By The Associated Press

BLOOMSBURG (PA) — A divided Pennsylvania appeals court has overturned a county judge’s ruling that declared the popular poker game “Texas Hold ‘Em” to be legal.

The three-judge panel said in a 2-1 decision that Columbia/Montour County Judge Thomas James Jr. erred when he said the game did not meet the definition of gambling because the outcome is more dependent upon skill than chance.

...

John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance, said the organization is disappointed by the appeals court’s decision but he expects the case to go to the state’s highest court.

So tilting that morons have the authority to make these decisions in are country. A game that has skill, but predominantly chance. Pff gtfo

You've got to realize that in spite of its proximity to the generally liberal Northeast, and in spite of its status as a typucal Democrat stronghold, Opennsylvania is actually a very conservative state. This ruling doesn't surprise me in the least.

I've been hoping someone who has read the ruling would come by with more detail if there is any on their justification. IIRC this case had lots of scientific evidence proving skill and only "opinion" from prosecution witnesses to refute it. (I might be confusing this with the other Pennsylvania case that went against us in a jury trial.)

If I'm seeing this correctly our mixed results in Pennsylvania is the struggle we face in using the skill vs chance argument. I could be summarized as "lots of people are stupid." Despite the many and constantly increasing scientific studies showing otherwise they have a hard time seeing beyond the obvious chance element. If they've never played or, probably worse, played a handful of times where they would have lived or died by the cards as most new players who don't know how to fold would this is somewhat understandable. They've got to see it to believe it.

One thing that might be do is an actual demonstration of how it can be done. Something like what I think Mike Sexton did when he testified in one of the cases (South Carolinia, maybe). Among other things walking through a series of hands from a televised tournament and discussing the thought process of the various players and how skill influenced the outcome.

Two things stand out in the majority opinion in this case: 1) Their footnote explaining the rules of Texas Hold-em does not directly mention folding; 2) Their primary justification for ruling against us was the favorable citation to the NC case of Joker v. Hardin. You will recall that was the one that happened before we created the PPA legal network and said, essentially, poker is a game of skill because no amount of skill can turn a deuce into an ace.

You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge but you can't make it listen.

There will be an appeal sought.

Skallagrim

Did you mean 'chance' above, or do I not follow?

He meant chance. I remember the ruling. Since skill can't alter the random component of the game, the court concluded that chance predominated. This was the only reason they provided for this conclusion, if I recall correctly. The logical implication here is that every game with a random component is predominated by chance, which has obvious deficiencies, so I would have hoped that this ruling would not be influencing other decisions. Sigh. Wow... this is just eerily ignorant. Go get 'em, Skall.

Thank goodness these judges are not elitists with a cursory understanding of statistics and the sort of game theory that underpins most free market economic activity! We are blessed that they are true 'muricans who know what is right and wrong in their gut. 'Murica need's more of these true 'muricans!

It's so ironic, much like an experienced player who knows he holds the edge, but fears and treads carefully to the amateur's unpredictability (stupidity?), we fear the stupidity (unpredictability?) of ignorant judges and juries.

Hey Skall, where are you getting the official opinion?

I have a little bit of an inside connection here .

I will try and get the opinion published somewhere on the PPA site or find out if there will be a government web-link at some point and let you know.

Skallagrim

PS - as usual permafrost was first to catch my misstatement earlier. Yes, the NC court in Joker ruled poker was NOT a game of skill. Sorry for somehow deleting the "not" and then having to run before I could catch and edit it. Thanks perma for catching the mistake and repulse for clarifying it.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Sup.../A29028_09.pdf

Kevmath, .... you're good.

Thanks

Skallagrim

I don't know why I find these to be interesting reads. I guess it's my inner nerd coming out.

It seems the majority in this case cherry picked decisions that supported what they wanted to decide. Not that this surprises me, but virtually all of them are based on opinion or "everyone knows" statements. The recent court successes are not mentioned. Possibly this is because they all (I think) have been lower courts except SC which was a state appelate level IIRC.

It's tough to argue with the minority opinion here. If the state offered no evidence to prove what both parties agree is the issue how can they possibly find for the state. Aren't appeals courts supposed to judge based on what was submitted at trial or in briefs rather than going out in search of facts or precedent not in evidence?

I like how "and a lot of bluffing" is sort of an aside. Successfully bluffing is a skill!! It is not luck. It can allow people to overcome the luck of the cards dealt.

All these things need is a simple statistic that shows how many hands are won at showdown and how many are won without showdown on a site like stars. My guess is the overwhelming majority are won without a showdown. Meaning the luck of who had the better cards was never truly a factor.

I'm not positive of exactly what arguments were presented in this case, but know the PPA Litigation Director consulted with the lawyer in this case. Because of that I would be amazed if this exact thing wasn't part of the evidence presented to support the argument. There are multiple studies that are routinely used in these cases that show this.

This is the United States of America. Science is irrelevant.

God Bless You.

thx Kev

Hmmm...I doubt this information is available, but IIRC stars RNG creates a "deck" for each hand. So, even if a hand is folded preflop they could technically say what the flop, turn and river would be. I wonder if they could compile statistics about the hand that would have won the pot if everyone stayed in the hand and it went to showdown and the hand that actually won the pot. I'm betting it would be ridiculously different numbers.

I bet if they only used hands that actually went to showdown they could still show that the majority would have been won by a hand that folded sometime before showdown. Obviously heads up would have to be excluded from such a study.

One of the studies the PPA is currently referencing in their legal briefs is exactly what you propose in the last paragraph. There was a lot of discussion about the study in this forum both when it was being undertaken and after it came out. It looked at a very large sample of hands that PokerStars provided. They also solicited hand histories from players to use to independently validate a sample of the hands provided by PS to verify that what they were provided was legitimate.

BTW, what you say about a "deck" being fully constituted at the start of the deal so they could tell who would have won if there was no showdown isn't true for all sites. At least Full Tilt does what is called a "continuous deal" which is essentially just what it sounds like. The remainder of the deck is shuffled during play.

The scientific study you guys are referring to is the Cigital study. You can read a copy of it here: http://www.cigital.com/resources/gaming/poker/

The results: after review of over 100 million hands played at PokerStars, 76% do not go to showdown; of the 24% that do go to showdown, in slightly more than 1/2 the hand that would have been best at showdown had folded prior to showdown. This study, along with over a dozen others, was cited and discussed in the PPA brief that was filed in this case but apparently never read.

But hey, why let the truth bother you? Why try and understand how the game actually works when its so much easier to simply assume ALL hands go to showdown so the deal of the cards is deciding who wins ....

As has been said in reference to those who think litigation is the answer to our troubles, this case is a good example of exactly what you are dealing with when dealing with the judiciary in the modern US.

Skallagrim

As you know, I agree about the problem of judges ignoring fact and law when making decisions. Litigation is a gamble. However, so is any legislation passing and the result of passage. This is what happens when judges and politicians ignore the US Constitution for a long time. The system of laws established by the founding fathers is replaced by an unpredictable system of politics.

to be more precise, science (e.g. maths and evolution) do not apply in jeebus land.

Nice link. Thanks.

So, the one thing I can say for the "game of chance" side is that we don't know how often the "best hand" won in the hands that didn't go to showdown. Some of those could still technically be seen as luck rather than skill.

Still I think that data clearly shows that there is a lot of room for skill to overcome the actual cards being dealt.