I really don't understand this argument. It doesn't matter if it's a game of skill or not...the fact that you are wagering money on this skill and the government doesnt's see any of that money (or can't regulate it) is the problem. If someone set up a underground basketball league and the players were betting on themselves to win and millions of dollars were exchanging hands and the government couldn't tell if they were getting tax dollars or not from those players they'd shut that down too.

Points from betting. The skill is in the betting.

Heres another way to think about it, DRAW poker takes skill because the skill is in knowing the play to make. Which cards to discard. You can make skillful choices with no wagering involved (betting for points counts) which will influence how often you win.

You dont score points in holdem, it is binary. You win the hand at showdown or you lose the hand at showdown. All the betting is gambling on whether you will win or lose. To be gambling on skill, then you have to be able to use skill to win more WITHOUT GAMBLING. Just win the game more.

No, it's part of the game. Poker is a betting game.

Or you win or lose the hand without a showdown. When I play heads up cash less than 10% of the hands get to showdown, on average.

In other words you'll go allin every showdown? Busto in 10 hands (Nvm 1 million) against a skilled opponent.

That line disqualifies you from further posting, you are now required to throw your computer in the scrap heap.

holdem is a game where the winner is determined not by who wins more hands but by who wins more money, or points, or whatever. without it, there isn't a game. it's like asking to prove skill is involved in basketball while ignoring baskets made.

gt_ie, by your reasoning, betting games basically can't exist. Betting on a game of skill, betting on a game of chance, and playing a skillful betting game are three completely different things which have no overlap.

+1

You are confusing betting on holdem with holdem.

Contrast it with draw poker. You have actions other than betting to take. You can play draw with no betting and use skill to win more often. Win meaning have the best hand.

You can absolutely 100% use skill to win money playing holdem where you are betting money.

If you have to show that there is skill without betting in order for the betting to be allowed, that could be a problem. Without money and betting then holdem is simply a question of who makes the best 5 card hand. There is no skill in making the best 5 card hand in holdem. In draw, yes. In holdem no. You get 2 random cards, community cards are dealt you see who is best.

What you are talking about isn't Holdem, it's coin flipping. Holdem has rules for a reason, playing cards with no-value chips is legal ANYWHERE so play holdem vs someone with some skill using no-value chips a 'points or markers' per the rules of the game and do what you describe, you lose VERY quickly as I said before.

No, the law says you can bet on games of skill but not games of chance. So you have to show that the game, without betting, is a game of skill.

So, you could have a chess for money site. Or bridge for money. Or draw poker for money.

The problem im pointing out is that the skill is in the betting itself in holdem, not in the game.

You are just confused.

The betting is part of the game. It's a betting game.

The rules you talk about are the betting rules, not the rules of the game. The rules of the game are simple, best 5card hand wins.

There is no action even, other than betting. Do you see the paradox? The law, not uigea but the law defining betting on games of chance, says there has to be skill before you canbet. In holdem, the only thing you do is bet.

gt_ie

Whoever you are - you're either very dense or you're leveling us. I have no idea what you're talking about and I've been playing poker seriously for ten years.

How about we take the game to be a sitngo, where you play your cards and bet just as normal. There is skill involved in who wins the sitngo. Therefore you can legally bet on the outcome of the sitngo before it starts.

I don't know if you can carry this over to cash.

You are simply delusional and being willfully ignorant of the rules of the game. End of conversation.

Where is the skill in Basketball?? Is it not partly luck that determines what team you play for, therefore influencing team chemistry and player compatibility? What about a buzzer beater that costs you a game? The dude who tripped up while on a fast break? That stupid call the ref made that clearly was NOT a technical foul but ends up costing you 3 points?

How about Fischer practically open-refuting the King's Gambit against Spassky? He couldn't have had more than his own early analysis to go on, so what if Spassky complicated or found a tricky line Fischer wasn't prepared for over the table?

Those who think poker isn't clearly a game of skill are losing players, nothing more.

Its easy to underestimate skill when you watch ultra high-stakes heads up play for instance (because of the variance), but there are safer ways of locking up money without courting the extreme variance that comes with wanting to win an s-ton of money.

Skill overcomes these lucky situations and the things an individual cannot change.

Honestly, the actions taken at playmoney tables can't even be called "bets" in any meaningful sense. It's a game where you have a bunch of chips and you place them in the center of the table according to certain rules until everyone else surrenders or the chip-placing ends, at which point the chips go to whoever has the best hand. This involves no money and no betting (just battling by placing your chips in the center of the table), and yet it's clearly a game of skill.

i don't see how you can exclude non-monetary wagering from being used as a system of determining skill. the law says that you must prove the game involves skill before you can bet *money* on it, not before you can bet anything on it. (i am admittedly only 90% on this being true, if wrong please show me a law).

No, im seriuosly not. Im talking about all of this in terms of the law which has to decide whether to allow you to bet on the outcome of a game.

The game is 1 single hand of poker. the skill is in winning that one single hand. Do something skillful to influnce the final outcome so that the winner of the hand is not determined by chance. There is no wagering. You have to show skill before wagering is allowed.

5 card stud? No skill, pure chance. Whoever gets dealt the best 5 cards wins.

5 card draw ? Now you have some skill. You have to decide What to discard and draw.

Holdem, pure chance.

The law doesnt want to know if you can use skill over a million hands to win more.

The law want to know, if you are going to have one single 'game', one hand, then in order to bet legally on that hand then the winner of the hand has to be determined by skill not chance.

You are entirely correct, however I'm sure that gt_ie will argue differently somehow.

There was a court case a few years back in the UK, where the Gutshot club contended that poker was a game of skill, and as such, was exempt from the UK Gaming Act. It was rejected by the courts and the appeal overturned. You can look up details about this case if you like, but it seems like the odds would be stacked against us in any litigation against the DOJ that claimed poker was a game of skill. Furthermore, violating UIGEA was only one of the many counts against the big three sites, so this might not even help.

At the end of the day, as I've said before... THIS.

Really want to see what gt_ie thinks about this.

Look, i get that over the long run you use skill to win money at holdem.

Court of law though, think of what you might have to prove. Based on the rules of play one game, which is a single hand then the deck is shuffled, then without wagering can you use skill to win that game. If so, then the court would say 'great, i see the skill needed so you may start wagering'

You dont use skill to win that one hand. You get random cards and play them with the board.

The game you want to wager on isnt the next 10,000 hands where you learn your opponents and vary betting patterns etc.

The game is one discrete dealt hand. In order to wager on that hand, thwn the winner of that hand must be determined by skill.

When you are betting, you are betting on the outcome of the hand. What element of skill determines the outcome of a single hand?