blonde poker forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6267603.stm

Man guilty in poker skills case 
 
Derek Kelly tried to prove poker is a game of skill
A man has been found guilty of running unlicensed poker games.
Derek Kelly, 46, said he did not need a licence under the 1968 Gaming Act as the law requires it only for games of chance but poker is a game of skill.

But the jury at Snaresbrook Crown Court took less than two hours to find him guilty of organising the games at his Gutshot Club in central London.

The prosecution said he took a cut from the prize pot as well as charging the players for participating
 

that is going to have MAJOR implications

Why is it a sad day? Do you think illegal clubs are good for poker?

10.000

lol damn just realised i was not supposed to post so went to delete but you caught me!!!

Was going to write a nice GPT trip report for #10k.

Muppet  ;frustrated;

Shall we both delete?

good news: Grosvenor, licenced casinos.
                 DTD if it gets licence

bad news: gutshot and other unlicensed clubs

for players, on balance, in that it reduces competition bad news. 


Not simply bad news for everyone surely? 

Well sad is probably the wrong word but there are a lot of clubs gonna face more scrutiny after this ruling. Surely with the view to shutting down all sole poker rooms outside casinos. With the obvious exception of dusk til dawn which whilst is very exciting isn't exactly local for me.

Damn i was looking forward to try and pull a bird over a game of cards. Never mind  ;whistle;

To be honest I view it as good news, as long as the GC now gets its finger out and works on licencing for pokerclubs faster.
We need some sort of rules which pokerclubs need to adhere to but it should not be impossible to get a license so the ball is now firmly in the GC's court.

I know it's parochial thinking, but it's bad for us here in London. Poker card clubs opened up here in numbers precisely because the offerings from fully licensed casinos didn't fulfill the demand. The Vic and The Sportsman and that's about it really (Loose Cannon status undecided). Anywhere else?

For me, with no car, Luton may as well be in Scotland.

Yes Andrew there are two levels of thinking here...the parochial (for me it is mixed..numbers at Luton will rise but I enjoy the Western for example...future unclear) and the wider (long term a more stable and broader licensed industry might result. Might)

Does anyone know whether it was the Skill v Luck or the Rake issue that was the problem?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6267603.stm

Cheers Tony, but that just states the arguement, I know 100% that rake is illegal, so did not expect them to win on that alone, what i was curious was the amount of debate over luck v skill, and the implications on that? was there 2 parts to the charges, or was it just deemed that the gutshot cardroom was illegal?

I don't know yet Rich.

Found guilty on two charges


A lot of the court reports suggest (but accepting that these are layman reporting) that the debate centred around skill vs luck and indeed the expert witnesses called by the defence focussed on this, or were asked to by Defence QC

As I saw it Derek Kelly's defense was that since poker is a game of skill it wasnt covered by the Gaming Act and therefore he couldnt be guilty as charged since the said act didnt cover poker. However with the new law coming into force in the autumn I'm sure with the publicity that this case has got the government will need to include poker and determine whether a license is required for clubs and as to whether they can charge a rake/service charge(call it what you like but at the end of the day its a %age of the pot) or just an hourly rate to provide the facilities to play poker.
Due to the number of clubs that have opened in the UK in the past 2 years its time for the government to act and make it quite clear where the club owners stand. The casinos would also be delighted to rake pots in their card rooms but under the current legislation they cant and that is 1 of the reasons that they dont promote poker since they clearly dont earn as much per square foot for poker as they do for all the other forms of gaming that take place on their premises.

Wow, I'm really sorry to hear this, both for The Gutshot and selfishly, DTD. This has dire serious consequences for DTD if we do not get our Certficate of Consent on the 25th Jan.......I was really hoping this would not turn out like this.........damn

As of later this year casinos will be allowed to rake cash games.

Is there anywhere that supplies manuscripts of court cases? I presume there is? How much and where from......anyone ;D

Rob, have you not already got the certificate of consent?

I expect Derek to appeal.

Gutshot may be able to continue operating until the appeal is heard.

It's not over yet.

I can't imagine not being able to pop into the Gutshot for a game when in London. I much prefer the atmosphere there than any casino I've been to.

I personally think its a bad thing .... for the following reasons.

I am almost 100% certain that the emergence of provincial (unlicensed) card rooms has been for the good of poker, in that it has forced the big casino suits to be forced to start taking notice of poker players and amending their thought process when it comes to looking after them, we now have better comps, added money, better structures etc etc ... would we have had these if there was no competition ? I think not.

I just hope things keep evolving, because with less choice of where to play .. the more chance the big boys will get complacent and go back to the shove them in the corner out of the way, if they dont like it they can fk off , where else are they going to play

Like someone pointed out earlier, not everyone is lucky enough to live within easy travelling distance of DtD.

Im sure people will say well why cant everyone go down the legal route like Rob has .... well maybe they will, maybe they are all watching DtD like hawks and waiting to see how viable it is to go down the "right" path.
 
Ask Rob if he thinks he would have been able to sell his dream to investors, I think we all know the answer to that ..... Not a chance in hell, It needed someone with the balls and financial clout to do it first, if in 12 months times people see that "legal" can still mean profit then fine ... But until such time, keep your fingers crossed that the Gala's and Grosvenors etc dont get complacent and stop making progress toward poker players.

Great post Kiv.

I just rang them - they are open.

Rob, I don't think this will impact DTD. Gutshot was a high profile (not as high profile as DTD obviously but still) venture that was operating illegally. I think the GC wanted to make an example out of them.
I would half expect them to give you your certificate of consent because you have gone about it the legal/right way. I reckon they will feel this way to and approve your application maybe also as an example as to how it should be done as I reckon they just feel pokerclubs should follow certain rules.

I am not on the GC unfortunatly so it's just my humble opinion..and it can be discarded as easily as yesterdays paper so in the mean time I'll just be crossing my fingers for you.

Well said Kev, the difference in what is now on offer at Gala Dundee since the opening of the private club Caplins has been marked!

It's the same thought i have had, the GC are more likely to approve IMO as a 'reward' for doing things the right way and to encourage others to go the legal route.

Out of interest, why didn't Gutshot apply for a gaming licence when it first opened? 

Cost, I'd imagine.

DTD will show whether or not a licensed 'poker only' venue is viable.

Not being able to rake pots makes it difficult to get enough revenue to be sustainable. It is also very difficult to get and keep staff if they can't take tips, without a crippling wage bill.

As Rob has no doubt discovered, gaining a license and maintaining the conditions required to keep it are tiresome and expensive.

Derek believed he could operate legally without one and was willing to test his belief a court of law. The Gaming Board and now a jury of his peers disagree.

That's changing in September (i think its September), both will be allowed

I'd heard about the rake but not about the tips. Do you have a source?

Previously casinos have been dead set against permitting gratuities as they were of the opinion that any money that went into a tip box couldn't end up in the casino's coffers. I've always believed this is to be very shortsighted.

When your trying to run a 19 table pit with 14 staff and the place is heaving then it's not hard to see that the extra staff will bring in far money then would go into the tip boxes.

Nobody has touched upon the skill v luck argument yet, had Derek won would that not have opened the way for tax to be levvied on winnings? as it would not be gambling any longer?

T minus 7h 50mins............

Very good point. I much prefer not being taxed.

A tax on poker winnings would cost more to collect than any revenue.


Could losers claim the tax back on their losses?

I am given to understand that we will be permitted to tip dealers in licensed venues after September.

If thats true, its a great move forward ;applause;

If we play golf and have a bet on it there's no tax to pay, if we play chess and have a wager, no tax. Even if we do some brain surgery and have a flutter on who's patient will come out best there still ain't nothing to pay to Gordon the Moron.

What has skill in poker got to do with tax?

I have absolutely no idea, but numerous Posters on numerous Fora have all made the same linkage.

Poker wiinngs will NEVER be taxed, well not in my lifetime. Think "how?" (remembering that you'd have to be allowed to deduct losses) & you have your answer.

I like Derek, he plays the banjo.  ;danafish;  No, really, he actually does. I hope he doesn't go to jail.

The judge has already said he won't go to jail. He will be fined though.

I like Derek, he always pretends to remember me!

I've played at the Gutshot since shortly after it opened. When I worked for Gala and was not allowed to visit other casinos it was for a while the only place I could play in the UK (I didn't bother to tell my employers what I was doing during my trips to London). The atmosphere is different to any casino that I've ever been in. The focus is on enjoying poker and enjoying the company of poker players. I hope that Gutshot can continue to operate and I will always drop in whenever I'm in London.

Yeah, me too! I've even forgiven them for firing me. That was Barry anyway who fired me, Derek wouldn't have done that sort of thing.

I was a really bad dealer though.

stay off those fags then please :)

There were 2 main reasons Gutshot did not apply for a Gaming licence and these were:

1. The location of the Club, currently it is not permitted to operate a casino in Islington
2. Gutshot is a poker venue and not a casino and when the Gaming Board were approached in regards to licencing a poker only venue, it was flatly rejected. When the Club opened the Gaming Board, council and police were all invited to visited the Club.

As for DTD, Rob has already stated he was hoping Gutshot won their case as this would have had a huge impact on the direction is venture would take. His final hearing is on the 25th Jan and I wish him all the best for that, I don't think the Gaming Board wil lrubber stamp his application because it has gone about it the right way!

Will be interesting to see if the venue opens a couple of BlackJack tables, might be the only way to ensure it breaks even or makes a profit.

Typical. You only care about me so that you don't get taxed........

Will the implementation of closure be instant..  If not this could be kicked back and forth from one court to another for the next 5 to 10 years finally ending up in Brussels round about 2017. The Concord has been shuffling around the court systems of Austria and the EU for as long as I can remember over 10 years.   If the casinos can rake the games in the future thats one part of the case against the gutshot out of the window, the skill thing needs a few Phds to come in for the defence and then the debate can trundle on and when that decision finally comes down change the name of the game and start the whole process again ....By the time its all settled I will be playing in the Big game not in the Bellagio but in the sky.....       As usual the lawyers will make a killing on this one nothing changes. Good luck with any appeal Mr Kelly.

The Nomad gets it right.

Snaresbrook Crown Court was merely the slip road onto the bottom of the Motorway, this will run & run for decades.

my understanding is that DTD will 100% never have any table games. my experience of Rob is if he says never it stays never.

He told me he never had a queen in his hand once, but he did!

definitely a misread then

I had a feeling they would lose the first case, but I know that it will be taken to European courts , Derek will fight it, and I think whilst he is appealing he can continue to trade.

Sheffield manager told me that tips and rake will be done later this year, tips certainly from september, however a  manager  also told me that the tips when they are taken will be taxed by the casinos first before giving to staff

Correct - tips are deffo taxable.

So that wasn't hip lingo for the casinos taking a cut?

A poker player said to be 'professional' will pay tax on earnings, self-employment style.
If said player operates at a loss (6 months being the current leeway period), the taxman will deem his profession not viable.

At least this is how my accountant views it as things stand at the moment.

This is incorrect.

A pro poker player in this country is not breaking laws by not paying tax. When I checked, they didn't want it.

For the purposes of your employment history, administration, what box to fill in etc., any time you spend as a pro poker player does not make you self employed. They count it as either being retired, or "leisure time".

Sorry, but your Accountant has got that completely & 100% wrong.

 I just sacked him.

That is very interesting information, thank you.

Your accountant's other clients aren't K Dodd and L Piggott, are they?

You know him then?

 ;iagree;

yep...that's what I've been told :)

Isn't a key word earnings? As i understand it tax is not payable on winnings, but poker related earnings are taxable. Examples would be writing magazine articles, appearing on poker tv shows etc. However, it is possible to keep these earnings below your allowance making it tax free.
One point that I think is debatable is where a poker company pays an entry stake for a sponsored player. No idea how this works as presumably the poker company will say promote us and we will not pay you, but instead we will pay your entry fees. If the player then wins money at the tourney he has in effect received a tax free income due to in part the poker company.
Maybe there are sponsored players that can say if i am right or talking a load of tosh

As for the verdict, always an obvious one.that's not to say that the current situation is right, but as the law stands he probably knew he was going to lose.

I have absolutely no idea, but numerous Posters on numerous Fora have all made the same linkage.

Poker wiinngs will NEVER be taxed, well not in my lifetime. Think "how?" (remembering that you'd have to be allowed to deduct losses) & you have your answer.
[/quote]

And that is why sponsors wont add big money into poker

The ruling seems to be based on whether there is any chance involved:

"He said: "Is poker a game of mixed skill and chance? That is for you to decide. The prosecution submit that common sense dictates that it is.

"Why do we say that? We say that because before a game can start someone shuffles the cards." "

I can't believe that the prosecution's case rested on whether poker was a mix of skill and chance. OK, I can believe it if that is the law, but I can't believe the law is so stupid. If Rubber Bridge clubs were deemed legal how can poker not be. There is just as much luck in Rubber Bridge, maybe more. Would Scrabble clubs be illegal if there was any prize money for tournaments? An identical argument could be made for Scrabble (the game starts with the tiles being shuffled) but it is 99% skill.

I hope Derek appeals and wins.

Even scrabble players can get lucky though:
http://www.slate.com/id/2152255/

Shock news - Derek Kelly has lodged an Appeal.

Nice article.

I expect most people who have only played Scrabble casually would think the illustrated game was pretty skillful. Could a beginner have beaten Cresta? Obviously not but beginners do win poker tournaments.

You can play Blackjack skillfully, (at least being more likely to win if you do the right thign) does that make it a sport too?

Has anyone tried to set up a Blackjack club?

There was that place in Belfast.

Don't get me wrong, I think poker is as skilled as an affair as anyone else. When the uninitiated ask that poorly worded chestnut....

 "What % of poker is skill and what is luck"

I usually answer that....

 "Over the course of many tournamets, poker is 0% luck and 100% skill"



I'm just trying to see all the arguments on this one.

For instance, it's a given for me that poker involves a huge skill factor, but the game can also be played purely for gambling.

Luck is involved in Tennis if you hit the net cord, and it goes the other way. You can't pick up a racket, raise the blinds and just see who wins though. This option is available in poker.

This is the crucial difference perhaps, the point lazypoker makes about the scrabble noobs is a good un.

It's a precedence thing.

If the judge ruled in favour of the gutshot club, there would be very little reason why someone couldn't open a blackjack club in their pub, just make sure everyone has a membership card.

But does it not depend on how long a time frame you look at?

If you looked at one poker hand, anyone could win.

One scrabble turn is likely to be the same, if amateur man pulls out a natural bingo and world champ pulls out a back of bollocks...

I admit I don't know the law but the report emphasised the importance of the element of chance in poker. I don't see the relevance given that most skillful games have a luck factor. Only open games like chess do not have any apparent luck although there is always the possibility of someone chancing on some perfect moves for the wrong reason. I think the important distinction between blackjack and poker is that blackjack is a house game where the house always has a built in edge (notwithstanding card counting). Blackjack is the punter against the house whereas poker is a level field where none of the competitors have the odds stacked in their favour. There are enough blackjack players who can't even play basic strategy who more than make up for any card counters who, in any case, get banned if they win too much.

Backgammon and rubber bridge clubs have operated in London for a long time. Why is poker different? I know rubber bridge clubs had their own battles but they won by claiming it was a skill game. If it didn't matter that there was a large luck element for those games why did it matter for poker? Was the fact that bridge and backgammon clubs were not competing with casinos a factor?

Just a few comments and thoughts I have had;

It is one thing to open a card room without a license but still operate within the Gaming Board Guidelines.....It is another to open a card room and flout all the rules!!  Had the Gutshot followed Gaming Guidelines without a license then they might have been okay.  To ignore all the Guidelines, Guideline 3 is solely about card room competitions (namely poker), is wrong IMO.

To charge a registration fee and deduct money from the prize pool is charging you twice for the same thing.  It is wrong for these clubs to do this.  I am all for card rooms opening within the UK - a healthier alternative to the current casino monopoly......... but I do not believe that illegal card clubs charging players over the odds is the way forward.

In order for the casinos to lose their monopoly on poker (currently the only place you can play legally), the Gambling Commission need to change.  Licenses shouldn't be so hard or expensive to get and they should have a 'soft gaming' license (ie not Blackjack or Roulette) that is easier to obtain. 

Unfortunately, gaming laws in this country are really strict.  This I believe is to protect the player, even those who don't want protecting.

The Gutshot either charges a reg. (e.g. £100 +£10) for freezeout competitions, or takes a percentage, for the rebuy ones, to be fair.  There are no double charges.
As far as cash games go, there's no membership charge to join the club, but a 'service charge' is taken from pots. 

I do, however entirely agree with your point on changing within the Gambling Commission to create new 'soft gaming' licenses.  That is in all probability the only compromise which can be reached.

I totally agree with Mrs Nightfly, but now casinos are finding loop holes in the act to charge on top of the reg fees, in September will casino cardrooms charge session fees, reg fees, rake and tips?

When we start paying rake it will improve things IMO, casinos will realise the profitability of auto-shuffle machines in the table and we will get more hands/hr. Happy days!

I give up, concede, throw the towel in :dontask:


 ;djinn;

I was looking for the Gaming Board Guidelines and found this press statement:

"The Gambling Commission is pleased to see this case concluded.  The 1968 Gaming Act has always been clear, poker is gaming, it is a game of skill and chance combined. Commercial gaming needs to be undertaken in a properly regulated environment to ensure that members of the public are protected from cheating and exploitation. 

The Gutshot has operated as a poker club with few entry or membership controls. Its facilities are very limited and its player protections would not meet expected standards. It was in serious breach of the Gaming Act 1968. 

The new Gambling Act provides further protections and reinforces the powers of the Gambling Commission, Police and Local Authorities to ensure that gambling in Great Britain remains amongst the safest and most trustworthy in the world. It specifically requires the Commission to keep crime out of gambling, ensure it is fair and open, and that children and vulnerable people are protected from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

Poker is a very popular game, but those involved as players or organisers in games where significant sums of money may be involved need to be aware that without proper supervision it can rapidly escalate into a high risk, volatile activity, as well as create opportunities for criminal exploitation and cheating.

We shall continue to work with police forces and Local Authorities to ensure that gambling is properly and fairly provided to the public." http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/Client/news/news_detail.asp?NewsId=34

This gives quite a different slant. The emphasis is on protection of the members from cheating, exploitation, and crime. The press statement is implying that the reason for the ruling is that Gutshot were not protecting its members sufficiently. I know people who have said they would not go there because there was no security. On the other hand, walking to the car from some casinos with a bundle of cash seems pretty dodgy.

The backgammon and rubber bridge clubs I've been to had no more security than Gutshot so I guess they were just allowed to get away with it. I still have the impression that poker is getting treated differently to other games ("of skill and chance combined"). Is it that casinos want all the poker action for themselves but don't care about other games like bridge or backgammon?

This FAQ answers a lot of questions about poker: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/Client/detail.asp?ContentId=97

From reading through that link it would appear that the Commission are adamant that all poker clubs are not running within the law and if they decide to use The Gutshot case as a test case then I can see many of the new clubs being raided by the police and further prosecutions taking place. This is sad for poker as a whole and will only force to send poker underground with various old style spielers opening up where in the past there was very little security and cheating was rife. Surely this goes against everying the Commission was set up for according to their own website.

Actually if one reads the Gaming Act 1968 S. 2 Part I

2 Nature of game
(1)     Subject to the following provisions of this section, no gaming to which this Part of the Act applies shall take place where any one or more of the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—
(a)     the game involves playing or staking against a bank, whether the bank is held by one of the players or not;
(b)     the nature of the game is such that the chances in the game are not equally favourable to all the players;
(c)     the nature of the game is such that the chances in it lie between the player and some other person, or (if there are two or more players) lie wholly or partly between the players and some other person, and those chances are not as favourable to the player or players as they are to that other person.

(2)     (...)

One can interpret this section in a various ways, but one would have to argue hard that poker could be excluded from that section or bridge and other games could be well included. 

How one can interpret section 2(b)?
(b)     the nature of the game is such that the chances in the game are not equally favourable to all the players;

and section 2(c)?

one shall think how to interepret the game of chance vs game of skill.  If one would interpret 'chances' as a probability then how poker favours one player over the other? casino games have an edge over the gamblers, In poker though the way cards are dealt - mathematically- sooner or later each player will be dealt pair of Aces, sooner or later each of the player will hit their straights and flushes.  So how the chances favour one player over the other?


I think the argument in court was slightly misleading, as this section talks specifically about the game in which chances favour one player over the other. Can this be said about the poker?  Each game has an element of chances, even the chess, but the issue is are those chances favour one player over the other in the same way as a roulette or slot machines have an edge against its players.  I personally think that poker is not one of those games. 

the main reason why this argument was taking place in the court is that the sections 3 and 4 of the GA 1968 talk about levy and charging for  the games that section 2 refers to.  Derek was charged under I think section 3 or 4 of the act:

Gaming Act 1968:
'Section 3
3 No charge for taking part in gaming
(...)
Section  4 No levy on stakes or winnings

Without prejudice to the generality of section 3 of this Act, no gaming to which this Part of the Act applies shall take place where a levy is charged on any of the stakes or on the winnings of any of the players, whether by way of direct payment or deduction, or by the exchange of tokens at a lower rate than the rate at which they were issued, or by any other means.


So in order to see if there was a crime commited one must establish if Section 2 applies to the poker.

Man I'm glad I'm not a lawyer..then I would actually have to read that sort of bollox (no offense tantrum)

bollox or not, this is a gist of the case.  Does not matter what one thinks, what matters is what is written in the statute and whether one can apply the section to the alleged crime.:)

My reading of it is:

2(b) - The luck element of the game is weighted in favour of a certain player (or players)
2(c) - The same as 2(b), except it explicitly talks about the case of players playing against each other, and not against the house.

Therefore, for poker, 2(b) doesn't apply because it is superceded by 2(c), and 2(c) doesn't apply if the shuffle/deal is fair to all players.

Doesn't it seem that the whole luck v skill thing is a total red herring?

Do you have a link to the Gaming Act 1968?

Or just into the casinos where its safe and regulated.....

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All%20Primary&PageNumber=1&BrowseLetter=G&NavFrom=1&activeTextDocId=1395940

No it is not.  And my understanding of the act is similar to yours, so tbh I think the defence missed a point in trying to prove that poker is a game of skill with elements of luck, as the Act only refers , in my eyes, to the games in which one or more players have an edge (luck/chance) over the other players


I think there is a newer act on gambling (1995) which I haven't look into, but the prosecution brought the case under the Gaming Act 1968, S. 2/3/4 I think so there is no point looking into other acts. 




I think you will find that if the cardrooms were to become illegal, the consumer will have no protection. In many states in the USA poker is illegal and players go to the illegal joints where they risk their money and safety.  Making something illegal doesn't prevent it from not happening.

I think the new Gambling Act reppealed the old one.

Gaming
S. 6    Gaming & game of chance
 
 
    (1) In this Act "gaming" means playing a game of chance for a prize.
 
 
    (2) In this Act "game of chance"-
 
 
0.   (a) includes-
 
0.   (i) a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill,
 
0.   (ii) a game that involves an element of chance that can be eliminated by superlative skill, and
 
0.   (iii) a game that is presented as involving an element of chance, but
 
0.   (b) does not include a sport.
 
    (3) For the purposes of this Act a person plays a game of chance if he participates in a game of chance-
 
 
0.   (a) whether or not there are other participants in the game, and
 
0.   (b) whether or not a computer generates images or data taken to represent the actions of other participants in the game.
 
    (4) For the purposes of this Act a person plays a game of chance for a prize-
 
 
0.   (a) if he plays a game of chance and thereby acquires a chance of winning a prize, and
 
(b) whether or not he risks losing anything at the game.


i can't see how poker can be excluded from that one.

I think the point is that in these states you speak of, they don't have Gala's, Grosevenor's and Rendevouz either.

The situation in this country is not really comparable.

This from tantrum's post about the New act, which surely is the most relevant piece of legislation to the whole debate:

(2) In this Act "game of chance"-


0.   (a) includes-

0.   (i) a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill


If this is the definition, poker is indeed a game of chance.  It might be equal chance, i.e. no advantage inherent in the game which gives any one player an edge over another, but definitions are definitions and if it's been defined in this way, they're out of luck pursuing the old line of defense.

In fact, if this Act is currently applicable, then I have no idea why they spent court time trying to prove that poker is "a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill" because they were just defining poker as a game of chance, which presumably places them under the jurisdiction of the Gaming Commission.

Or am I missing something?

The press statement from the Gaming Board which I posted earlier said "The 1968 Gaming Act has always been clear, poker is gaming, it is a game of skill and chance combined." yet, now I have read it, I disagree and it is a red herring that it is a game of skill and chance combined. Section 2 defines the nature of the game and it cannot include poker because the chances for all players are the same.

2. Nature of game.— (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no gaming to which this Part of this Act applies shall take place where any one or more of the following conditions are fulfulled, that is to say—
(a)the game involves playing or staking against a bank, whether the bank is held by one of the players or not;
(b)the nature of the game is such that the chances in the game are not equally favourable to all the players;
(c)the nature of the game is such that the chances in it lie between the player and some other person, or (if there are two or more players) lie wholly or partly between the players and some other person, and those chances are not as favourable to the player or players as they are to that other person.

Part (c) is the tricky one as it could be misinterpreted but essentially it says "where the chances are not the same for all players".

Maybe subsequent versions include poker but the press statement said that poker was illegal without a license according to the 1968 version.

The key section is:

"a game that involves an element of chance that can be eliminated by superlative skill"

This means that the argument about skill is irrelevant.

The new Act doesn't come fully into force until later this year, but as I have posted before, it's clear that poker will be gaming under the new Act, so whatever happens in the Gutshot case is irrelevant

Unless of course poker will change its status into sport.

otherwise any game that is not sport is gaming...

Thankyou for making my point.......

You are confusing gambling with skill, picking a winner is not what winning at poker is is it?
My point was that a few years back if you went into a bookies and placed a bet then you either paid tax on your stake or on your winnings, this was abolished BECAUSE THEY ABOLISHED GAMBLING TAX.
If poker is said to not be gambling anymore then it will no longer come under that umbrella.

I think the thing is that the government look at all this income some folks make without getting their cut and eventually they are going to make a move on it.
Afterall labour have taxed everything else.

Not too sure what difference the argueing over the law conserning luck and skill

my question is what affect has the court ruling had on the gutshot

is the club still operating as  usual

are they still raking pots in the cash games

what is going to happen to Mr Kelly

is any chance of the club being raided and shut down   

how are other private clubs affected

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=17936.msg366723#msg366723 (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=17936.msg366723#msg366723)

I personally think the gutshots defence have gone about this in the wrong way. No dis-respect to them, as I am sure they have analysed the case and thought that was the best route to go down.

The horse taking part in the race is using its strengh, knowledge and the skills of the rider and is a sport. The person putting money on the horse winning is gambling. You are taking a chance on the many different varaibles the horse and rider may come across in their challenge.

When taking part in poker you are using your knowledge, mathematical probabilty, skill and wit (unreadable stupidity in my case) against other competitors, this taking out a large margin of luck. The gambling for me is, again, trying to place a bet on the outcome of an event.

In all sports/competitions there is always an element of luck. But in the long run the most skillfull adept competitor will win more than lose, and I know this is the case with poker.

Agreed, their defence was not the best way to tackle the case in terms of interpretation of the Act.  This of course won't matter for other clubs, as the nnew Act comes to force soon, and poker definitely will be included in the Act - as all the games which are not a sport.

In any given game of poker the process of shuffling and dealing is an action dictated completely by chance, seemingly everything thereafter was of peripheral interest to the jury.

If it only has to be proved that there is a significant amount of chance involved, in any aspect of the game, then i really dont see how the gutshot could have argued their case more effectively.

Next step then: How can we get Poker to be taken as a sport?

sport  (spôrt, sprt)
n.
1.
a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
b. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
3. An active pastime; recreation.
 

Yes and no- as you read the definition of the chance game in the Act, although the shuffling and dealing takes place - none of the players is more or less 'priviledged' to be dealt winning hand so they are not at the start of the game - players who will overall be preferred by dealt hands.


Next step then: How can we get Poker to be taken as a sport?

sport  (spôrt, sprt)
n.
1.
a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
b. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
3. An active pastime; recreation.

Bridge and chess are sports- but they are not physical activities as the layman understands it. 

Tournament poker could be applied to some of the points nr 1/2, cash games might be argued to be qualifying under the definition nr. 3.  Whether one can charge for those activites and accept the betting is another story of course.  The money and the betting poses a problem in poker to qualify as sport.  Participants of the poker tournament each pay in order to play the game, which does not happen in other sports. 

What one should demand is regualtion of the cardrooms - licences that are not casino licenses but cardroom ones.  This would be much more logical and I am sure many would agree that by doing this the consumer would be protected from possible  cheats and rip offs.  Casino's have pretty big influence over the Gaming commision though so fat chances for that.
, 

The Gambling Commission certainly isn't going to let this drop

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/Client/news/pressrelease_detail.asp?id=26

to be honest, that's fine by me..as long as they get a system in place for poker clubs. the main thing for me will be to see how DTD will fare..if they get a license there is hope..if not...I'm going back to work.

I tend to agree with Wardonkey, anything you can do on the internet is not a sport.

If Poker wanted to be recognized as a sport, it would first need a governing body......it kinda does, join the http://www.wpapoker.org/ and encourage them to petition the IOC if you're interested in seeing poker become a sport.

The IOC let in Bridge and Chess, so you've every chance.

The British Government (which gives special funding to things it deems as sports) doesn't always go along with the IOC. for instance, it recognizes neither Bridge nor Chess. Don't let that stop you though, you never know your luck.

The IOC are nuts if they classify Bridge and Chess as sports. Must be a very looose definition.
As far as paying to participate in sports go, isn't there an entry fee for pretty much all sporting competitions?