http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-co...er-case-n37191

yea its been ruled a game of skill enough times in court. even federal court.
but if a state has a law against gambling its going to get caught up in that.
wrong but thats the way it is for awhile until something happens .

Ahh ... the thread title is misleading. It isn't like they had that case in front of them and somehow punted that issue.

They just didn't take that particular appeal. They don't take a ton of cases every year. I never thought they would take this case. It was a real longshot.

They aren't punting on any "game of skill" issue. They just didn't think the question was important enough to warrant their time.




EDIT:

I now clicked the link and read a few sentences. Why does everyone always feel the need to make poker metaphors? Even the ones that people do well seem awful. And the ones that people do terribly are obviously just awful.

Just write an educated article and stop trying to make puns or whatever that relates to the subject matter.

So what type of action will a site need to take in order to make gaming legal in there state if the federal government has ruled that poker is a game of skill??

Shouldn't this be a no brainer for states to follow along?

Being a game of skill is overrated. States have lottery and we all know how skillful one must be to win at that. It's either you have a gov that's willing to allow gaming or not.

its always been religious or political whether gambling is allowed in any area.
with who is making the current money having the big stick in the decisions.

It's pretty simple, some states want gaming and some don't. Anybody can play the "game of skill card" and people will listen to it if they are against gambling/poker. It's a shame but whatever.

I find it increasingly laughable that there's a debate at all.

There are 2 simple starting points when considering whether Poker is a game of skill or chance (luck).

You can either start by defining what a game of skill is or you can start by defining what a game of chance (luck) is.

The basic accepted definition of what constitutes a game of skill is a game where the player has direct influence over the outcome.

If we look at other games, the game with the least element of chance (luck) are those where all of the information about the game in play is available for all players.

This reduces the types of games to "complete" board games; namely Chess, Backgammon and Connect 4. In each of these games, all players can assess the total information available about the game at all times throughout the game.

It is typically the difference in each players strength (the ability to make sense of the information and formulate an effective winning strategy taking into consideration the optimal play of the other player(s) and also being able to capitalise of slight errors made by an inferior player) that will result in one player beating the other over a series of games.

There is often less certainty over a single game --- as stronger players can make mistakes --- and in the case of chess --- the majority of games between 2 strong, expert players end in a draw (assuming no player makes a mistake or blunder).

So how should we judge games where there is incomplete information? Does this mean there is an absence of skill simply because of a lack of complete information?

How does one view Bridge --- in many Socially upward peoples' minds a refined game of skill because of the 'bidding' systems in use --- or because there's not the money in the game that there is in poker?

As anyone who is anyway serious about poker knows --- poker is a highly complex game because of the incomplete information. It is this incomplete information that makes Poker so enthralling, so fascinating, and attracts some of the brightest people and smartest minds in the world.

Why....?

Because they like to "gamble" because Poker is a game of luck ...?

Absolutely NOT!!! Anyone who thinks that is a complete moron --- hence why politicians are so hung up on the debate --- lol

Bright people with smart minds are attracted to poker because it is one of the greatest problem solving games ever --- and you can't solve a problem without knowledge and skill, creative thinking and a knowledge of people and pyschology....

Poker sure doesn't sound like a game of luck if you need all of the qualities to be a consistently winning player.

Sure you can lose in the short-term and that's the element of the odds proving themselves true. We all know if you have 1-out with the river to come in Hold'em then you have a 5% chance or 1 in 20 chance of winning --- and guess what --- there are times when those odds manifest themselves and you inflict a bad beat on someone and river them....

Is this luck or the result of the odds proving themselves correct?

I think you know the answer...

And guess what --- you don't need a rocket scientist to know categorically that Poker is a complex game of skill with an element of chance based on the odds of each hand once all of the information is revealed at the showdown ;-)

If fact, it would be dangerous to allow a rocket scientist to determine whether poker is skill or chance. Why? because he'll approach the question from the wrong perspective.

And the same is true for the law-makers --- they're politicians in disguise....

If you want to say poker is a game of luck and therefore gambling then the only games that aren't gambling are Chess, Backgammon and Connect 4 --- what a boring world that would be....

So Supreme Court and all other Law-Makers --- stop being a bunch of idiots and apply some straight forward, common sense thinking --- Poker is unquestionably a game of skill --- and that's true whether you like the answer or not...

Oh, and has anyone thought that the real issue is that poker players and the poker community are an independent group free from regulation they exist because of the players and are for the players --- Governments don't like things they can regulate and control --- think on boys ---- ;-)

Yes