|
Title: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Jonboy on January 11, 2007, 10:31:58 AM There is an article in the Times today on the opening of the 'Gutshot' court case. They are giving the jurors a 'crash' course in poker so they 'know their fish and their flops from their flush and their folds', apart from that, and a few opening statement quotes, there is not a lot else other than the classic skill/luck balance debate. (Oh ... and apparently 1 million britons spend at least a £1,000 a year on poker??) I don't know how long it is expected to last, but is there anywhere on the web that has updates? Failing that can Tikay get the intrepid beagle to Personally I think his will have long reaching implications for live poker in the UK, including Cincinatis (sp.) and DtD. Although Rob might be a bit peeved if it is ruled that poker doesn't require the full gaming licence after spending £X squillion pounds, and hours of his time trying to secure it!! Jon. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: tantrum on January 11, 2007, 10:58:21 AM I just hope Gut Shot' Lawyers know what they are doing...
Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: boldie on January 11, 2007, 11:23:23 AM I just hope Gut Shot' Lawyers know what they are doing... Well, apparently they failed miserably against the guy from the GC who claimed that "Because the cards are shuffled it is automatically a game of luck and not skilled" So I am not that hopefull. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: ripple11 on January 11, 2007, 11:36:10 AM Lets hope Mr. Hellmuth isnt called as a witness..... " if there weren't luck involved, I guess I'd win every one" Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Sheriff Fatman on January 11, 2007, 11:43:01 AM Well, apparently they failed miserably against the guy from the GC who claimed that "Because the cards are shuffled it is automatically a game of luck and not skilled" So I am not that hopefull. Most sporting events commence with the toss of a coin. Perhaps football, rugby, tennis, cricket, etc should also be licensed by the GC. (Not a dig at boldie, btw, just a comment on the ridiculous argument he has quoted). Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: boldie on January 11, 2007, 11:51:45 AM Well, apparently they failed miserably against the guy from the GC who claimed that "Because the cards are shuffled it is automatically a game of luck and not skilled" So I am not that hopefull. Most sporting events commence with the toss of a coin. Perhaps football, rugby, tennis, cricket, etc should also be licensed by the GC. (Not a dig at boldie, btw, just a comment on the ridiculous argument he has quoted). I agree with you...it is a ridiculous argument BUT apparently the lawyers for Gutshot didn't even rip it to shreds :( Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: tantrum on January 11, 2007, 11:52:14 AM Just read a report from the gutshot website; I must say the lawyers are not bad;
Quote Well, apparently they failed miserably against the guy from the GC who claimed that "Because the cards are shuffled it is automatically a game of luck and not skilled" So I am not that hopefull. Hmm not really; quoting from the article in a gutshot: Quote Now came the turn of Zeesham Dhar to cross examine Mr Kirkup for the defense. “Would you accept Mr Kirkup, would you agree that there are various definitions in the 1968 Act but there is nothing in the act that refers to card games in Section 52? It refers to games of chance for winnings and winning but there is no reference to card games. It includes references to games of combined chance and skill as determining whether a game is one of chance…but there is no reference to cards as such?” Staying on the theme Zeesham Dhar continued, “You concluded simply that poker combined chance and skill and it was gaming. By that definition Scrabble would be a game of chance would it not? The pieces are selected at random and under section 52 Scrabble would be constituted as a game of chance.” Mr Kirkup answered, “I have never known of Scrabble being played for money….” “Monopoly? How you move around the board is subject to chance, the throw of the dice, after that it is up to the player to make a decision whether to buy that property or not? Tennis and the golf were mentioned with Mr Kirkup at first insisting that golf (a game yet to be accepted as an Olympic sport) was a game of pure skill but after some pressing by the defense Mr Kirkup, the witness for the prosecution, did concede that there was an element of chance in most games. “Would you agree therefore that games that demonstrated even massive amounts of skill combined with small amounts of luck would fall under the act?” “I’m not quite sure how to answer that.'' and some saucy suggestions: Quote The defense immediately resumed cross examination of the prosecution witness. Zeesham Dhar explained that ‘AIM Ltd,’ an independent detection agency had been commissioned by Mr. John Butler, Director of Compliance at RANK (who own Grosvenor Casinos – five of them in London) to carry out covert enquiries into Gutshot. Henry Kirkup had apparently received a copy of the ‘AIM’ report on 19 December 2004. Zeesham Dhar asked Mr. Kirkup to have a look at the report. “To put it tactfully, there were several other interested parties that might have pushed the prosecution in the ‘right’ direction?” Zeesham Dhar continued, “I call this a report but it looks more like ‘AIM’s brief was not simply to ‘report’ but to collect evidence.” Zeesham Dhar went on to say that there would be links between the Gaming Board and the Casinos (and pointed out that he did not want to imply anything sinister in that association) but asked if there was a distinction between reporting and actively collecting evidence for a prosecution…he then asked… Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: boldie on January 11, 2007, 12:01:02 PM Just read a report from the gutshot website; I must say the lawyers are not bad; Quote Well, apparently they failed miserably against the guy from the GC who claimed that "Because the cards are shuffled it is automatically a game of luck and not skilled" So I am not that hopefull. Hmm not really; quoting from the article in a gutshot: Quote Now came the turn of Zeesham Dhar to cross examine Mr Kirkup for the defense. “Would you accept Mr Kirkup, would you agree that there are various definitions in the 1968 Act but there is nothing in the act that refers to card games in Section 52? It refers to games of chance for winnings and winning but there is no reference to card games. It includes references to games of combined chance and skill as determining whether a game is one of chance…but there is no reference to cards as such?” Staying on the theme Zeesham Dhar continued, “You concluded simply that poker combined chance and skill and it was gaming. By that definition Scrabble would be a game of chance would it not? The pieces are selected at random and under section 52 Scrabble would be constituted as a game of chance.” Mr Kirkup answered, “I have never known of Scrabble being played for money….” “Monopoly? How you move around the board is subject to chance, the throw of the dice, after that it is up to the player to make a decision whether to buy that property or not? Tennis and the golf were mentioned with Mr Kirkup at first insisting that golf (a game yet to be accepted as an Olympic sport) was a game of pure skill but after some pressing by the defense Mr Kirkup, the witness for the prosecution, did concede that there was an element of chance in most games. “Would you agree therefore that games that demonstrated even massive amounts of skill combined with small amounts of luck would fall under the act?” “I’m not quite sure how to answer that.'' and some saucy suggestions: yes...comparing Poker to scrabble and monopoly is the right way to go. As you often hear normal people say "I am really good at monopoly I am" This is exactly the sort of stuff I was hoping they wouldn't do. Comparing it to golf is much better but when you start off comparing it with monopoly and scrabble you have set the tone for your own argument and it's definetly not one that would impress me. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: ripple11 on January 11, 2007, 12:09:12 PM Thanks for the link tantrum,,,,,the full report makes very interesting reading. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Tractor on January 11, 2007, 12:18:40 PM Yes very interesting indeed, I hope they win this case.
GL GUTSHOT Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: tantrum on January 11, 2007, 12:23:15 PM boldie- it is really irrelevant whether the defence will compare the poker to scrabble or golf; the scrabble was a good analogy as you are 'dealt' random letters and then you must create the words from what you are dealt with, so following prosecution's argument - scrabble would be a game of chance with some element of skill.
Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: boldie on January 11, 2007, 12:57:48 PM boldie- it is really irrelevant whether the defence will compare the poker to scrabble or golf; the scrabble was a good analogy as you are 'dealt' random letters and then you must create the words from what you are dealt with, so following prosecution's argument - scrabble would be a game of chance with some element of skill. yes and I'd just about agree with that. I read the gutshot report on the first day and got the feeling that it's somewhat biased..which is to be expected and fair enough. the problem I have with the scrabble and monopoly analogy is that people don't view it as games of skill (less so in the case of scrabble then in the case of monopoly) I therefore have a problem with it. the analogy works fine, however whether it will convince the jury that poker is not a game of luck but a game of skill remains to be seen IMO. I really hope the gutshot wins this one but I don't think this is the right way to go about it. Also the conspiracy theory "We are singled out, poor us" doesn't work on me. It's either within the law or it's not, the rest of bollox in my opinion and that's the part they have to convince the jury on. Anyways, I will be watching and reading all the reports and rooting for Gutshot all the way no matter how they decide to go about defending themselves. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Wardonkey on January 11, 2007, 01:17:19 PM I have 2 questions.
Is a jury the best group of people to decide the skill/luck arguement? If we accept that poker is gambling, and then decide that there is a large element of skill. Should poker then be treated differently by the law than games of pure chance?. Why and in what way? Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: FlyingPig on January 11, 2007, 01:25:37 PM Can someone please explain this case to me? I didn't know the Gutshot was being taken to court, and I am involved in Law ;hide;
Who is taking who to court, and why? Every game, sport or otherwise will have some element of chance, randomness, luck about it. Cup draws; Referees not seeing things; Weather: all of these are beyond control in any sport. So all have that element. Can we put the just up against proffesional poker players HU and see who wins? If it is a game of luck, then it would be an equal split? Haha vert scientific, about time the old bailey came into the 21st centurt! Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: boldie on January 11, 2007, 01:26:10 PM I have 2 questions. Is a jury the best group of people to decide the skill/luck arguement? If we accept that poker is gambling, and then decide that there is a large element of skill. Should poker then be treated differently by the law than games of pure chance?. Why and in what way? That's the question indeed. I, for one, hate the jury system. I don't think it should be used in complex cases at all. I actually don't believe it should be used in any cases but that's the way it is I guess. Ofcourse poker is gambling. anything you put money on is essentially gambling. (The stockmarket is another example of gambling in my opinion). I also think it should be treated the same as games of pure chance...or there shoudl atleast be a set of rules which governs games of chance mixed with skill. I am not saying it should only be played in casino's but the GC should have a set of rules with regards to games like poker and there should be some sort of regulation on poker clubs. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. The problem seems to be that the GC either is unwilling or unable to regulate pokerclubs and to issue licenses, I think this is where the real problem is. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Wardonkey on January 11, 2007, 01:38:07 PM Can someone please explain this case to me? I didn't know the Gutshot was being taken to court, and I am involved in Law ;hide; Who is taking who to court, and why? Every game, sport or otherwise will have some element of chance, randomness, luck about it. Cup draws; Referees not seeing things; Weather: all of these are beyond control in any sport. So all have that element. Can we put the just up against proffesional poker players HU and see who wins? If it is a game of luck, then it would be an equal split? Haha vert scientific, about time the old bailey came into the 21st centurt! Gutshot is being prosecuted by the Crown for alleged violations of sections of the 1968 gaming act. However it looks as if a private investigation by Rank, who own Grosvenor may have been instrumental bringing the prosecution. Poker is not mentioned specifically in the act and the legal arguement boils down to weather or not poker is a game of pure chance, a mixed game of chance and skill or a game of skill. There is plenty of info on Gutshot's website. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Weblomaniac on January 11, 2007, 02:18:35 PM The problem seems to be that the GC either is unwilling or unable to regulate pokerclubs and to issue licenses, I think this is where the real problem is. Bingo..... I think you hit the nail on the head there Boldie My preferred outcomes would be either: 1) Poker is seen as different to Casino games of pure chance, like roulette, and it is deemed that Poker Clubs are therefore exempt from requiring a Gaming License. or 2) Poker is seen as a game of combined skill and chance and requires a license, but that license is neither as expensive or has as strict criteria to fulfil as a full Gaming License, and it is legislated that the GC in consultation with the poker industry should define and implement a new type of license specifically for cardrooms and implement it within a clearly defined timeframe. And all existing cardrooms can continue to operate until the new license application procedure is in place. Now lets just hope the jury read this posting as part of their crash course in poker and come to a sensible conclusion. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Wardonkey on January 11, 2007, 02:26:01 PM Why should a 'poker license' be less restrictive than a 'gaming license'? Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Gryff on January 11, 2007, 02:37:39 PM Imagine if gutshot win? You have unregulated cardrooms all over the place, with unbound potential for ripping people off and dodgy dealings.
Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: ifm on January 11, 2007, 02:47:15 PM Imagine if gutshot win? You have unregulated cardrooms all over the place, with unbound potential for ripping people off and dodgy dealings. We already have that! Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Stone on January 11, 2007, 02:48:23 PM I wonder if the GC lawyers might try to muddy the waters by claiming that some variants of Poker are more skillfull that others, hence chance can have a bigger impact.
Having recently been trying out Triple Draw 2-7 on stars, wild game. Even following the guru Negranu's advice, I'm having big swings. Its very enjoyable though just like gambling!! ;hide; Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Weblomaniac on January 11, 2007, 02:51:11 PM Why should a 'poker license' be less restrictive than a 'gaming license'? I'm not saying a poker license should be less restrictive, infact the license should be more restrictive than a full Gaming License. I'm saying it should be cheaper and easier to obtain. My logic, which is probably flawed, runs like this. You play casino games in a casino. The casino always has a statistical edge. What you are doing is almost totally luck based, it is that statistical edge that makes the casino rich. In a poker club you play poker versus other player, NOT the against the poker room. They have no edge, they merely provide the infrastructure/facility to allow you to play poker against others. Therefore it is fair that they charge a fee / rake / whatever. So... if the games in a casino could be judged for arguements sake to be 95% luck 5% skill and a license costs £50 squillion then it might be fair to consider that a game where the skill is perhaps 40% and luck 60% (and don't flame me on those stats, I've just plucked them from the air) should not have as expensive a license or as strict criteria because there is less luck involved and therefore the poker room is not "rigged" in the same way that a casino is. An innocent punter may not be aware that their odds are so poor in a casino and therefore it could be argued that they should be afforded better protection in the form of licensing at a casino. OK so it maybe a bit of an incoherent stream of conciousness more than pure logic, but it hopefully explains why I think regulation in the form of a "lite" license would probably be OK. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: tantrum on January 11, 2007, 03:01:57 PM Quote Imagine if gutshot win? You have unregulated cardrooms all over the place, with unbound potential for ripping people off and dodgy dealings. I think you mix two different issues here; regulating cardrooms and applying Gaming Act to poker, both are two different things. We have unregulated cardrooms at the moment, and so far people do not complain about them. All places that provide poker games are not regulated, they exist thanks to unclear laws regarding card games, and gutshots case at the moment will force the gaming licensing to clarfiy the issue. Of course this will have nothing to do with well being of the punters but rather of the interests of big casinos/ councils and so forth. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Wardonkey on January 11, 2007, 03:06:14 PM Does an unskilled poker player have more chance of winning at poker or roulette?
Why is skill important in this arguement? (The ethical arguement not the legal one) Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: tantrum on January 11, 2007, 03:10:12 PM Quote Insert Quote Does unskilled poker player have more chance of winning at poker or roulette? why does it matter? Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: The Baron on January 11, 2007, 03:10:18 PM Does an unskilled poker player have more chance of winning at poker or roulette? Why is skill important in this arguement? (The ethical arguement not the legal one) I wonder if the Billy Baxter case will be brought up. Probably not in this case but maybe more likely in the US version? Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Wardonkey on January 11, 2007, 03:20:27 PM Quote Insert Quote Does unskilled poker player have more chance of winning at poker or roulette? why does it matter? I'm asking the questions! Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: LLevan on January 11, 2007, 03:20:54 PM So far it would appear that a lot has been made of the fact Rank acquired the services of AIM Ltd. to investigate the Gutshot. IMO all casinos would prefer to take a rake that to charge an hourly rate for poker so how can it be in the casinos interest to get the Police to charge the owners of the Gutshot for contravening sections of the Gaming Act. Surely their best course of action would have been to lobby Parliament to get the Gaming Act changed to include provisions for Poker whereby it would be defined as to what the maximum charge for playing Poker in any establishment can be.
Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: AndrewT on January 11, 2007, 03:22:00 PM The big difference between poker and casino games is this.
With casino games, you are gambling against the house. They give odds on an event happening, players put bets on, then the house pays out winning bets from their own pocket. This is no different to a bookmaker, and so casino owners are subject to as stringent legislation as bookmakers. With poker rooms, the house does not get involved in any gambling - they simply provide the area/tools for players to gamble with each other. If you're not getting involved in the actual gambling, why on earth should you need a licence? Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: tantrum on January 11, 2007, 03:25:21 PM Quote Quote from: tantrum on Today at 03:10:12 pm Quote Insert Quote Does unskilled poker player have more chance of winning at poker or roulette? why does it matter? I'm asking the questions! ah sry Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: tantrum on January 11, 2007, 03:28:03 PM Quote With poker rooms, the house does not get involved in any gambling - they simply provide the area/tools for players to gamble with each other. If you're not getting involved in the actual gambling, why on earth should you need a licence? To pay big fees to your local council? Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: boldie on January 11, 2007, 03:28:17 PM The big difference between poker and casino games is this. With casino games, you are gambling against the house. They give odds on an event happening, players put bets on, then the house pays out winning bets from their own pocket. This is no different to a bookmaker, and so casino owners are subject to as stringent legislation as bookmakers. With poker rooms, the house does not get involved in any gambling - they simply provide the area/tools for players to gamble with each other. If you're not getting involved in the actual gambling, why on earth should you need a licence? that is actually a fair point. But I would like to see pokerclubs regulated by some sort of system. Not everyone should be allowed to set up a pokerclub just because they feel like it in my opinion. there should be a certain set of rules and guidelines they have to adhere to. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Wardonkey on January 11, 2007, 03:28:30 PM The big difference between poker and casino games is this. With casino games, you are gambling against the house. They give odds on an event happening, players put bets on, then the house pays out winning bets from their own pocket. This is no different to a bookmaker, and so casino owners are subject to as stringent legislation as bookmakers. With poker rooms, the house does not get involved in any gambling - they simply provide the area/tools for players to gamble with each other. If you're not getting involved in the actual gambling, why on earth should you need a licence? What are the purposes of the license? Why does it make a difference if the houses money is at stake? Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: AndrewT on January 11, 2007, 03:38:23 PM I should have written 'why on earth should you need a gambling licence?' but it's too late to change now.
The Gutshot are being prosecuted under the assumption that running a poker room is the same as running a casino, when it quite clearly isn't. It's more like running any other business where you accept money for providing a service, none of which are subject to as stringent and expensive licensing regulations as casinos are. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Weblomaniac on January 11, 2007, 03:42:56 PM I should have written 'why on earth should you need a gambling licence?' but it's too late to change now. The Gutshot are being prosecuted under the assumption that running a poker room is the same as running a casino, when it quite clearly isn't. It's more like running any other business where you accept money for providing a service, none of which are subject to as stringent and expensive licensing regulations as casinos are. :goodpost: Wish I could have put it as clearly and concisely myself. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Wardonkey on January 11, 2007, 03:43:57 PM I should have written 'why on earth should you need a gambling licence?' but it's too late to change now. The Gutshot are being prosecuted under the assumption that running a poker room is the same as running a casino, when it quite clearly isn't. It's more like running any other business where you accept money for providing a service, none of which are subject to as stringent and expensive licensing regulations as casinos are. If we accept that gambling is potentialy destructive in any form, then why should poker players not be afforded the same protection as roulette players? Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Tractor on January 11, 2007, 03:44:21 PM Stupid question but if Derek (gutshot) is found Gulity what are the penalties likely to be?
Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Moskvich on January 11, 2007, 03:49:23 PM Quote The big difference between poker and casino games is this. With casino games, you are gambling against the house. They give odds on an event happening, players put bets on, then the house pays out winning bets from their own pocket. This is no different to a bookmaker, and so casino owners are subject to as stringent legislation as bookmakers. With poker rooms, the house does not get involved in any gambling - they simply provide the area/tools for players to gamble with each other. If you're not getting involved in the actual gambling, why on earth should you need a licence? What are the purposes of the license? Why does it make a difference if the houses money is at stake? I'd guess (though it is only a guess) that it's partly to protect the gambler - so that the casino doesn't itself decide to gamble by taking on bets that it can't actually pay out. ie if someone wants to stick a million on number 5, then you need to have at least 36 million in the bank to be able to take that bet. In poker the money is all the players', so the financial rules and restrictions don't apply. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Wardonkey on January 11, 2007, 03:58:41 PM What are the purposes of the license? Why does it make a difference if the houses money is at stake? I'd guess (though it is only a guess) that it's partly to protect the gambler - so that the casino doesn't itself decide to gamble by taking on bets that it can't actually pay out. ie if someone wants to stick a million on number 5, then you need to have at least 36 million in the bank to be able to take that bet. In poker the money is all the players', so the financial rules and restrictions don't apply. A valid piont, casinos are required to hold large finacial reserves, these are calculated using the casino's maximum bet on the st8 up of a roulette table. I forget the exact formula but it's something 50,000 times the max bet. This however is not the only reason for regulation and licensing. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: boldie on January 11, 2007, 04:00:29 PM Stupid question but if Derek (gutshot) is found Gulity what are the penalties likely to be? I'm guessing a fine and shutting down of the club. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: tantrum on January 11, 2007, 04:02:17 PM i think it is a criminal offence so - jail
Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: AndrewT on January 11, 2007, 04:12:24 PM If we accept that gambling is potentialy destructive in any form, then why should poker players not be afforded the same protection as roulette players? Gambling licensing is around in order to protect people from themselves? I'd be interested in seeing the section of the gaming licence that requires a casino owner to walk up to one of his patrons and say 'I think you've had a little too much roulette this evening sir - it's time to go home'. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Moskvich on January 11, 2007, 04:14:44 PM Quote I really hope the gutshot wins this one but I don't think this is the right way to go about it. Also the conspiracy theory "We are singled out, poor us" doesn't work on me. It's either within the law or it's not, the rest of bollox in my opinion and that's the part they have to convince the jury on. I have my doubts as to whether the question of whether it is strictly within or outside the law is necessarily going to be the overriding one here. The references to scrabble etc are presumably intended not just to show that poker is a game of skill, but also to suggest to the jury that it's something played by normal people with their mates, unlike roulette for example, which is essentially played just for money and conjours up images of desperate people trying to claw back the rent at 6 in the morning. And also to show that the casinos just want to keep their hands on the revenues from a game which doesn't necessarily belong in a casino environment. People in general have a fairly cynical attitude towards the intentions of big business - juries are no exception, and a barrister friend tells me that Snaresbrook juries are notorious for letting people off for doing things that might be technically outside the law but which they regard as basically being part of everyday life. Particularly in terms of the steroetypical Essex-style entrepreneurship. They may simply not be very interested in a crime that hurts no-one but a casino corporation. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Wardonkey on January 11, 2007, 04:25:50 PM If we accept that gambling is potentialy destructive in any form, then why should poker players not be afforded the same protection as roulette players? Gambling licensing is around in order to protect people from themselves? I'd be interested in seeing the section of the gaming licence that requires a casino owner to walk up to one of his patrons and say 'I think you've had a little too much roulette this evening sir - it's time to go home'. There are many restrictions in place to protect those prone to problem gambling. Including the membership system,self barring, a ban on credit facilitie, regulation of the cash desk including maximum withdrawls from bank accounts and other sources. They do not extend to physically stopping the player from playing, but they do put the brakes on. These systems are not in place in unregulated card rooms. 'Protection of the vulnerable' is one three main aims when it comes to gambling legislation. The other two are to 'keep the criminal elment out of the gaming business', and to 'ensure that the games are run fairly'. One can argue that there are many factors that affect gaming legislation but these are the stated goals. I do not see why they should be applied to a casino but not a cardroom. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: ericstoner on January 11, 2007, 07:35:29 PM I think if Derek Kelly loses this case, he's gonna do a bunk and get involved in the Spanish poker scene down Marbella way.
Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: ripple11 on January 11, 2007, 07:54:12 PM I think if Derek Kelly loses this case, he's gonna do a bunk and get involved in the Spanish poker scene down Marbella way. Fantastic !!.......Pokers own Ronnie Biggs ;D Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Div on January 11, 2007, 11:25:43 PM It will be interesting to follow this to see how the skill, chance, or 'mixed skill and chance' debate goes.
I doubt anyone can deny there's an element of chance in any single game of poker, but you could say the same about many other activities which are clearly not gambling. For example, Wycombe drew with Chelsea last night. Now, that doesn't mean they are of equal skill. Put Wycome in the EPL and over the season, Chelsea will undoubtedly get many more points than them. Equally put me in a heads up SNG with Phil Ivey, and I might win, put me in a series of 1000 SNG and he will destroy me. So is poker a game of chance - because I'm bound to win a few - or is it a game of skill, because over 1000 he will almost certainly win? I wonder if the court case will put a legal definition on that mythical poker phrase - the long term. Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: KingPoker on January 11, 2007, 11:29:39 PM I fell out with my gf last night coz she couldnt understand how poker could be based on skill. The most she would accept was that it was at most 10% skil, 90% luck.
Im afraid thats how most of the public feels about it. I really hate ignorance!!!!! Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: Bongo on January 11, 2007, 11:52:28 PM As Div says - the luck/skill factor will change over time, most people will look at a hand, see anyone can win and decide it's all luck.
Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: da_poker_monkey on January 12, 2007, 12:02:14 AM 7c 2s When I play there is definitely no skill involved, so if I get called up by the prosecution I think the argument that "it's a skill game" may not hold up.
Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: kinboshi on January 12, 2007, 12:17:48 AM Sorry, I know I should probably go and read the details somewhere, but I thought I'd ask the knowledgable folks on here (Kev you can answer too if you want).
Is the crux of the whole case based on whether poker is a game of skill or chance? If so, I'm guessing the gambling law includes exceptions for the lottery and bingo? Are the defence bringing any 'expert witnesses' to the trial. The presence of a 'professional player' would be interesting. The fact that someone who is skilled at poker can make money surely emphasises the skill aspect? Also, they should bring in all the poker strategy books they can find, and let the jury have a read. Then they can not only decide if the game is based on skill or just pure luck, but can also offer their opinion on the Harrington books... ;) Title: Re: GUTSHOT: Court Case Post by: tantrum on January 12, 2007, 12:58:37 AM They are prosecuted under few different sections of Gaming Act 1968, so the question of poker as a game of chance is only one of them
|