So I guess buying insurance is gambling too. But wait a minute, it has its own separate classification that has nothing to do with gambling. Poker should be the same.

if you think poker isnt gambling then you are seriously ******ed. its about the purest form of gambling there is. dunno why you, or anyone else, is trying to defend the idea that its not. gambling is awesome, own up to it.

Im very sorry, but I think you are posting some really rude comments here. You are wrong. Poker is not gambling. I dont care to discuss this further with you. gambling is not awesome, poker is. I hope you'll get the help you need some day.

lol

I'm a bit hesitant about getting into semantics here, but here is a definition of "gambling" from a dictionary: to risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance. Now, I can see that an argument could be made that money may not be anything of value, that it serves a purpose just as chess pieces do. But then, chance comes in, and no matter how precise the expectation is over any sample, it's still chance. If you put money vs an opponent playing chess, the activity becomes wagering. So I guess the defining part is whether something is dependable on skill vs. chance i.e. wagering vs. gambling.
Sincerely, Cpt. Obvious

You can play poker without real money, so is that not gambling, is that gambling? NO it is not, then is would then be only a skill game, correct? Poker with play money is a skill game that is not gambling. U can play golf without money as well, golf is a skill game. But in order for there to be professionals of a sport, you must allow them to play for money. Therefor we should allow golf tournaments for professionals to compete, and we should allow poker games with real money for professionals to compete. I see no difference. You don't have to play any other card games for money like penuckle etc, but you can play them competitivly for money. Poker should then be no different.

Cliffs- Poker played with toothpicks is still poker, and its still a skill game. And it is not gambling.

that's a cool way of putting it

Everyone has heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse." It is also true that there is no excuse for ignorance of the law.

If "gambling" were to be LEGALLY defined as wagering any amount of money or thing of value on a game (as gnvsnnkv seems to imply), then judges who wager a round of drinks on their round of golf are guilty of the crime of gambling. Likewise, all those who entered Bridge, Backgammon, and Mah Jong tournaments. And don't get me started on web sites like worldwinner.com where you can wager money on a game of scrabble or solitaire - the DOJ has never threatened to charge them with running an "illegal gambling business" despite the fact they are located in Massachusetts!

As far as the word 'gambling' goes in common parlance, we gamble on almost everything in life almost everyday - there is almost nothing in life where chance events cannot surpass and thwart a human exercise of skill.

But no one wants all of life to be ILLEGAL gambling. So things we do not want to be illegal are legally defined as NOT "gambling" because gambling is illegal.

And among the things the law defines as NOT "gambling" are games of skill like golf or chess. No one is sending cops to bust up the local bridge games played for $10 a point, the guys in the park who play chess for $5 a game, nor the MagicTheGathering $20 buy-in tournament at the local hobby store/

Unlicensed places with slot machines or a roulette table, however, get shut down and their owners arrested.

Obviously, this may cause confusion if you are unaware of these details.

But once you get the point, where do you think poker should fit on this continuum between slots and chess?

If you think poker should be on the same side of the line as chess, please consider not calling it "gambling" because if you do then many people think it must be the same as playing the lottery or the slots. And those have to be illegal or limited by the government.

Skallagrim

Wyatt: Didn't you always say gambling's an honest trade?

Doc: I said poker's an honest trade. Only suckers buck the tiger. The odds are all with the house.

False. Any bill almost certainly needs to get past Bachus. Those aren't my words. I'll trust the CNN report (even if CNN isn't always right) over someone out of the mix completely.

First, there are more culture warriors in the teabagger movement then you think.

Second, the House has already spent time on culture war issues, even before tackling jawbz and the deficit.

Third, most of the GOP reps who aren't teabaggers are beholden to the religious right.

Fourth, assuming you're correct, do you think the 'real' patriots would want to set up a federal gov't bureacracy to regulate ipoker? Do you think they have any interest in generating revenue for the feds?

This post is mis-titled, it should read:

Shift by Kyl on need for a retirement fund?

Senator Kyl already has a retirement fund by virtue of his 25+ years of government service. He makes approximately $174,000 now, he'll make approximately $139,000 when he retires (I've left out medical benefits, etc.).

Any campaign contributions he receives from anyone delusional enough to think he has an open mind on this issue can and in all likelihood will, be given to other politicians.

First it was meant mostly in jest, but since you are bringing up numbers, $139,000 a year is a pittance compared to what he could be paid to 'be a bit flexible' on this.

hell also be able to make about 5K plus expenses per gig on the college lecture circuit.

Again, a pittance.

srsly, if he wanted a payoff i'm SURE stars could give him a company credit card with millions on it

Kinda what I was saying.

Another from the Cpt. Obvious file.

You risk something of value (your life) any time you venture into traffic in a car, and there is always a chance that the driver coming the other direction will cross the center line. Every time we do (or don't do) anything in life, there is chance and value involved.

The whole basis of the question is ludicrous. IMO. (lookey there, I just gamble that no one will flame me and hurt my feelings!)

There is a difference between the law definition and the dictionary definition.

For example, the outcome of a game of backgammon is clearly based, in some part, upon chance. However, there is case law that clearly establishes that backgammon is a game of skill and not included in the prohibition against gambling.

The test is not whether a wager contains any element of chance at all, but whether the outcome of the game is predominantly influenced by skill. For example the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that Backgammon could be played for real money without offending the state statues against illegal gambling because "It is a game not much dependent on chance, but depends largely on the skill of the player"

You're forgetting Kyl's roots. He may be seated from Arizona, but he was at one point a lawyer for casino/gambling interests. Maybe he has already decided where to cash in after he quits? Or an old favor called in?

Guys can we get back to the original topic? I really want someone to prove me wrong.

I don't think Kyl's position has shifted because he clearly is talking about the december bill which he ultimately killed.

Just to be clear, I was thinking out loud and obv am a proponent of legalization. I'm sure this has been a very extensive discussion around the forums, and I'm very unlikely to add anything new to it, so I've used this opportunity as a reasoning exercise of sorts. Pls, excuse me if it's a wrong place or inappropriate at all.
I will not even go into "legal definitions" and political implications, since there's a lot of hypocrisy etc. But my thoughts:

Again, let's take something oversimplified like chess - the most eloquent example of the "skill-game" - if I vaguely see a combination of moves that I "guess" will lead to a certain result - by initiating this sequence, I'm basically gambling. If I'd missed something and it did indeed lead to a loss, I sorta ~"took a chance" and my gamble failed. But if I do see the decision tree with 10 moves deep, and do see that if I make certain moves it'll definitely lead me to winning the game, everything depends on me making those moves. A question then: is it theoretically possible to be skillful enough to be able to flip a coin so it lands on tails? What about dice? Roulette? I think yes. So when I possess that skill and am able to do those things, I'm not gambling while playing craps etc. But when I don't, I am... Same with pool or golf. So it depends on how the game is used.

On the other hand, take basketball - a game that would definitely would not be considered as gambling on the surface. Is a Basketball coach a gambler since he's not in direct control of his players? Yes, he basically gambles on his reputation or whatever implications arise form his moves. Is Basketball therefore gambling? Most people would say no.

Imho, if I do something, and there is the "guessing", "taking a chance" part in it along with me putting something on it that I'd lose if I'm unsuccessful and v.v., its gambling. Now, obv life is incredibly complex and human skill can take us only this far, so we're forced to gamble pretty much every minute of our life... And while there are gambles that we can never win with the appropriate sample size: smoking, drunk driving etc. there are others that are largely dependable on our skill set etc. If you are able to take in everything and process it (Look up: Laplace's demon), you pwn (ungamble) life...

Poker, although largely based on skill,
does have this stigma because it involves money directly, while the Basketball coach whose gambles succeed more and therefore gets paid the same money bills, albeit indirectly, doesn't.

So my conclusion is that I really don't think that gambling automatically means something negative and shameful. I guess there are just different types of it.

Has Kyl's position changed or has poker changed to the point where he can now support legislation? IMO Reid v. X.0 was killed because of the desire to punish the existing US facing sites for continuing to serve the US after UIGEA. In December the punishment/playing field was not enough to satisfy Kyl. Now with the former US facing sites almost certainly bared from future re-entry, to the delight to US casino interests, there is the level playing field spoken of at that time. One last possible up side for the poker community is there is no split over any black out period or how to keep the former US facing sites.

It would have to be a Western Union transfer to the Phillipines or put onto a calling card. Alternatively, he could request one check a week for $250.00, but he would have to wonder what happened to his money after he withdraws a few bucks, and the account is seized