I think he misread the board and thought he had a straight to the ten. He was showing you that he had the goods!

I don't like the check on the turn. It doesn't cost much to bet. From his point of view you might not have AK, you could be on KQ, KK, QQ, TT, or worse. He figures if you check then that is what you have. He takes the free card anyway and bets when he misses "knowing" you didn't have much.

Maybe he had the odds to call. Or maybe he thought "Fuck this, what am I doing, why the hell did I only bet 100, I should've bet more, oh well, it's first time I've hit a flop all night, I was never folding this hand before the river anyway. Now I screwed up I might as well gamble and hope to win a big pot."

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.

You said 2 hands ago. If so you must have passed one. Some people would argue that you should push on any 2 cards assuming that UTG had passed. I dunno, Harrington didn't really improve my results.

Yes, it is a bad call. Now you know how he got that big stack.

What did you pass the previous hand?

I don't think checking the flop was automatic. You are worried about AA/KK and a bet by you might have got some information whereas his bet was automatic after your check. If you'd already made up your mind that he definitely has AA or KK then fine check and fold but otherwise betting the flop seems better.

Do you have a link to the Gaming Act 1968?

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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.

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.