http://theppa.org/ppa/2012/08/21/u-s...cristina-case/

The decision linked above and in the OP is worth a read. Hats off to the PPA and all that contributed to this outcome.

Ultra condensed cliffs:
Defendant was charged with running an illegal poker room, was convicted under a Federal Statute because the jury was told it was an illegal poker room under NY law. Judge threw out the conviction based on evidence that poker is not a gambling game as described by the federal law.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...-game-of-skill

here's another one

Hopefully this is one step closer.

this is for sure a huge step forward....

Can anyone address this?

I thought that banking for an activity couldn't be deemed illegal if that activity was legal.

If that is true, wouldn't it make going after PS and FT on Black Friday wrong since they were strictly poker?

Generally true about banking for legal activities, but US Bank Fraud laws are also written so that LYING to a bank about your otherwise very legal transactions, even if it does not cost the bank one thin dime, can still be bank fraud if it involves a transaction that the bank would otherwise treat differently (i.e., refuse to do the transaction or charge more for doing the transaction).

At least that is the DOJ's argument in the BF Bank Fraud charges, and it has some support in the courts.

The bigger effect would be on the Money Laundering charges. If the money involved was not part of an illegal transaction nor derived from an illegal source, then it is not "dirty" money and cannot be "laundered."

Skallagrim

Your reply seems like this ruling may have some bearing on whether we get our monies back from the site.

Thank you.

Skall,

I am missing something obvious i am sure.

Why doesn't this ruling make poker legal in the USA? If they accurately report their transactions what law would they be braking?

Maybe the wire act? I really don't know....

My only other guess is this wasn't a Federal court. But wouldn't that mean it got kicked up to the next level if true?

the 'logic' behind that is the following

UIGEA says transferring between banks and (illegal) gambling operators is illegal. when poker is a skill game, it isn't gambling, so uigea won't apply


anyway, i think i've read an statement from an 'expert' about this and he said this ruling means nothing. and shortly after the dicristina ruling, howard lederer lawyer(s) tried to argue based on that ruling (motion was dismissed imo)


because you mentioned the wire act: the doj specifically said (dec '11), that the wire act only applies on sports betting (sport events). that means that only the uigea prevents online poker.

in my (limited!!!) understanding regulated websites (like in nevada) can offer online poker since in this case uigea won't apply.

and i think, that it is also be possible, that a in the usa regulated site could offer poker on federal level (as long as other states don't explicitly forbid it) ... e.g. State A allows poker, state b has no ruling, state c forbids it - so a player from b could play on a server from a, but a player from c could not.

but the problem is, that there is no specific ruling. since no one tried that, i think nobody wants to create a nationwide network and then the 'feds' close it.

as i can remember new jersey planed to offer poker (and gambling) nationwide and even worldwide (as long other states/ countries don't have laws against it).

like i said, my (very) limited understanding of the situation

This has been hashed out in NVG. To summarize:

[1] First, this judge was interpreting the IGBA, not the UIGEA. Just because a similar or identical term term is used in both statutes does not automatically mean that the same definition applies. Second, one ruling in one district by one judge at the lowest tier of the federal judiciary (well, not counting federal magistrate judges) does not magically determine how the statute is interpreted across the entire country.

[2] Nerdsuperfly responded to this already. No fear under the wire act under the current administration's interpretation of it.

[3] It was a federal court. Judge Weinstein sits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

[View: I like the concept of a separate Poker Headlines forum, but the problem is that while the L/C from NVG is filtered out, the substantive discussion doesn't appear in both places. This question and other related issues were discussed extensively in NVG.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArE_F41iLd4

TY for the replies and info guys.

"Court Rules Poker Is a Game of Skill, But …" by Prof. I. Nelson Rose

Source: http://pokerati.com/2012/09/court-ru...-of-skill-but/

quite interesting imo

obvi game of skill, surprising its taking these ppl so long to figure it out

very interesting. yeah I can't believe how long it takes for people to realize that it's skill based, like pool, golf and bowling.

I feel that a large reason a lot of people do not consider poker a game of skill is the way ESPN broadcasts World Series of Poker. Most of the coverage does not show the use of techniques, such as floating, pot control,...etc, but rather shows a lot of flips and coolers. If somebody who has no idea about poker watches the coverage and sees a 5-minute race between TT and AK with every street being slow dealt, cheer from the audience and finally a touch-down style celebration by the victor, it will be hard for that viewer to consider poker a game of skill.

I never understood the inability of poker players and those involved in poker to articulate that poker is a game of skill. Of course it is. Just because it plays out in a way where there are elements of randomness doesn't make it a luck based game.

If the math says you should win 75 percent of the time and you end up losing on a particular card, then that is not luck. That is exactly what will happen 25 times out of 100.

Can someone with some legal expertise explain why this one ruling should affect things a lot in the US? I'm not sure I grasp the power of legal precedent. Let's say I was to try to open a poker room in my home state (WI). Would this ruling's existence be likely to deter authorities from prosecuting me? Are judges afraid to disagree with someone else who's ruled on a matter already? It seems unlikely but if it is then I don't understand why this ruling would matter very much.

Poker 'can be' a game of skill. With no limit holdem, any player can choose to turn it into a game of chance just via switching to push or fold preflop. In which case it is a game with less skill than black jack and other forms of gambling.

If we switched to pot limit, then it would be essentially impossible for one player to force the others to be in a game of chance.

Are any games a game of skill under your definition? I can play a game of chess and make each of my moves by selecting randomly among all legal moves and there's a nonzero chance that I'll beat any given player.

If poker were played only pot-limit instead of no-limit, can't your player still just replace going all-in preflop with betting pot on every street until he is all-in? What does that change?

I would argue that the existence of a naive strategy that can sometimes win is of little consequence in classifying the skill-ness of a game.

Ok having read about legal precedent on wikipedia, I can't tell who has to respect a precedent. Does a decision in federal court bind state courts in any way, or vice versa?

As we speak the case, U.S. v. DiCristina, is only precedent before the judge who decided it: Judge Weinstein of The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The case was appealed by the DOJ. That appeal is currently pending before the Federal 2nd Circuit of Appeals. Oral argument in that case is scheduled for June 19th. Decisions usually come 2 to infinity months after oral argument. Infinity is exceptionally rare, but a year or two is not rare at all. Typical is 3 - 6 months.

A decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will control all District Court decisions on the issue if the districts are within the 2nd Circuit. That would mean every Federal District Court in Connecticut, New York and Vermont.

Other Federal District and Circuit Courts can rule differently, but are expected to specifically address why they disagree with the earlier decisions of other Federal Courts. If the US Supreme Court takes the case, its ruling is binding on all other Federal Courts (and, to a limited extent as explained below, State Courts).

Federal Courts control State Courts when the issue is one of Federal Law (including the issue of State's Rights against Federal Law), The Constitution, or the rare suit between states.

State Courts can interpret their own laws and their State Constitutions as they see fit. But if their interpretation differs from a Federal Court's, and if the issue involves a superseding Federal or US Constitutional law, the Federal Courts are the higher authority.

But, as a final point of note, where State laws and Federal laws are in direct conflict, State Officials cannot be required to enforce Federal Laws. This is how possessing marijuana can now be legal in Colorado but still subject you to arrest by a Federal Law Enforcement Official.

Hope that helps explain how precedent works in cases like this.

Skallagrim

Thank you, Skallagrim!

repulse,

You misunderstood me, a game of skill is based on how much skill can decrease variance in the outcome and the maximum variance (on repeated playing - ie over 100 or 1000 games) that can occur with an unskilled vs skilled opponent.

For chess, checkers, go, there is essentially no variance when a skilled opponent faces an unskilled opponent, the skilled opponent wins 100% of the time.

For pot limit vs no limit - in pot limit the maximum variance of a skilled vs unskilled would be greatly reduced. In pot limit, the skilled opponent could call any preflop bet with almost ATC, then determine whether to proceed on the flop based on hand strength. The result would rapidly converge to the skilled opponent winning the majority of the hands. However in no limit, with a simple push or fold preflop strategy (something about as complicated as explaining basic betting for craps or roulette) the skill of the skilled opponent is mostly neutralized and his expectation would only be slightly better than chance.

This is why some pros favor switching from a pure no limit holdem to pot limit holdem preflop, and no limit after the flop.