Gov't responds to Black Friday complaint
11-15-2011
, 10:14 PM
11-15-2011
, 10:59 PM
Quote:
No. The Video Poker paper presenter, who, unlike you, was some sort of anti-gambling attorney, claimed that once your decision was made as to which cards to replace, the replacement card was determined by luck, and therefore video poker was a luck game. So he was forgetting the other things that went into the decision, which seemed similar to what you had written. However, if that's not the case, I'm glad to be corrected.
But it doesn't. If I'm dealt a total of 16, whether I hit or stand will sometimes change the outcome. So there are other factors that go into what is or is not dealt.
To be more specific. Suppose I have a 16, the dealer has both a ten up and a ten in the hole, and the next card is a five. Now the actual deal of the cards does not decide who wins. It's my decision on whether to hit or stand that decides who wins. Of course my decision also determines the actual deal of the cards. Put another way, you cannot separate the two. But I think I said that before.
This is clearly a silly statement and I hope you informed the judge that this was the case.
Here we go again. If the court considers a game of video poker to be just one hand, and that's consistent with the statement "game over" that will appear on the machine, then I'm inclined to agree with the court.
But if you consider a video poker game to be a large series of these individual games, as I do and as the court should, then you are dead wrong. As I have stated before, a good statistician who understands all these gambling games (including poker) would destroy these arguments.
And when I read them, they actually strike me as being funny since they are so far off base. Now don't take this personally. I understand that all you are doing is repeating what the court has said, and it's my experience that most people find much of probability theory to be counter intuitive. But somehow in these court cases and in front of Congress, the correct arguments need to be made so that silly statements such as:
aren't made anymore.
Actually I'm not interested. I've spent a lifetime dealing with people who typically get all of these ideas backwards. All this will show me is that nothing has changed.
Best wishes,
Mason
But it doesn't. If I'm dealt a total of 16, whether I hit or stand will sometimes change the outcome. So there are other factors that go into what is or is not dealt.
To be more specific. Suppose I have a 16, the dealer has both a ten up and a ten in the hole, and the next card is a five. Now the actual deal of the cards does not decide who wins. It's my decision on whether to hit or stand that decides who wins. Of course my decision also determines the actual deal of the cards. Put another way, you cannot separate the two. But I think I said that before.
This is clearly a silly statement and I hope you informed the judge that this was the case.
Here we go again. If the court considers a game of video poker to be just one hand, and that's consistent with the statement "game over" that will appear on the machine, then I'm inclined to agree with the court.
But if you consider a video poker game to be a large series of these individual games, as I do and as the court should, then you are dead wrong. As I have stated before, a good statistician who understands all these gambling games (including poker) would destroy these arguments.
And when I read them, they actually strike me as being funny since they are so far off base. Now don't take this personally. I understand that all you are doing is repeating what the court has said, and it's my experience that most people find much of probability theory to be counter intuitive. But somehow in these court cases and in front of Congress, the correct arguments need to be made so that silly statements such as:
aren't made anymore.
Actually I'm not interested. I've spent a lifetime dealing with people who typically get all of these ideas backwards. All this will show me is that nothing has changed.
Best wishes,
Mason
Quote:
Well the court made the wrong decision. Of course poker is gambling and of course poker tournaments are also gambling.
I sure hope you/PPA never make this argument again. Why? Because a good statistician who understands poker/gambling would destroy it.
Okay, you make a valid point here. What probably needs to be done is for the PPA to get out of the courts and into the legislatures (and yes I know the PPA is doing exactly this when it comes to the legislatures) and assist in getting the right laws written with the correct definitions of this stuff.
I give up. Why don't you tell me which it is. But I am of the opinion that approaching the problem correctly as opposed to what I understand has been done in the past should have better results. Of course, we'll need to undo the damage that has been done, but that should certainly be doable.
Best wishes,
Mason
I sure hope you/PPA never make this argument again. Why? Because a good statistician who understands poker/gambling would destroy it.
Okay, you make a valid point here. What probably needs to be done is for the PPA to get out of the courts and into the legislatures (and yes I know the PPA is doing exactly this when it comes to the legislatures) and assist in getting the right laws written with the correct definitions of this stuff.
I give up. Why don't you tell me which it is. But I am of the opinion that approaching the problem correctly as opposed to what I understand has been done in the past should have better results. Of course, we'll need to undo the damage that has been done, but that should certainly be doable.
Best wishes,
Mason
Unfortunately, my non-poker life has kept me very busy lately and so I have not got the response that this deserves.
But as I have got a little time this evening, I would like to focus on what I think is becoming clear and what I briefly referred to in my last post. I think you recognize the point in the part of your post I emphasized: I keep trying to get you to work with the legal framework my training and experience has taught me is correct; while you keep trying keep trying to get me to work within the mathematical structure your training and experience has shown you to be correct.
So the thing is, I know you are right Mason. I know that the predominance test as worked by the courts is not the "correct" method to use if your sole concern was getting a good and functional mathematical method to analyze the relative influence of chance and skill in a game. I also know that when you state "poker is gambling" there is nothing incorrect in that statement. But if the statement is changed to "poker is legally gambling" then I have a point to argue.
My problem is that those 2 points do not really help me in court. The legal terminology to the effect that "chance games are 'gambling' and thus illegal (unless specifically authorized); skill games are not 'gambling' and thus legal (unless specifically banned)" is pretty much set in stone.
Not necessarily set in stone but pretty close is the predominance test. It has been around so long that most courts presume using the predominance test is precisely what the legislature required when they passed their laws. Also, most courts would view a dispute regarding the validity of the predominance test as a matter of policy, not mathematics. IOW, even if a test is clearly mathematically flawed, if it achieves other legislative objectives it will be upheld.
But that is not to say that your raising these points is unhelpful. Quite the contrary. Your work and your research in these matters has, like David Sklansky's, been an important part of how the PPA argument was built. And discussions like these are essential because, quite frankly, no opposing expert or lawyer we have met in court has yet to raise nearly the quality of argument that your posts have so its nice to be prepared should it occur.
Still, if I am to fight in the courts I am stuck with the structure the courts have set. You have convinced me on many things Mr. Malmuth, but you have yet to convince me that, from a legal point of view, it is time to stop trying to get courts to realize that poker should pass the predominance test.
Skallagrim
11-16-2011
, 12:42 AM
Quote:
And my best wishes to you too Mason. The 2 post I have quoted above are very thoughtful and deserve an equally thoughtful response. I want to note that I appreciate this discussion very much.
Unfortunately, my non-poker life has kept me very busy lately and so I have not got the response that this deserves.
But as I have got a little time this evening, I would like to focus on what I think is becoming clear and what I briefly referred to in my last post. I think you recognize the point in the part of your post I emphasized: I keep trying to get you to work with the legal framework my training and experience has taught me is correct; while you keep trying keep trying to get me to work within the mathematical structure your training and experience has shown you to be correct.
So the thing is, I know you are right Mason. I know that the predominance test as worked by the courts is not the "correct" method to use if your sole concern was getting a good and functional mathematical method to analyze the relative influence of chance and skill in a game. I also know that when you state "poker is gambling" there is nothing incorrect in that statement. But if the statement is changed to "poker is legally gambling" then I have a point to argue.
My problem is that those 2 points do not really help me in court. The legal terminology to the effect that "chance games are 'gambling' and thus illegal (unless specifically authorized); skill games are not 'gambling' and thus legal (unless specifically banned)" is pretty much set in stone.
Not necessarily set in stone but pretty close is the predominance test. It has been around so long that most courts presume using the predominance test is precisely what the legislature required when they passed their laws. Also, most courts would view a dispute regarding the validity of the predominance test as a matter of policy, not mathematics. IOW, even if a test is clearly mathematically flawed, if it achieves other legislative objectives it will be upheld.
But that is not to say that your raising these points is unhelpful. Quite the contrary. Your work and your research in these matters has, like David Sklansky's, been an important part of how the PPA argument was built. And discussions like these are essential because, quite frankly, no opposing expert or lawyer we have met in court has yet to raise nearly the quality of argument that your posts have so its nice to be prepared should it occur.
Still, if I am to fight in the courts I am stuck with the structure the courts have set. You have convinced me on many things Mr. Malmuth, but you have yet to convince me that, from a legal point of view, it is time to stop trying to get courts to realize that poker should pass the predominance test.
Skallagrim
Unfortunately, my non-poker life has kept me very busy lately and so I have not got the response that this deserves.
But as I have got a little time this evening, I would like to focus on what I think is becoming clear and what I briefly referred to in my last post. I think you recognize the point in the part of your post I emphasized: I keep trying to get you to work with the legal framework my training and experience has taught me is correct; while you keep trying keep trying to get me to work within the mathematical structure your training and experience has shown you to be correct.
So the thing is, I know you are right Mason. I know that the predominance test as worked by the courts is not the "correct" method to use if your sole concern was getting a good and functional mathematical method to analyze the relative influence of chance and skill in a game. I also know that when you state "poker is gambling" there is nothing incorrect in that statement. But if the statement is changed to "poker is legally gambling" then I have a point to argue.
My problem is that those 2 points do not really help me in court. The legal terminology to the effect that "chance games are 'gambling' and thus illegal (unless specifically authorized); skill games are not 'gambling' and thus legal (unless specifically banned)" is pretty much set in stone.
Not necessarily set in stone but pretty close is the predominance test. It has been around so long that most courts presume using the predominance test is precisely what the legislature required when they passed their laws. Also, most courts would view a dispute regarding the validity of the predominance test as a matter of policy, not mathematics. IOW, even if a test is clearly mathematically flawed, if it achieves other legislative objectives it will be upheld.
But that is not to say that your raising these points is unhelpful. Quite the contrary. Your work and your research in these matters has, like David Sklansky's, been an important part of how the PPA argument was built. And discussions like these are essential because, quite frankly, no opposing expert or lawyer we have met in court has yet to raise nearly the quality of argument that your posts have so its nice to be prepared should it occur.
Still, if I am to fight in the courts I am stuck with the structure the courts have set. You have convinced me on many things Mr. Malmuth, but you have yet to convince me that, from a legal point of view, it is time to stop trying to get courts to realize that poker should pass the predominance test.
Skallagrim
If they accept patience as a relevant skill, they can't logically hold poker to the single hand test and since the courts have already conceded that skill will predominate in the long run, the rest of the battle has already been fought for us.