According to federal statutes and the statutes of most US states, gambling is defined as: risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance.

Our first game is like regular No Limit Texas Hold'em without the luck of the draw (e.g., both players play the same hand against the same opponents). The only factor determining who wins are the decision of the two players - and therefore, it is a game of skill.

Five lawyers favorably assessed the legality of SkillBet, one of whom provided a formal legal opinion, and another (a Partner at one of the largest and oldest law firms in the world) is now an investor in the Company.

Allowed States

Below are US states where we can accept customers. We also serve Canada and hope to serve the rest of the world soon.

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Colorado
4. District of Columbia
5. Georgia
6. Hawaii
7. Idaho
8. Kansas
9. Kentucky
10. Maine
11. Massachusetts
12. Missouri
13. Nebraska
14. New Hampshire
15. New Jersey
16. North Carolina
17. New Mexico
18. New York
19. North Dakota
20. Ohio
21. Oregon
22. Pennsylvania
23. Rhode Island
24. Wisconsin
25. Utah
26. Virginia
27. West Virginia
28. Wyoming


Watching these videos is a fun way to learn about SkillBet.com!

1. Introductory Video: https://www.skillbet.com/index.php

2. How To Video: https://www.skillbet.com/how-to.php

So what you're saying is you can't play Texas Hold'em in the state of Texas.

Isn't that horrible!!! Should change the name to "not in texas" hold'em!

i've read somewhere that texas isnt a poker-friendly state in general.


thats why i promote no limit regular-holdem

Why not California? Games of skill are legal here.

I think it has something to do with not being able to charge a fee for it in CA.

In the vain of the post 9/11 patriotism circle jerk, might I suggest "freedom hold'em?"

Yep. That's why we can't do it in CA (bummer!)

One could argue that in Texas all they have is regular holdem.

And there is at least one city in Nebraska where the play _.

Have you received written notification from thes 28 states that your product is legal in those states? Your statement reads that:

"Five lawyers favorably assessed the legality of SkillBet, one of whom provided a formal legal opinion, and another (a Partner at one of the largest and oldest law firms in the world) is now an investor in the Company".


This is merely your "opinion" and that of your attorneys and not a legal position from the aforementioned states. Can you please post some type of confimation or opinion from these states that your product is "legal". It seems to me that prior to Black Friday many people thought FTP and Pokerstars were "legal" in the US.

We'd love it if states would proactively review our game and confirm it's legality.

But states do not do that proactively (our lawyers tell us).

Some other counties do this -- but ours regrettably ours does not (we are told).

I don't think this would ever happen. The only thing I can think of would be something like NV recently selling online gambling licenses (that can only be used in NV and played by residents of NV I think).

Otherwise you have to look at the legal opinions in each state to what determines something from gambling versus skill. Skillbet seems to believe they have the right balance to satisfy the skill requirement in the 28 states.

Anyways that's what I've gathered off 2+2 (there's another forum where someone went into this in greater detail.).

Massachusetts does NOT recogonize poker as a game of pure skill. You are simply offering a convoluted legal opinion that is not going to stand up. People need to beware about this. You would think people would have learned from BF

Virtually no state (including Mass) recognizes conventional poker as a game of pure skill. For this reason, conventional poker is considered illegal is the vast majority of US states.

This is why we created SkillBet!

If you tried out skillbet you would know its not like FTP or PS. You play against computer players, you have the same hole cards as your opponent and its more of a best of 30 type game vs the winner take all approach of NL.

So because Skillbet is assuming that the same rulings that apply to backgammon apply to their game, they're okay???
C'mon man! If they want to tout their game is legal, then get a ruling or proof. Anything else is simply their "interpretation" which means nothing. People never seem to learn....................

They invested a lot of money and got some pretty reputable investors. The standard in which you are asking for doesn't exist in the business world, especially this space.

Like the idea, instead of the cat and mouse game with the Feds that a lot of poker companies living in 2005 are stuck in, they came up with a game that has a strong argument for legality.

Skillbet operates just like skill game sites like Worldwinner. If you play spades on Worldwinner, you don't play your opponent directly, you play the computer and they do getting the exact same cards against computer opponents getting the exact same cards. Worldwinner's backgammon game works the same way. Doing this essentially zeros out the chance and makes it a game of skill. These guys should be OK anywhere Worldwinner allows real money play. Note that in a game of pure skill like chess, you can probably legally play another human heads up since there is no chance element that needs to be nullified.

Yeah I agree, that is some sound logic

No, that logic is ... incomplete.

Assume the case where the bots are completely incompetant (bots fold every action). Everybody can beat the bots with the same EV. There is no skill involved in that. This case demonstrates that the worse the bots play the less of a game of skill it becomes. It also, arguably, demonstrates that it's in the business's best interest to have bots that play poorly.

99% percent of us 2+2 will quickly master the bot, and just go broke to the rake. The only chance for skill are the people that haven't played long enough to learn (which play money should facilitate), but I tell ya, they'll learn how to be a bot a lot quicker than they can learn how to play poker.

My point is, it will require less skill that regular poker. Instead of hiring a lawyer, try a mathematician maybe -- and that mathematician would laugh at your implication of 90 hand being relevant. The vast majority of (real-) poker players on the Internet have played more than 90 hands.

I don't mind the presentation of a new game at all, I like considering new games. I just see no grounds for legality of this, and I hate salesmen that misrepresent facts. I like informed consumers that know that two people of equal skill go broke to the rake (or whatever you're calling your service fees). And it will be much easier for all players reach the skill cap against a bot than it would be against a human.

Have fun!

im pretty sure if nobody feeds "McCrea the troll", he will go broke also.

tool

Checked this out today. It's probably the best training software I've ever seen. But it's probably not legal. If there exists a game in which a player who does nothing but mash the call button could beat Phil Ivey, then there is an element of luck. Still, as long as you fly under the radar, you're probably good