[marcojuiceman]

A Brooklyn judge dealt a winning hand to card players across the nation Tuesday, ruling that poker is mostly a game of skill, not luck, and is therefore legal under federal law.
The 120-page decision by Federal Judge Jack Weinstein folded the conviction of Lawrence Dicristina, of Staten Island, who admitted to running Texas Hold’em contests.
It marked the first time a court ruled poker cannot be considered illegal gambling and could bolster the case to legalize Internet poker.
“While players’ actions are influenced by chance events, their decisions are based on skill,” the judge wrote. “By bluffing, for example, players can overcome the power of chance and win a hand despite holding inferior cards.”
But under the judge’s ruling, poker dens would still be considered gambling under New York law, which defines the activity as any game that has some dependence on luck, while the federal statute says gambling is mostly dependent on luck.
Still, poker enthusiasts went all-in when celebrating the game-changing decision.
John Pappas, director of the Poker Players Alliance, which helped in Dicristina’s defense, called the ruling “a major victory for the game of poker and the millions of Americans who enjoy playing it.”
He added: "Poker is an American pastime that is deeply embedded in the history and fabric of our nation and his decision sets aside the notion that the vague laws render the game criminal."
The case was a rare example of a prosecution of a poker room that didn't involve any other illegalities, providing a good test-case, insiders said.
A defense expert provided powerful evidence that skillful players consistently win over time, while poor ones consistently lose. Evidence included additional research that also supported that finding.
With the deck stacked against them, prosecutors provided an expert who failed to contradict those conclusions.
The judge also rejected the government's argument that other illegal gambling games - like sports betting or blackjack - involve an element of skill. He found that poker is the only example where the role of expertise is higher than 50%.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...#ixzz24F60clRk

[ChalkyDog]

I am a fan of this. Poker is a skill that can be honed and mastered. Hope this helps open the door to more lenient laws. It's only a small bit of mental gymnastics to believe that sports gambling is also a skill.

[accuscoresucks]

sports is math nothng more
better than any stock market

[jjgold]

sports can be interpreted the same way
You might see some poker online down the road

[Boner_18]

There is a NY law that likely makes poker illegal regardless of this ruling. Interesting though.

[CharlesManana]

Good read. Thanks for the post. Sports betting is less risky than day trading, and I don't see the government making criminals out of day traders or stock market players. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[wantitall4moi]

Semantics at its best. If I were against it I would just show tournament results and all the guys who dont know shit who have won the past 7 years then show how that made them 'better' than the other guys.

Poker is still mostly luck, especially in tournaments. Because if it was about math and skill the 'best' players would win a vast majority of the time, they don't, not even close.

In cash games against the same people over along period of time money would still get swapped around between them over and over even if some guys were clearly more 'skilled'. Because luck trumps skill every time even in a cash game. While being skilled will theoretically give you an edge, in a game like that it only take a couple bad beats to totally negate the skill level differential. Thus making it a game not really based on skill but luck.

The fact that BJ was disallowed shows just how clueless this guy was.

[daneblazer]

there's skill in poker, but it's still gambling

[Smoke]

unreal

[Dabeergod]

When you are risking money to win money it's gambling, regardless of the skill involved.

[jgray]

When you are risking money to win money it's gambling, regardless of the skill involved.

The problem with that definition is that it covers every business owner that puts capital into the business. Let's not give the left any ideas here. They might try prosecuting small business owners as gamblers.

[no1here]

This is big news and exactly what we needed. Online poker coming guys.

[milwaukee mike]

hmm...
poker is skill but blackjack card counting and sports betting aren't...

i still never understood the reasoning that skill-based games of chance should be legal and completely luck-based ones like roulette shouldn't

wouldn't you be protecting the foolish from losing their money if it was the other way around? if poker is skill based then the weak players have almost 0 chance of ever winning under this argument, so it's basically legal to take advantage of others (aka wall street).

[CrazyCarl]

Federal government doesn't give a shit about gambling. The only reason that they ban online poker sites is because they didn't have a good way to enforce taxes on them. When they get the taxes for these sites monitored correctly, it will come back.

[marcojuiceman]

None of it make sense as far as the Govt. not legalizing it,
They allow ppl to spend there entire paycheck on state lottery tickets but not on Poker or any other gaming.. Seriously??

[Halstad]

In cash games against the same people over along period of time money would still get swapped around between them over and over even if some guys were clearly more 'skilled'. Because luck trumps skill every time even in a cash game. While being skilled will theoretically give you an edge, in a game like that it only take a couple bad beats to totally negate the skill level differential. Thus making it a game not really based on skill but luck.

Luck can obviously help in any hand, but to say it "trumps skill every time" is blatantly false.

[Bigbill365]

Yeah online pokers not a gamble(for the owners that can see evry guys cards)

[agharah1]

Federal government doesn't give a shit about gambling. The only reason that they ban online poker sites is because they didn't have a good way to enforce taxes on them. When they get the taxes for these sites monitored correctly, it will come back.

That's a ridiculous assertion. It has nothing to do with taxation, by every indication the Republicans explicitly made this a moral crusade when they past UIGEA. That they attached it to the SAFE Ports Act just demonstrates they knew their morals were unpopular at the time.

The problem, is that the Republicans can't possibly believe anyone anywhere in this country could violate their morals and not have anything bad happen to them, so they ban it based on the assumption that *everybody* who plays poker will lose, lose big, and lose everything.

As much as I'd like to see sports betting legal in the US, the fact is that match fixing is much more common in countries where its legal, take a look at European soccer, there's been investigations going on in Italy for years. That's why the sports leagues in the US are so against it. You think games are rigged *now* imagine when sportsbetting is legal how big the uproar will be. There'd be a federal investigation everytime a double digit underdog won the Superbowl (and we all know how common that's been).

[d2bets]

Semantics at its best. If I were against it I would just show tournament results and all the guys who dont know shit who have won the past 7 years then show how that made them 'better' than the other guys.

Poker is still mostly luck, especially in tournaments. Because if it was about math and skill the 'best' players would win a vast majority of the time, they don't, not even close.

In cash games against the same people over along period of time money would still get swapped around between them over and over even if some guys were clearly more 'skilled'. Because luck trumps skill every time even in a cash game. While being skilled will theoretically give you an edge, in a game like that it only take a couple bad beats to totally negate the skill level differential. Thus making it a game not really based on skill but luck.

The fact that BJ was disallowed shows just how clueless this guy was.

If poker were mostly about luck, there would be no 'best' players.

[5mike5]

any1 that thinks poker is mostly luck, just shows they arent very good at it

[PAULYPOKER]

there's skill in poker, but it's still gambling

When you are risking money to win money it's gambling, regardless of the skill involved.

Well then,life itself is a gamble............

Any business is a gamble........

The stock market is fixed for the privileged making it lottery status..............

Excepting or changing careers or jobs is a gamble................

Picking a religion is a gamble.LOL.................

Choosing a life partner is a gamble...........

Choosing a correct diet is a gamble...........

You name it,life is a fukkin gamble............

[daneblazer]

Well then,life itself is a gamble............

Any business is a gamble........

The stock market is fixed for the privileged making it lottery status..............

Excepting or changing careers or jobs is a gamble................

Picking a religion is a gamble.LOL.................

Choosing a life partner is a gamble...........

Choosing a correct diet is a gamble...........

You name it,life is a fukkin gamble............

If you want to look at it like that, then I guess so. As much as I like poker, it's not like chess where there are pieces are on the board and your pieces are under your control. There's an element of luck involved when the cards are randomly selected out of the deck. We're placing bets on something that is no guarantee, and that is a gamble. Just take one look at the millions of bad beat threads on the internet and you can see that the result of one hand is largely out of our control.

Good players place themselves in situations where the odds favor them in the long run, and that is where the skill is involved. Skill isn't just understanding numbers, it's understanding bankroll, the psychology of the game, and being able to adjust to people. If we all sat here on a level field clueless about the game of poker and played it without much of a clue how to, then it would be solely a game of chance.

To say poker is a just game of skill isn't accurate, as is to say it's just a game of chance. The truth is in between.

[PAULYPOKER]

I agree with you, poker involves luck,because you can be the most skilled poker player in the world but without luck of the cards drawn or dealt you will eventually be exposed..........

[stevenash]

Luck is the residue of design

[sweep]

Tell this to Bigday!

[CanuckG]

This is big news and exactly what we needed. Online poker coming guys.

Relax fella not just yet

[a4u2fear]

I've lost nearly all Interest in online poker, now all sports betting, shuttin down of online poker lead me here

[borednaz]

I'm against online poker. Many of you guys who frequent poker know I love playing it. I played it as much as I could, and at the end I was a winning player once I figured out which games where break even, which where slightly beatable, and which one where a steady win rate without being a donk fest.

My last year was profitable but it took two years of being a reloader and a ton of books/videos/study time before I learned my flaws to be that way. All that being said I don't think it will be reincarnated as something tangible. The tax rate plus the rake you'll need to swallow to get profitable will worst odds than the lottery.

Anyone who is honest knows just like in sports betting , the more you play/bet the more you expose yourself to variance. The general problem then becomes even the players with an edge will fall behind with this constant on tap of action. See the wild swings of every poker pro when it came to online play. No one will argue Tom Dwan or Phil Ivey are skilled players. Both have had million dollar swings.

What I'm getting at is poker will never come back the way it was. The best anyone can hope for is to ride the first year maybe two when it comes back. Because there will be a steady supply of guys who beat their home game or guys who think they are good just because loading up to play without any idea of bankroll management. After that.. GL

/END RANT

[rm18]

Phil Ivey and Dwan play heads up for huge amounts against the best players in the world, if you are good and play bad players then you can win pretty consistently though, and least for now by the time it is legal everyone will probably be so good that it is luck

[BigDeem5]

I'm against online poker. Many of you guys who frequent poker know I love playing it. I played it as much as I could, and at the end I was a winning player once I figured out which games where break even, which where slightly beatable, and which one where a steady win rate without being a donk fest.

My last year was profitable but it took two years of being a reloader and a ton of books/videos/study time before I learned my flaws to be that way. All that being said I don't think it will be reincarnated as something tangible. The tax rate plus the rake you'll need to swallow to get profitable will worst odds than the lottery.

Anyone who is honest knows just like in sports betting , the more you play/bet the more you expose yourself to variance. The general problem then becomes even the players with an edge will fall behind with this constant on tap of action. See the wild swings of every poker pro when it came to online play. No one will argue Tom Dwan or Phil Ivey are skilled players. Both have had million dollar swings.

What I'm getting at is poker will never come back the way it was. The best anyone can hope for is to ride the first year maybe two when it comes back. Because there will be a steady supply of guys who beat their home game or guys who think they are good just because loading up to play without any idea of bankroll management. After that.. GL

/END RANT

Yeah, there are swings for Dwan and Ivey because they are all-in for 1 mill at a time. I don't play cash games. I was very profitable at HU SnG's and hyper-turbo SnGs. HU is a game of skill and analyzing one's opponent. The hyper-turbos were mathematical. I won at both and of course there was variance AK < AQ like 3x in one day or whatever, but when push came to shove I won about 6/7 days.

[CanuckG]

If Pokerstars comes back it will be like Wynn-Pokerstars or some casino attached to it.

[littleode]

I was actually kind of proud of myself though for using hisown emotions against him and it was just a $ tourney that is absolutely meaningless– nonetheless – I would like to know how to beat him.