New Zealand court rules poker is not gambling
06-23-2010
, 11:53 AM
06-23-2010
, 12:02 PM
06-23-2010
, 05:58 PM
The opinion, from what little I can read of it in the linked article, is not a "skill v. chance" opinion so the relative variance of tournaments or cash games did not come into play.
What this judge essentially ruled is that the format of a tournament makes it different from gambling. He notes that winnings are paid from a set amount of entry fees paid by the players and that no one not playing gets any share of the pool.
Ultimately he is applying the "bone fide contest" exception which frequently appears in US law too. In other words, if you put up money on whether Tiger Woods wins the golf match, thats gambling; if you pay an entry fee and participate in the game/contest, thats not gambling.
If only US judges were so enlightened. But it is hard to imagine a US judge NOT also thinking: "but if I accept that logic poker tournaments will spring up everywhere! Think of the children!"
Skallagrim
What this judge essentially ruled is that the format of a tournament makes it different from gambling. He notes that winnings are paid from a set amount of entry fees paid by the players and that no one not playing gets any share of the pool.
Ultimately he is applying the "bone fide contest" exception which frequently appears in US law too. In other words, if you put up money on whether Tiger Woods wins the golf match, thats gambling; if you pay an entry fee and participate in the game/contest, thats not gambling.
If only US judges were so enlightened. But it is hard to imagine a US judge NOT also thinking: "but if I accept that logic poker tournaments will spring up everywhere! Think of the children!"
Skallagrim
06-23-2010
, 06:47 PM
Quote:
The opinion, from what little I can read of it in the linked article, is not a "skill v. chance" opinion so the relative variance of tournaments or cash games did not come into play.
What this judge essentially ruled is that the format of a tournament makes it different from gambling. He notes that winnings are paid from a set amount of entry fees paid by the players and that no one not playing gets any share of the pool.
Ultimately he is applying the "bone fide contest" exception which frequently appears in US law too. In other words, if you put up money on whether Tiger Woods wins the golf match, thats gambling; if you pay an entry fee and participate in the game/contest, thats not gambling.
If only US judges were so enlightened. But it is hard to imagine a US judge NOT also thinking: "but if I accept that logic poker tournaments will spring up everywhere! Think of the children!"
Skallagrim
What this judge essentially ruled is that the format of a tournament makes it different from gambling. He notes that winnings are paid from a set amount of entry fees paid by the players and that no one not playing gets any share of the pool.
Ultimately he is applying the "bone fide contest" exception which frequently appears in US law too. In other words, if you put up money on whether Tiger Woods wins the golf match, thats gambling; if you pay an entry fee and participate in the game/contest, thats not gambling.
If only US judges were so enlightened. But it is hard to imagine a US judge NOT also thinking: "but if I accept that logic poker tournaments will spring up everywhere! Think of the children!"
Skallagrim
