer / TP v. Lou in cyber court, you seem really convinced of your position. I don't think there's anything I can say (or Sklansky can confirm) that would make you possibly change your mind.

That's too bad.

Tony Cheval · #37 05-03-06, 02:23 PM

Actually you are incorrect here, and as a poker player I would think you'd know better. To sum up:

Horse Racing: House takes X% of the betting pool, then leaves it to the bettors.

Poker: House takes X% of the betting pool, then...you see.

Just as you find poker players who are just 'goofing around' or don't really understand pot odds and other factors, so you find horseplayers who bet on a horse who looks pretty, or a jockey with the same name as a relative, etc. Same thing, you are capitalizing on mistakes made by your competition to derive a long-term profit.

Perhaps a simple way to explain the difference is, in horse racing the cards are all face up, and you can only bet before the community cards are dealt.

Tony Cheval · #38 05-03-06, 02:24 PM

Oh yeah, and please don't make the mistake of assuming that a court of law would consider this issue the exact same way we're doing now.

Aequitas58 · #39 05-03-06, 02:26 PM

I believe he rested his case earlier in the thread. So, I guess it's too late for that.

Tony Cheval · #40 05-03-06, 02:30 PM

Objection!

2Tone · #41 05-03-06, 02:35 PM

While Lou is not … I think this serves an accurate and succinct description of the entire automotive insurance industry.

Robbie Robb · #42 05-03-06, 02:58 PM

From this article:

It's about halfway down the page.

Talking Poker · #43 05-03-06, 03:18 PM

To those who still believe poker is "merely" (I think Lou used that word first, but I'm too lazy to go back and look) a game of chance, please forget all the examples I attempted to bring up. Admittedly, they aren't very good ones. Instead, focus on this:

I think the big assumption that I've been making here, which is probably incorrect, is that "Gambling" = "Game of Chance." If the law defines gambling otherwise, well, there's not much left to say (other then to try to get the laws changed).

But tell me..... why is gambling illegal in CA, yet poker is allowed? The answer, for those not in the know, is because CA understands that poker is a game of skill.

====================

I needed to draw that line because this post is about to take a huge turn. I decided to do a bit of research on this, and found a quote that I think may prove your points. Apparently, when a court looks at something and determines if it is a game of skill or a game of chance, they are trying to figure out which it is MORE of. Courts seem to ignore the long run when it is very long, as it is with poker. In poker, chance FAR outweighs skill in the short term (not meaning the turn of a card, as Lou suggested, but even a number of sessions - thousands and thousands of hands).... so I guess it sucks to be us.

Here's the quote I found most useful:

You rest your case.

SirFWALGMan · #44 05-03-06, 03:21 PM

I would probably play too.. I mean we have all spent years doing one of the following illegal activities are one point or another: Downloading games, Downloading Music, Downloading Movies, Stealing Cable Service, etc, etc.. the list goes on and on.. Of course there is always Foxwoods..

SirFWALGMan · #45 05-03-06, 03:25 PM

I like your point.. Usually when I get involved in a hand I am at least 60-40, sometimes 80-20, so that is the skill vs luck element, right, I would say for me Poker is 80% skill and 20% luck..

bunny · #46 05-03-06, 03:35 PM

Most online poker games are operated from foreign countries, right? Well, I think the real reason why your government is trying to pass this bill is because it's not profitable for them. The online poker industry has taken off and it's killing the casino's (which are government approved). Your government can state whatever they like about why online gambling should be made illegal...bottom line is that they aren't profitting from it and that's why they want it out.

ps: Sorry, if I went off topic.

Aequitas58 · #47 05-03-06, 03:35 PM

You rest your case? What does that even mean? Do you think you won?

How long did it take you to compile ONE decent argument? How much time did you spend on Google hoping to find quote that would even begin to refute anything I was saying?

Everything I posted was basically typing and talking. I think you were off the mark many times in this thread, and it's good to see you backpeddle and fix the mistakes.

As far as the California law, all I can say is AWESOME. I wish state courts would think like along these lines (ala CA) but that's certainly not the case. Cali is an ODD state... they do their bar exam different, and the government is extremely liberal. I would try to explain to you that the Washington State Court can only look at the CA case as persuasive and not binding, but you'd probably argue with me about that too.

Aequitas58 · #48 05-03-06, 03:36 PM

This is entirely ON topic, sweetheart. You know what's off topic? NASCAR.

"Print it."

LOL.

2Tone · #49 05-03-06, 03:52 PM

This is extremely relevant, and no doubt the reason this legislation was passed.

The same week I learned of this, I received a coupon in the mail for a free Washington State lottery ticket. More to the point, our state is full of Native America casinos, who are also very heavy campaign contributors. Just ask Jack Abramoff.

This has nothing to do with curtailing gambling, and everything to do with curtailing competition.

Talking Poker · #50 05-03-06, 04:27 PM

These numbers are completely dependent on time. In a given turn of a card, poker is 100% luck and 0% skill. Over the course of a lifetime, it's maybe 1% luck and 99% skill. So it really depends what amount of time you are referring to.

For a give session though (short term), I'd say it's at least 75% luck. Probably closer to 90%.