| |
BGonline.org Forums
Leading Federal Judge Rules That Poker Is a Game of Skill Not Covered by U.S. Gambling Act
Posted By: Chris Haviland In Response To: Leading Federal Judge Rules That Poker Is a Game of Skill Not Covered by U.S. Gambling Act (Chuck Bower)
Date: Wednesday, 22 August 2012, at 5:36 p.m.
There is more in the United States v. Dicristina judgement under the "Government Expert" section. He doesn't see losing "less money than the unfortunate fellow who lost more money as evidence of skill" and I completely disagree. But some of his arguments seem reasonable:
In games where you can come and go as you please, the relevant frame of reference should be one hand. I agree with this. If you have a law where games predominatly of luck are not permitted, then games where you can play one hand and leave should not be permitted. But if you understand this, you should be able to recognize that skill becomes more important as the number of hands increases, and that at some point skill predominates. DeRossa's assertion is that this threshold isn't reached by the average poker player. Pinning down the point at which "skill predominates" is tricky, since it requires a method for measuring skill and a clear definintion of what "predominates" means. If an all-luck game is 50/50 and an all skill game is 100/0, does that mean a skilled player has to win 75/25 over an unskilled player for the game to be predominantly skill? Even the definition of basic terms like "skill" and "win" are hard to pin down. Most people don't consider the decision to not fold a royal flush "skillful", but if the baseline for comparison is a random actor then even "obvious" decisions should be considered skillful.
He also says "the presence of persistent winners and losers...does not prove that skill predominates over chance..." I agree with this also.
-Chris H.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.