Does anyone have any idea how the USFC event can conduct a $200 buyin with a guaranteed $40K cash prize pool for a chess tournament, but if they were to trying to offer a $200 buyin for a poker tournament with a $40K cash prize pool, the authorities would be all over it!? Right?

I am a 1700 ranked chess player and am excited about the upcoming US Open Chess Championship at the Biltmore this August!! This is only the third time this USCF event has visited Arizona in its 116 year history!

I am also a pretty good poker player. I play at CAZ 2-3 times a month and drive up to vegas at least once every three months for a weekend of marathon poker.

I'm a native Arizonan. And lately, I've become quite curious about our gambling laws. Arizona is one of those 5 or so states that always seem to be excluded from sweepstakes and other national contests because of the way our laws are worded, including both "skill and chance" in the definition of gambling.

It's my understanding that all gambling in Arizona is illegal unless it's regulated or excluded. Chess isn't regulated like the lottery or indian casinos. And it's not social gambling because it is a public event that people from all over the world come to compete in. Not everyone knows each other like at a typical home game, and the hotel and USCF also benefit.

So that leaves the amusement gambling exclusion, but the prize in the USCF is cash money! $10K+ to the winner. The amusement exclusion requires a merchandise prize product... In my discussions with friends about this particular quandry, I've been told that the amusement gambling exclusion is what allows Chuck E. Cheese video games scores to be exchanged for prizes.

So, someone please help settle a bet between me and my friend. My friend says that Arizona is selective in their prosecution of illegal gambling. Turn the other way... unless, of course, it infringes on gambling activity like poker, that infringes on the tribal casino monopoly.

He also says chess is more like golf than poker. Poker is perceived as immoral. Chess is a higher calling. Chess players are respected for their intellect. Poker players are dirty rotten scoundrels that excel at the art of lying (the bluff) and exploiting angles.

Anyway, the whole concept has led to many discussions at night, and a few hours of research online. My partner thinks that chess pros and poker pros are very different breeds, and that the chess player is the smarter. I say that the poker player not only needs the math and strategy skills of the chess player, but an understanding of the subtle nuances and psychology involved in the game, both reading and not being read.

Anyway, some smart poker player or someone involved with a better understanding of the law than me ... in particular the intellectual gambling exclusion found in 13-3301. No Increment added? The money paid to gamble is part of the established purchase price for a product? Huh? How's that apply to the USCF chess tournament this August?

Thanks!

Hi Skallagrim!

I just posted a similar question concerning the USCF 116th US Open Chess Championship to be held in my home state of Arizona this August. How can this chess event be legal, but if it's a poker tournament... not??

I came to this thread to search for answers to and came across the above. Quite similar but this is happening in Arizona right now, not the UK.

Chess is clearly a game of skill, with no turn of events based on chance. Poker, to the general public and as a matter of policy in most jurisdictions, contains an element of chance, that being the random deal of the cards. That element of chance is inescapable.

The fact that the primary skill in poker is how well you manage that element of chance only further cements the fact that there is an element of chance in poker.

Therefore poker meets the definition of gambling in AZ statute, and all gambling is prohibited by the state constitution, unless it is specifically authorized by statute. This is one of many states where despite there being no law specifically making something illegal, it is not legal by default.

While you are right about which is more important, it is mostly irrelevant according to most statutes I've come across. The element of chance cannot be overlooked, and that the predominant skill in poker is how well you manage the element of chance, it is inescapable.

But Arizona law equally defines gambling as including risking moneys on games of skill. A chess tournament for money is just as illegal as a poker tournament for money in AZ.

risking money as a player, or betting on a player?

Either one:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Arizona/

Right, AZ makes no distinction between games or contests being predominated skill or chance. If there's risk, reward, and a game or contest of skill or chance involved. It's gambling in AZ. That's why, I think, AZ is almost always excluded from the national sweepstakes and fantasy betting sites.

As for the degree of skill involved in poker vs chess, which game is more intellectual, which game requires more skill, which game requires more disciplines, that's really besides the point in this thread anyway, but an interesting debate nonetheless.

Also not of concern are staked players in either format.

But I would like to add that we are discussing TOURNAMENTS. Not individual chess matches or individual hands of poker. And in a chess tournament, things are different. The board starts the same, one player black, one player white. In poker, the hands are always different, after each shuffle. So there's the element of chance in poker right away, however, both are predominated by skill rather than chance. This is why there are professional chess and poker players, but nobody seriously claims their trade as "professional keno player", right?

The element of chance in a chess tournament occurs in the draw for opponents, and the opponents you face each round. If you draw a far superior opponent in a chess tournament, that can be the equivalent of running into pocket Aces that turn into quads to beat your full house in the first hand in a poker tournament!

The element of chance in ANY player vs. player match up always exists. Chess, I find, as in poker, is best played when you are not worried about other things outside of the activity. When you are comfortable and relaxed. There's always a chance that your opponent is going to be an emotional wreck, even if they are better than you on paper. You capitalize on their mistakes and win.

When skill is the dominant factor in any contest or game, and you want to wager on that contest or game, on your own personal skills, merits and capabilities, by all means man, shouldn't you be able to do that?

But so far, nobody has offered any insights into the intellectual amusement gambling exclusion as it might apply to the USCF event coming in August. By all indications and understanding I have, the event should be considered as illegal as a poker tournament for the same stakes and $50K projected cash prize pool.

I am thinking that maybe my friend is right, that the state just turns the other way when the "First American's" monopolistic claims aren't infringed upon or when the public acceptance disagrees with the law or public policies. Kind of like the illegal poker rooms that used to be found all over... now they're gone... and I'm wondering if chess might be next?!

Curtis, you are mistaken. The predomination of skill in poker is not primarily in how well you manage the element of chance. That's part of the equation, and one that you as a player have control over. In chess, the element of chance in the tournament draw, who you play against. You can't really manage that element of chance, so I prefer poker myself as a strategic competition. Maybe it's because the elements of chance are greater, maybe it's because if you beat me three times and I beat you once, I might still be considered ahead in poker haha.

The key point to be made is that poker, like chess, like bridge, like scrabble, is predominantly skill. Judge Weinstein issued a great 120 page opinion on, in part based on PPA's amicus brief, that basically made poker a protected form of gambling by declaring it as a predominantly skill game. It's how the Long Island poker room operator "got off" on the charges... and even though he lost in the appeal, the facts that poker is predominantly a skill game remains unchallenged and still quite valid... at the federal level, if not each state individually... I suspect that the facts in the Long Island case will be challenged in every state court, and I would think they'd be valid regardless. Even in Arizona, with it's definition of gambling not giving any preference or "out" for games of skill, offers three gambling exclusions based on athleticism, intellectual prowess or just plain "skill".

A chess tournament isn't an athletic event (think the PGA Phoenix Open).

A chess tournament is a game of skill. But the prizes aren't "merchandise products with a retail value that doesn't exceed $550".

The chess tournament is an intellectual contest... but the USCF event adds an increment to the money paid to gamble, to wit, it's $150-190 entry fee also requires you to become a USCF member (+$49). Adding an increment to the established purchase price for the product with regards to the intellectual gambling voids the intellectual gambling exclusion.

So I just don't see how the USCF event could be considered legal.

I asked the Arizona Department of Gaming today. We'll see what they say about it. I'll let you know here too.

Sure there is chance there, but that isn't a part of the game. The chance in a card game happens during game play. It's more than a small distinction.

Those arguments won't hold up, in most jurisdictions there is enough chance to meet the definition. Trying to trip up a statute with a court interpretation is folly for the simple reason that the legislature will just go back and tweak the statute (if necessary) so that it does what the intent of the statute was for it to do.

This argument is not effective, you need legislation changes.

Tournament poker might get by, I think there is a better argument that the structure of a poker tournament meets contest requirements, and more likely to be deemed a skill game, but ring games never will.

In any event, I think the skill argument can be used as a defense if you are actually tried criminally, but it is a long shot and it won't invalidate statute.

I look forward to hearing what they say

The intellectual contest exclusion does not apply afaict, as this chess tournament does not meet all the criteria:
This exclusion seems designed for something like a prize for a crossword puzzle contest that appears in a magazine.

Someone must be turning a blind eye to the chess tournament, although it is possible that tournament somehow is run under the athletic event exclusion:

Even so, there would not be a distinction between a $40K chess tournament and a $40K poker tournament under the law, imo, despite their structural differences.

I thought you said you were looking forward to playing the chess tournament. Why are you poking the bear?

The money paid to gamble in the US Open Chess tournament is the entry fee, which gives participants the privilege of participating in not only the chess tournament(s), but the conference, seminars, meetings, golf outing... in other words "the event" is the product. Can't the nine-day event be considered "the product"? That would seem to satisfy the "money paid to gamble is part of an established purchase price for a product" language you emphasized PokerXanadu.

M-W.com defines "product" as:


: something that is made or grown to be sold or used

: something that is the result of a process

: someone or something that is produced or influenced by a particular environment or experience

Arizona's product liability section of the statutes defines product as:

ARS 12-681(4) "Product" means the individual product or any component part of the product that is the subject of a product liability action.

I thought you couldn't used the word being defined in the definition, yet this statute limits the definition of product to the subject of a product liability action.

Could the USFC's US Open guarantee of the $40K cash prize pool validate the chess tournament as a product that may be subject to a liability action if, say, the $40K wasn't there? Could the winners of the event sue the USFC for their guaranteed winnings?

Ha... that could -- if it's NOT illegal gambling.

Seems like an endless loop.

As for the athletic exclusion... seriously doubt it PokerXanadu, although the argument can be made that a 9-day chess tournament/conference requires... stamina.

And the same could be said for poker then too, could it not?

I think that the money paid to play in the chess tournament is part (PART?!) of an established purchase price for a product ... in this case, the conference/event.

Still, the USCF may run into problems with the increment language. You gotta pay a registration fee, and pay an annual membership fee if not already. On could say you had to be a member before you register, that would conceivably keep the entry to the event down to one price with no increment added. But there are plenty of "side event" tournaments at the USCF Open, each with their own entry fee afaik.

The intellectual exclusion is definitely confusing, ambiguous, with the potential for vagueness in the law leading to selective prosecution.

Thanks for the input PokerXanadu.

13-3304. Benefiting from gambling; classification

A. Except for amusement or regulated gambling, a person commits benefiting from gambling if he knowingly obtains any benefit from gambling.

and

13-3301(1). Amusement Gambling

(c) The prizes are not offered as a lure to separate the player or players from their money.

These two AZ gambling statutes seem contradictory.

I guess, PokerXanadu, because I feel equally passionate about poker player's rights to conduct skill-based tournaments in Arizona as chess player's enjoy, under the same -- whatever exclusion applies!

And if it's a tacit "blind eye" exclusion, then let's just say that I don't truck that.

I wouldn't worry about it though PokerXanadu. As long as the gambling activity doesn't infringe on the First 'merican's monopoly in our fine state, the ADG doesn't have much bite. It will be interesting to see what they say indeed.

The tournament draw is an integral part of the tournament. And we are talking about tournaments, not single matches. There's also the chance of tournament poker seating that could put you on a table with 8 pros or 8 noobs. Both are part of the "chance" elements in a tournament situtation.

The key point here is that poker and chess are both games of predominantly skill, and that skill can be further honed down to being primarily intellectual skill... math, psychology, strategy.

And Arizona's gambling statutes allow exceptions to "illegal gambling" for both skill and intellectual and physical (athletic) contests where the participants are betting on their own performance.

If the exclusion works for chess tournaments, then shouldn't it work for poker tournaments as well?

as I say often, we can debate it here all we want, but it settles nothing. Get yourself arrested for playing poker, then the issue will be in the proper venue and we can get a determination

Ha! Do you say that often Curtis? LOL. I'm going to use that too. I'm sure.

A better route would be a declaratory judgement. How much do those run these days. Should be a slam dunk for the prosecutor to defend. I'll just ask the judge to decide if the event is illegal, and present him with the facts. LEt the State defend that it is not, and we'll see how it works for chess, and then do the same for poker. haha

What would happen if I filed for a declaratory judgement? Ask the judge to determine if the USCF is legal under Arizona law. IT would be fun to see the State prosecutor defend that, because if they can show the tournament is legal, then I think the same exclusion would work for a poker tournament in Arizona set up the same exact way as the chess tournament... even if we had to have meetings and discount hotel rates and seminars and an award dinner to qualify, I'm assuming, our event as "the product" people pay to participate in, with the poker/chess tournament being ancillary to the event or ... FREE to enter for everyone, even those that paid a registration and entry fee.

Been thinking about this all day, and think that's the way to handle this situation. If it's a blind eye thing, I'll withdraw the request for a declaratory judgement. I have nothing against chess or poker, just a state government that is biased towards Indian gaming even while they posture being against another predatory gambling casino in the heart of the Valley's growing west side (Glendale).

It's rather sickening.

ADG's response was remarkably quick, considering it was a holiday weekend. This is direct quote:

"Your notice of concerns about the United States Chess Federation (USCF) 116th Annual U.S. Open Chess Championship scheduled for August 1-9 led us to contact counsel for the USCF. After discussions, the Arizona Department of Gaming has determined that the conference and championship does not fall within Arizona's statutory definition of illegal gambling."

Chess players can breath a sigh of relief. Actually, my "notice of concern" would never result in actual prosecution, raids or cancellation of the US Open Chess tournament... Sworn ADG agents do not have the luxury of "prosecutorial discretion" as all prosecutors do. Any request from ADG recommending that the US Open Chess Tournament be prosecuted as illegal gambling would be laughed at and tossed into the trash immediately with a "Ya, technically, but so what and who cares? This national chess championship is older than our State! We're not going to shut it down even if it technically is illegal!"

And I'd buy that... because prosecutors have discretion. Sworn peace officers, like most ADG agents and officers, do not get that luxury. If sworn officers have knowledge of a criminal activity, they must report it and do something about it. In ADG's case, that means filing an investigation report, analyzing the data, and recommending it for prosecution to the appropriate agency.

That didn't happen here. ADG surprised me with it's unsolicited opinion that they are not authorized to give that the chess tournament is NOT illegal gambling in Arizona.

it would seem that the findings of fact in those "discussions" would provide a satisfactory and factual response rather than ADG's unsolicited (and cryptic) opinion. I don't think ADG is required to provide even that much, so they responded as a courtesy. Even though the unsolicited opinion lacks anything of substance that satisfies my belief that this chess tournament is as illegal as a comparable poker tournament under Arizona law.

If a chess tournament is somehow not illegal gambling, there must be a factual reason why. If it slides through the amusement exclusion as an athletic competition for chess, then the same athletic attribute (stamina) should apply for a poker tournament to be excluded.

If the chess tournament's financial transactions are subject to the common law of contracts (laughable long shot, but there is that $40K guaranteed prize pool), then so too should the money changing hands in a similar poker tournament and conference event.

If there is no risk involved in participating in the chess tournament, in other words, the participants are paying registration fees for the conference, and the tournament event is ancillary to the event "product", where some participants even play for free, then so to, should the same structure work for poker tournaments conducted by a non-profit organization that promotes poker... or backgammon... or canasta... dominoes... bridge...

I'm feeling frustrated and a bit overwhelmed by this, but the ADG seems to have made a major tactical error in saying that the US Open Chess tournament is NOT ILLEGAL, but offering no facts or anything of substance that contradicts the obvious evidence that says it is as illegal as a comparably structured poker tournament.

Also, I've combed through the revised statutes looking for Arizona's definition of "illegal gambling" but can't find it. Anyone have any clue what ADG lawyers are trying to do with their gobbledygook language in the response to my notice of concern?

So what do I do now? Drop it? Is there anything more I could do? Seems like their should be.

I do want to pursue this though. If you want to join me in some sort of motion to compel evidence of fact with an ALJ or in Superior Court, I'm thinking of doing something like that pro se. The more the merrier, and the more substance the pleading will have before the bench. Message me! I should reach out to Arizona PPA director and see what he suggests.

So they didn't tell you why it didn't fall under illegal gambling? Have you followed up with them and asked why it isn't?

That is almost like the DOJ saying that someone's concern led them to contact the attorney for the Mafia and after discussions have determined the numbers racket isn't a criminal enterprise.

LOL! Perfect analogy Doc, and I've been looking for one too. Thanks!

After receiving ADG's response I did immediately reply with an e-mail saying "I can't find the statutory definition for illegal gambling", and "that's an opinion, which you aren't even authorized to give". I asked for the facts that support that opinion, and I made a public records request. Those can take days, or weeks.

But I did ask for a more detailed explanation as to which exclusion, or avoidance of the definition of gambling, applies in this case. What did their investigation discover? What material facts that led to their opinion?

I'm not even sure where to begin with legal action, but that seems like it may be the only route. And I don't think it guarantees success either. I am not, by nature, a litigious fellow.

Does a complainant (me) have a special "right to know" the factual evidence and details that an investigative agency discovers that allows that agency to form an opinion as to whether an activity is legal or not?

Are investigative public agencies required to provide exculpatory evidence to a complainant when they investigate a concern and determine that no crime is being committed?

Is it legally possible that how ADG applies the law of the land to this situation is indirectly "an opinion"?

I'm just thinking out loud...

Rather than a motion to compel ADG to disclose information, which may still be unsuccessful, rebuffed or ambiguous, can a judge be asked to make a ruling that verifies ADG's findings after examining the same "discovery" and "analysis" that I provided ADG? A judge can deposition the parties involved and learn what they discovered too.

It seems quite amusing to me that ADG lawyers might then be called to defend a Chess For Money gambling syndicate as well respected as the USCF, and if successful, would be in effect, potentially providing the blueprint for self-regulated poker tournaments in bars, restaurants, and yes chess players, even the Biltmore.

What about the USCF? Surely this isn't the first time the USCF has run into gambling concerns. Obviously "discussions" took place between USCF and ADG lawyers or agents. What questions were asked? What answers were provided? That information alone should indicate what and how the event is excluded from illegal gambling laws. But now that ADG has made a conclusive opinion, how can I compel them to explain it or give me facts that would lead me to the same conclusive opinion?

I guess, wait and see what the public records request reveals, but anyone with any information or friendly advice on what steps can be taken in court to compel the ADG to disclose more information, the facts, that support their opinion.

You might send a letter to the USCF and ask them the same questions.