Jarm posted:
Supreme Court case... Stave vs. Gupton determined chance (instead of skill) predominates in poker.
"We believe, that, in the popular mind, the universal acceptation of "a game of chance" is such a game, as is determined entirely or in part by lot or mere luck, and in which judgment, practice, skill, or adroitness have honestly no office at all, or are thwarted by chance. As intelligible examples, the games with dice which are determined by throwing only, and those, in which the throw of the dice regulates the play, or the hand at cards depends upon a dealing with the face down, exhibit the classes of games of chance. {this is absurd to compare poker to dice!} A game of skill, on the other hand, is one, in which nothing is left to chance; but superior knowledge and attention, or superior strength, agility, and practice, gain the victory. Of this kind of games chess, draughts or chequers, billiards, fives and bowles, and quoites may be cited as examples."
The court also specifically seized on golf as an example of a game of skill.
"In golf, as in bowling or billiards, the players are presented with an equal challenge, with each determining his fortune by his own skill. Although chance inevitably intervenes, it is not inherent in the game and does not overcome skill, and the player maintains the opportunity to defeat chance with superior skill"
This ruling is riddled with holes. Granted.......luck {or chance} can prevail on any given hand {or in the short term}. BUT...poker is no more defined by "one hand" than golf is defined by "one hole"! I am an average golfer at the very best, but I am confident that I will beat Tiger Woods in a hole eventually due to him getting "unlucky" by means of a bad kick, hitting the pin and kicking into a trap or other freakish kind of thing. Is Tiger better and more skillful than me....absolutely! Can I beat him in a round of golf or "in the long run", absolutely NOT!
This case is beatable, but only if we band together and get true poker professionals to stand behind us. I can't comprehend how bingo and the lottery are legal in NC, but Poker is not. The only reason NC Law allows the lottery is because they get a piece of the action. There is no other game under the sun that is more "chance" than the lottery. How many people out there can make a living playing the lottery??? How may already make a living playing poker?
And I replied:
I agree the case is beatable, or I wouldn't be here.
Actually, a fairly good attempt to beat it was tried just a year or so ago. A fellow by the name of Howard Fierman brought the issue to court by applying for a license to open a card room. When the license was denied because "poker is gambling" Fierman sued in court. This was an absolutely brilliant way to bring the issue forward as nobody would be facing a penalty if they lost (unlike in a criminal case).
Unfortunately, at the time there was not a lot of support to help Fierman in his arguments. The only big-name expert Fierman got to testify for him was poker writer/player Roy Cooke (he mostly writes for Card Player) magazine. And although Fierman put forth a valiant effort, the NC courts (trial and appeals) disagreed with him. You can read more about this case at http://www.trianglepokerjournal.com/ . I dont know for certain whether the case was ever sent to the NC Supreme Court.
One of the main reasons the PPA is starting the Litigation Support Network is so that when the next Howard Fierman comes along, he or she will have the complete and total support of the PPA and hence the poker playing community. We are currently in the process of refining and improving the basic proof I developed (found here: http://webringamerica.com/4/pokerplayersalliance/viewtopic.php?t=454 and found here as improved upon by PPA Board Member and Poker Pro Howard Lederer: http://gpsts.org/poker-a-game-of-skill/ - scroll down). Once we have it complete it is our intent to offer whoever brings the next skill v. chance case complete and total support in the form of lawyers, pleadings, and experts to insure that what happened to Howard Fierman does not happen again.
You can read the NC appeals court decision here: http://groups.google.com/group/tpjournal/msg/964956076345fb18 .
You will find that the basic flaw in the Court's reasoning centers on the statement (which many poker players believe) that poker is "skill in the long run, but luck in the short run." They therefor conclude that while skill is a factor in the game, luck predominates. In the proof we are developing the statement is corrected: in the short run, poker may be more skill or more luck, but it is always more skill in the long run, and is often more skill in the short run too.
Thanks for the post Jarm, hope you come back often!
Skallagrim