Hi, I have another question which hopefully the members of our forum can be more patient this time, as, I do not have a legal experience of US Law and legal System but maybe some of my points are still worth a consideration?

1. "Contest of chance" means any contest, game, gaming scheme or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein.

2. "Gambling" A person engages in gambling when he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.

4. "Advance gambling activity." A person "advances gambling activity" when, acting other than as a player, he engages in conduct which materially aids any form of gambling activity. Such conduct includes but is not limited to conduct directed toward the creation or establishment of the particular game, contest, scheme, device or activity involved, toward the acquisition or maintenance of premises, paraphernalia, equipment or apparatus therefor, toward the solicitation or inducement of persons to participate therein, toward the actual conduct of the playing phases thereof, toward the arrangement of any of its financial or recording phases, or toward any other phase of its operation. One advances gambling activity when, having substantial proprietary or other authoritative control over premises being used with his knowledge for purposes of gambling activity, he permits such to occur or continue or makes no effort to prevent its occurrence or continuation.

5. "Profit from gambling activity." A person "profits from gambling activity" when, other than as a player, he accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby he participates or is to participate in the proceeds of gambling activity.

225.05 A person is guilty of promoting gambling in the second degree when he knowingly advances or profits from unlawful gambling activity.

225.30 Possession of a gambling device.
a. A person is guilty of possession of a gambling device when, with knowledge of the character thereof, he or she manufactures, sells, transports, places or possesses, or conducts or negotiates any transaction affecting or designed to affect ownership, custody or use of:
1. A slot machine, unless such possession is permitted pursuant to article nine-A of the general municipal law; or
2. Any other gambling device, believing that the same is to be used in the advancement of unlawful gambling activity; or


Anyway I dont see anyway that they don`t. Sports 'depends a material degree on an elemetn of chance' on which many things of value, like personal pride, team pride, points, contracts, whatever are staked. Does that mean the guys who run sports are violating igba? How about Wall St. Who gamble with billions of dollar of their clients funds all the time, just read Goldman Sacks twits. Or all those day traders. Something of value is being risked every second on the outcome of a future event the traders don`t have control over, such as the actions of other traders and market conditions and so forth. Sure they are employing tools and strategies but no less so than a poker player employs holdem manager, And they have no more control over those events than a poker player has control over his opponents actions and board runouts. So according to Igba it`s a violation of NY state law and thus a federal violation (plus travel act and whatnot) so all those vendors of trading software should go to jail. (Usu. there are exceptions made for certain activities that are not considering gambling by society but i see none for NY)

Anthing Im seeing wrong here?????????

And if not, the big question is, what can poker's side do to legally cement the riduculous and untenable overreach of this sort of law?

No.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000:

(c) PREEMPTION.—This title shall supersede and pre-
5 empt the application of any State or local law that pro-
6 hibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket
7 shops (other than antifraud provisions of general applica-
8 bility) in the case of—
9
10
11
(1) a hybrid instrument that is predominantly
a banking product; or
(2) a covered swap agreement.

But thats just futures.

This

I find myself saying the words "penal code" over and over.

Fascinating words.

I'm also fascinated by the word "pianist".

Sometimes I really wonder about myself. LOL

Most state gaming laws specifically exempt trading in stocks & commodities, as well as selling insurance. The fact poker players keep trotting out this facile "but stocks are gambling too!" analogy is a sad commentary on the lack of legal and political common sense in the poker community.

If it is "facile" to wonder why stock and commodity trading is not considered gambling like poker, then why did the federal government, as noted above by sba9630, feel the need to specifically exempt such transactions from state gambling laws? Why also, as you note, do so many states feel the need to have provisions in their gambling laws that specifically exempt "futures contracts" and such from gambling.

The question is hardly "facile." Instead, the idea that poker players must simply accept the current situation and not question their second class status when it comes to gambling law - that is "facile."

Skallagrim

The correct answer is that they do, but the Government says that it's okay that they do because the feds have already figured out how to tax and regulate those bets.

Uncle Sam gots to get PAID, son . . .

Sports betting businesses, yes.
Sports (i.e. professional teams or the Knicks), no.
Wall Street, no.

The established, licensed stock exchanges and commodity exchanges are readily distinguishable, on policy grounds, from online poker or gambling operators.

Briefly, one of the functions of capital markets in the US is to allow for investment among the broadest range of investor risk appetites, thereby facilitating financing of socially desirable projects or venture with (in theory) the optimal risk-adjusted price of capital.

Trading in secondary markets for equity or debt rewards or punishes project/business/venture performance (again in theory).

Similarly, trading in commodities markets, (again in theory) prices and re-prices commodities to aid the "market" in allocating their usage by that criteria ..... which kind of sucks if you are priced out of the spot market.

Poker is a game, it is not an investment in or allocation of "something else". This does not mean it should be prohibited as "gambling". Rather, comparison to stocks/commodities, just because those activities also bear risk, ignores the policy basis for regulation of each differently. Such whining undercuts meaningful policy analysis and understanding the real political landscape.

So poker players, do yourself a favor, stop this self indulgence. Poker has no real relation to the social policy justification of financing desirable investment or allocating commodities, which is why it is not perceived on the same terms as stock or commodities investment or trading despite all of them bearing "risk".

P.S. Neither is the issue one of government not being able to figure out how to derive revenue from online gambling, that effort has been demonstrated by numerous real-life examples, not all of them successful for the long term.

Given that stock and commodities trading IS gambling and treated better than other forms of gambling, why shouldn't we point that out?

It would appear that the answer to your question, at least as far as grange95 and Gzesh are concerned, is that you would appear to be "uppity" or "whining."

The question being posed by the OP was not whether there are differences between poker, stock trading, commodity trading, futures trading and sports. Indeed it is rather condescending to think that this is not obvious to all.

What makes the OP's question viable is going further and asking whether these differences really justify different treatment under the law. IOW, if gambling is inherently bad and therefore should be illegal (the basic premise of the NY law), and poker is bad because it is "gambling," then why aren't other things that are just as much gambling as poker also illegal?

Gzesh trots out the standard answer with respect to trading: because it encourages some beneficial economic activity. But that benefit is really almost entirely due to direct investing and buying, not secondary trading - only the purchase of stock from the corporation increases the corporate capital; only the actual purchase of a commodity helps establish its monetary worth. The secondary market for trading those stocks and rights to purchase has very little tangible beneficial value beyond serving as one of many possible means to agree on a price. And what the OP actually talks about is the secondary trading of things like "mortgage backed derivative securities" on their own markets. This secondary activity has little if any overall benefit to society and, as we all know from recent experience, can tank an investor just as easily as an average Joe can lose his rent money playing poker.

But "gambling" in secondary markets like derivatives and other intangible securities is mostly quite legal while "gambling" at poker is mostly illegal. Yet objectively, it would appear, the workings of both are the same: money is put into a system (or a "game" if you like) and then moved around by the system (or game) from one person to another on the basis of a mix of luck and skill.

To fully justify the situation with respect to those types of secondary and tertiary markets requires far more than simply observing that selling stock is an efficient way for a company to raise capital and for an investor to realize a return.

And whatever the final justification is or may be, it is certainly neither "sad," "fascile,' "whining" nor "self-indulgent" for a person to question why his or her chosen form of "gambling" happens to be among the illegal ones. It is instead the initial manifestation of a person seeking equal treatment under the law.

But, as us old folks remember, wherever there have persons demanding an end to their second class status and for equal treatment with their "betters" under the law, there have also been others who will call them "uppity" and "whiners."

Don't listen to them OP, continue to ask questions - it is the only way things ever really get changed.

Skallagrim

^^^ or as Gordon Gecko said it - "I create nothing".

Once upon a time, investing meant a long term buy and hold strategy - say to set up a widow's stock. There was very little risk involved in buying shares of IBM or ATT.

Nowadays, financial investing strongly resembles betting the daily double at Belmont. How many billion did JP Morgan lose?

And people accuse poker players of making money disappear into thin air.